And apparently, I'm "unteachably ignorant" too! I've been insulted by someone with a thesaurus, a LOL generator, and a Google Images search on my name. Happy day, now my life is complete.
LF has been kind enough to prove my point anyway.
Er, no. As we will see:
People like you [read: [Joe]]don't see fellow citizens. You see enemies
to be marginalized and defeated. You see interest groups and victim groups where
sane people like us see individuals. We refuse to engage in "the debate" because
we realize that none exists online in any legitimate form. That's what we get
for proliferating a medium of communication in which we are never forced to meet
people face to face, and where people are rarely held accountable for their
Funny how it keeps coming back to war metaphors when the truth is so far off.
The war metaphor was a description of how Joe views things (I should also point out that the term "enemies" can - and often does - exist outside the millieu of war). And given his attempt to smear dozens of bloggers as racists because of something one person wrote, I'd call it an accurate one.
Reading comprehension is good.
I don't see enemies on any battlefield. I see rhetorical opponents who hold different views on a range of issues, and I relish the debate (which, contrary to LF's assertions in that well-written but ultimately playground-bully-quality piece [OMFG - a violent metaphor! -- this must be emblematic of some larger truth about lefty bloggers -- my book is forthcoming!!! --ed.], does take place on the internet when we're not busy dealing with the mudslinging) on those issues.
No it doesn't. And as someone who has been formally trained in the art of debate (where the consequences of the outcome are a little more substantial than college debate team) it hurts my head what some people consider "debate". I see little more than insults, self-righteous proclamations, nit picking over semantics, rhetorical gimmickry, endless charges of hypocrisy and dubious assertions of fact. And God forbid you venture into the other side's territory, lest you get absolutely bombarded with specious and insulting crap from 20 different people. (This, of course, works both ways.) I've said it before: good debates end in either persuasion or understanding. Given that the poli-blog sphere is overpopulated with outspoken people firm in their beliefs, that rarely happens.
The internet may not be a series of tubes, but it definitely is a series of hives. Don't believe me?
Do you think Joe will be persuaded by any of this?
But enemies? Which one of us, LF, sees mortal enemies around every corner, hiding in every shadow? It's not me.
Yes it is you. I didn't try to label a large swath of bloggers as racists because of something one moron wrote. You did. Smells like a tactic to -- wait for it -- shame or silence your (perceived) opponents.
And two more questions about that, if you'll indulge me:
Why is it OK for you to falsely accuse me of being a racist, but if I call you an asshole for doing so, that's just base name calling? And how does that kind of tactic further "reasonable debate"?
Passive aggression is still aggression, Joe.
But thanks for the LOLJoe. I got a kick out of that.
Your welcome. But that was posted by Iron Matron, and I was against it. (Especially when I thought it had read "I can haz ur penis?")