An end to blowhards (like me)

[muckefuck]

I'm a little late in linking to this excellent essay from that_dang_otter, but I just ran into yet another person who should read it. An acquaintance I haven't seen much of in a while--very nice, but a little flaky--sent me a one-page rant about how this country is in the worse off than at ANY OTHER TIME in its history and concluded with effusive praise for Michael Moore's "two-sided" "cinematic achievement", urging me to tell everyone I know to see it. I was going to ignore it--which, I was later informed, would've been the "polite" thing to do--but something rankled. I think it was the overwhelming presumption on the guy's part that I would be nodding my head in agreement at everything he was saying, rush out to see "Fahrenheit 9/11", and be stunned by Moore's brilliance and perspicacity.

Now, I could change my mind about this, but I currently have no interest in seeing "Fahrenheit 9/11". It's pure agitprop, and I have very little patience from that, no matter which viewpoint it originated in. I've heard Moore called "the Rush Limbaugh of the Left", but I'm beginning to think that that's a slander on Limbaugh and his true counterpart is someone like Ann Coulter. After all, I can't stand to listen to a single thing that tumbles out of her hole either. I wrote back to the guy, supplying specific criticisms of many of his claims and telling him that I wasn't interested in Moore's polemic. His response was to say that I was the only one who had missed the point of his letter, that he didn't want to "belabor this", but that the "polite" response would've been for me to "write a short note" expressing my disagreement and my decision not to see the film.

I guess I'll never get a handle on this etiquette. When I write a ranty political post, I'm hoping people will respond to demolish my specific points and correct my overall ignorance. I learned a helluva lot from the responses to my Carter-bashing and I'm very grateful to everyone who took the time to reply. But it seems that when I try to reply to others (such as darkphuque in his recent response to Abu Ghraib or hypersimulation in his call for "a single rational argument" for the reelection of Bush), the most usual response is silence. Are my statements so far off base that they're not worth countering? I don't know. But I'm left with the uncomfortable impression that, whether they are or not, what I'm supposed to do in these cases is simply pen some bland words of assent and move on.

Comments

[bunj.livejournal.com]

Wilmington compared "fahrenheit 9/11" to "Triumph of the Will". It's unclear whether he meant it as a complement or not, but I don't think he was being negative.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Christopher Hitchens, in his blistering article in Slate, describes Moore as possessed of "the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl". (In case you're still wondering if he means that positively or negatively, the next line is: "To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability.")

[nibadi.livejournal.com]

Ich kann das nicht nachvollziehen. Welche filmischen Standards zwischen Moore und Riefenstahl sollen vergleichbar sein.

Ich kann mir nicht vorstellen, dass Moore den Oscar oder die Palme von Cannes wegen seiner herausragenden filmischen Fähigkeit bekommen hat. Ich bezweifel, dass er in die Filmgeschichte eingeht. Die Riefenstahl hat / wird ihren Platz in der Geschichte des Films und in der Fotografie einnehmen. Als Künstlerin wird man - auch wenn man von den Botschaften ihrer Filme angewidert ist - nicht umhin kommen, ihr Riesentalent anzuerkennen. Ihre Motive werden bis heute in der Werbung und in Video-Clips kopiert. Sie konnte Bilder sprechen lassen. Eine unglaubliche Inzenierung. Eine beeindruckende, wenn auch gefährliche Ästhetik.

Die Riefenstahl arbeitete mit starken - trotzdem subtilen Bildern. Moore arbeitet - wenn auch filmisch - vor allem über das Wort. Er ist in der Tat ein Demagoge. Kein Raum für Feinsinnigkeit.

Wenn gleich ich die Riefenstahl mit Abstand zu Moore für die größere Künstlerin halte, so halte ich sie doch auch aus moralisch-ethischer Perspektive für nicht vergleichbar.

Die Riefenstahl verführte mit ihren Bildern zugunsten eines menschenverachtenden Systems. Moore wettert mit Polemik gegen den amerikanischen Präsidenten, der erste in den USA, der nicht durch Wahlen, sondern durch eine zweifelhafte Gerichtsentscheidung ins Amt gekommen ist. Moore ist dem Präsidenten und seiner Administration der Gegener in der Medienwelt, den er verdient. Beide polemisch bis zum Abwürgen.

Ich bin kein Moore-Anhänger. "Bowling for Colombine" war öde und bestätigte allen Anti-Ami-Euros in ihren öden Vorurteilen. Dennoch - ich freue mich über jeden, den Michael Moore erreicht in den USA und der durch seinen Film Bush seine Stimme bei der nächsten Wahl verweigert.

Ich befürchte, wir werden uns hier wohl wieder mal nicht einig sein.

[nibadi.livejournal.com]

Ich kann das nicht nachvollziehen. Welche filmischen Standards zwischen Moore und Riefenstahl sollen vergleichbar sein.

Ich kann mir nicht vorstellen, dass Moore den Oscar oder die Palme von Cannes wegen seiner herausragenden filmischen Fähigkeit bekommen hat. Ich bezweifel, dass er in die Filmgeschichte eingeht. Die Riefenstahl wird ihren Platz in der Geschichte des Films und in der Fotografie einnehmen. Als Künstlerin wird man - auch wenn man von den Botschaften ihrer Filme angewidert ist - nicht umhin kommen, ihr Riesentalent anzuerkennen. Ihre Motive werden bis heute in der Werbung und in Video-Clips kopiert.

Die Riefenstahl arbeitete mit starken - trotzdem subtilen Bildern. Moore arbeitet - wenn auch filmisch - vor allem über das Wort. Er ist in der Tat ein Polemiker.

Wenn gleich ich die Riefenstahl mit Abstand zu Moore für die größere Künstlerin halte, so halte ich sie doch auch aus moralisch-ethischer Perspektive für nicht vergleichbar.

Die Riefenstahl verführte mit ihren Bildern zugunsten eines menschenverachtenden Regimes. Was kann man dagegen Michael Moore vorwerfen. Einer der größten Polemiker der der Medienwelt attackiert den größten Polemiker der westlichen Politwelt, den ersten Präsidenten der USA, der nicht durch die Wahlen der Bürger legitimiert ist, sondern durch eine zweifelhafte Grichtsentscheidung ins Amt gekommen ist.

Ich mag Michael Moore und seine Botschaften nicht, aber ich bin froh, dass die Bemühungen der Konservativen nicht aufgegangen ist, dass der Film vor den Wahlen keinen Verleih finden sollte. Ich bin auch froh um jeden unentschiedenen oder unpolitischen US-Bürger, der wohlmöglich wegen des Filmes dem Bush die Wiederwahl verweigert.

Ich fürchte, uns trennen mal wieder Welten, gel.
Schade!

I can't speak for anyone else...

[febrile.livejournal.com]

So I will personally say that I really enjoy and value your reactions to my political posts, and would personally count it as a great shame if I didn't hear your voice pop up in discussion. I have little patience for back-clapping and harrumphing that turns what should be a dialogue into a group monologue or a chorus.

If you were of the side on the Right which says that Muslims are terrorists and fags are sinners, I would have no time for you, but at the heart, you and I agree on the end goals, just not always the means by which to achieve them. But the point of both Keynes and Hayek is to provide for the happiness and freedom of people.

I like dissenting views. I like politely itchy conversation. I like learning and enjoy having my mind changed or my perceptions altered. Put plain, you know stuff I don't, and I hope the same applies in reverse.

Politics gets complicated when people become obsessed with being right. Being right all the time lost its charm for me a decade ago.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

I'd speak up more if I only knew more stuff that you didn't. Any in-depth discussion of politics only exposes the scanty state of my knowledge. I always mean to read more, but I'm only really motivated to do research when it's necessary to prove a point.

[nitouche.livejournal.com]

Not really a response to your thoughtful post, but have you seen Errol Morris's _The Fog of War_? It's a brilliant piece of documentary film-making -- McNamara comes across as a very intelligent, thoughtful, even honourable man (not something I ever dreamed I'd be saying). On the whole it's a terrifying film, both because of his very believable version of how close things came to utter catastrophe, and because of the implicit (never explicit) comparison to current events.

I do sympathise with your feelings about Michael Moore, who is a polemicist rather than a documentarian -- at the same time I must say I'm glad he's there to be polemical! Haven't seen Farenheit 9/11 yet (although I'm amused that Bradbury's apparently hacked off about the title, and doesn't seem to realize titles aren't subject to copyright). I did love _Bowling for Columbine_ though but hey, I'm Canadian -- we just like the attention :)

[nitouche.livejournal.com]

oops, that's "Fahrenheit". What can I say -- I use Celsius...

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Maybe I'm just making Moore as a scapegoat for the parlous state of political discussion in this country. It was never going to be easy, given how far apart fellow citizens often are on basic premises, but it seems to me that having someone around shouting invective at the top of his lungs is no real improvement on apathy.

I've been interested in seeing The fog of war, but I don't get to many movies these days. Besides, I like footnotes.

[astrophysicat.livejournal.com]

Supposed to do???
people from whom you get that negative of a reaction just shouldn't rate the benefit of your input in the future.

Silence is harder to interpret. Often it's just a case of, okay we disagree, what's more to say? Which can be frustrating.

For me? I appreciate the input. Occasionally when I'm just being hyperbolic I'm confused as to why you took me seriously, but even when I was just trying to be funny it's good to get feedback of differing opinions. Otherwise it's too easy to fall into thinking that everyone else (who's sane) in the world agrees with you.

[zompist.livejournal.com]

[i]But I'm left with the uncomfortable impression that, whether they are or not, what I'm supposed to do in these cases is simply pen some bland words of assent and move on.[/i]

When people ask you to read their manuscript, do you offer long, incisive critiques...?

Some people do just want the affirmation; others are good to argue with. I can't say I have a prediction algorithm, but you're definitely in the second category.

As for Moore, from everything I've heard he seems to be a bit of a blowhard... though so is Christopher Hitchens. Still, how can you call the film agitprop without having seen it? (I haven't seen it myself, so I'm not defending it, by the way.)

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

When people ask you to read their manuscript, do you offer long, incisive critiques...?

I always intend to, but I admit I'm sometimes too lazy.

Still, how can you call the film agitprop without having seen it?

I knew that Triumph of the Will was a propaganda film long before I saw it, too.

[zompist.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that's a good example... Nazis are always bad. And 'agitprop' seems to me a more loaded term than 'propaganda', not least for its Red-baiting overtones.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Nazis are always bad.

I'm not sure I understand this. It's certainly possible to make a movie about Nazis--even with the support of Nazis--that is nevertheless not Nazi propaganda. This is, in point of fact, exactly what Riefenstahl insisted for decades she had done. The consensus, however, was against her and a viewing of the film confirmed for me that the consensus was absolutely correct. I have no real reason to believe that the critical consensus emerging about Fahrenheit 9/11 is any different. We all know what kind of films Moore makes.

As for "agitprop" being a loaded term...I can see that, given its history. But before I knew any of that, I heard it used to describe extremely partisan propaganda meant to inflame hostility against its subject. (I don't believe all propaganda works this way. But then, I would describe my employers house organ as "propaganda".) That seems to fit Moore's work perfectly.

[zompist.livejournal.com]

Well, sometimes the consensus is right. And sometimes it's wrong, or just too much of a knee-jerk. It just rubs me the wrong way to talk that way about a film one hasn't seen. For instance, everything I've head suggests that The Passion of the Christ is inlammatory propaganda... that's enough to make me not want to see it myself, but since I haven't, I don't think I can call it inlammatory propaganda myself.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Interesting thing about The passion of the Christ is that it appears to be two entirely different movies, depending on how you approach it. To believing Christians (or at least people with an appreciation of the Christian tradition of the passion play), it's a deeply personal, deeply moving experience. To those who oppose or fail to understand the Christian worldview, it's sadistic, anti-Semitic propaganda.

Out of curiosity, do you feel the same way about other forms of media? Does it rub you the wrong way to hear someone dismiss Britney Spear's new single as "bubblegum" when they haven't listened to it or Lyndon Larouche's books as "crazy" when they haven't read them?

[zompist.livejournal.com]

Yes-- or to put it another way (that won't mean anything to non-language-geeks), I have a special respect for someone like Mikael Thompson, who actually reads Hubey's linguistic rants in depth in order to refute them.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

I have a special respect for people who do that kind of stuff, too, but I notice that you have no qualms about calling Hubey's posts "rants" despite not having undergone it.

[zompist.livejournal.com]

I've read enough of them. Mikael's simply read more and deeper; he's bothered to find out exactly what Hubey was trying to say.

Note that I don't object to sampling. If you watched half an hour of 9/11 and said "This is agitprop, I'm leaving", I wouldn't object.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

If someone had never read Hubey's post, but only Mikael's dissection of them, would you then allow him to make judgements about them? Or is the risk that Mikael is distorting his subject too great?

That's essentially where I am on Fahrenheit 9/11. It's possible that all my most-trusted critics are off base about it, but it doesn't seem likely.

[zompist.livejournal.com]

Why not pick a movie you like but some of your friends hate, and see if you would feel the same way about a similar statement of theirs?

I hope your most-trusted critics don't include Hitchens, who's an opportunistic blowhard. Did you read David Edelstein's review? In many ways it might reinforce your view, but it also makes clear that he found redeeming value in the movie.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102859/

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Hitchens may be exactly what you say, but he can argue Moore into a corner without even half trying. Even Edelstein--in the very review you link to--calls Hitchens' piece a "virtuoso rant". Furthermore, peel away the editorial slant and you'll find that both reviewers say virtually the same things about Fahrenheit. Edelstein simply excuses Moore's aggressively lowbrow tactics, which he admits make his good liberal instincts twitch, by concluding that the ends justify the means. Hitchens believes the ends are immoral so he's free to call the whole project despicable. Edelstein finds value in the film because it's agitprop, not in spite of it; at no point does he even attempt to argue it's anything else.

(And, yes, I did read Edelstein's review when it first came out; it helped me determine that this was a movie I probably wasn't interested in watching.)

[zompist.livejournal.com]

(Second try. LiveJournal is really being uncooperative this week.)

Your italicization suggest that you feel that you're addressing my point; I don't see that you are. Yes, Edelstein calls the movie a "virtuoso rant". He can do that; he's seen the movie.

Moore's film

[astrophysicat.livejournal.com]

Don't go. I can't imagine there's anything in there that you don't already know about. The only new (documentary) footage for me was of the Black Caucus's objection to the 2000 presidential election. That part I really liked, just seeing all the minority representatives standing up and saying "my constiuency has been disenfranchised." Moore's conclusions I couldn't care less about.

I enjoyed the film, because there was file footage that when juxtaposed struck a cord with me. However, considering that I disagreed with every single editorial and story-building decision he made, if you also disagree with 90% of his conclusions (as opposed to my 20-60%) it will drive you up the wall.

[mollpeartree.livejournal.com]

Nobody who disagrees with me ever answers my political posts on my own lj. I don't know why that is, exactly. Are they so irritated by them that they just skip them, or do they think I'm nuts, or is it boring to them, or are the posts too long to read, or would it take too long to argue, or what? Or maybe they sense that it wouldn't accomplish anything? I dunno.

as to responding to posts...

[darkphuque.livejournal.com]

Daniel...writing here can be a difficult issue. I, among many, respect you and what you write. Sometimes, the "way" you write comes across in an unpleasant manner...I read your entries on a daily basis. I see them as you including me in your life. Its a nice feeling for me and, even more so, because I have special feelings for you.

I didn't respond back to your response of my post about Abu Gharib, becauseI had very mixed feelings about your response. On one hand I thought it was childish and argumentative, on the other, I thought you might be having a bad day, and I was in no mood to argue.

There are things that I respond to at a visceral level and, even though I know I shouldn't do it, I do it anyway. Its a left over from a time when I was sure I knew everything about everything. The following are heartfelt feelings regarding some of your posts...

Do you remember your response to my LJ Icon in Kanji...Big Bear San Francisco? You responded that I had the Kanji in the wrong order...well, according to 3 native speakers and and one Japanese Buddhist Monk, it wasn't wrong at all. Its order is a matter of what I want...like a Scroll in Chanoyu. Again I chose not to respond, as I might have come across as argumentative... and it felt as though you were being a "know-it-all".

Its the same thing when you post in a foreign language...I read your journal daily, usually with considerable interest. BUT, when you post in German or another language, I feel decidedly left out, and... I feel hurt. If this were a german LJ, I would understand. But to post something in a foreign language w/o a translation is (IMNSHO) simply rude to your non-foreign language readers.

Everyone should post and say whatever they want to say. If I have you reading my journal then I am opening myself up to your critique and response. I DO expect that your response will be meaningful and not couched in attack language, or an attempt to "teach" me something

There is another issue and that is the written word...When we write we have little to no nuance. I can only read what is written on the page. I will definitely put a "spin" on what is there...I have to be careful about that, I know...

Maybe your style of responding needs to be "toned" down.... I don't know. I hope I haven't insulted you... because I really do care about you.

Re: as to responding to posts...

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

On one hand I thought it was childish and argumentative, on the other, I thought you might be having a bad day, and I was in no mood to argue.

At the risk of sound argumentative, what struck you as "childish" about it? I've been told before that just responding to someone's points line by line can be construed as "flaming". I don't understand this. Sometimes the claims are a matter of interpretation or opinion, other times they are demonstrably, objectively false. (Those in your Abu Ghraib post were a mixture of both.)

To a degree, I respect "I don't want to get into an argument" excuses. Sometimes, I don't feel up to defending something I've written. (Usually, I take this as a sign that I must've gone overboard and need to be more conservative in my claims next time.) But, as you say, writing in public opens you up to critique. If you don't want to hear criticism, then why are you putting something out there where anyone and everyone can see it and respond?

Do you remember your response to my LJ Icon in Kanji...Big Bear San Francisco? You responded that I had the Kanji in the wrong order...

IIRC, I asked if you were sure you had them in the right order. Same intention, but a less confrontational way of phrasing it. I didn't know the order was meant to be Japanese, since the characters could equally well have been Chinese or Japanese. Read as standard Chinese, they are out of order. A reply wouldn't have been argumentative in this case, it would've been informative.

Its the same thing when you post in a foreign language

We've had this discussion before and will have to agree to disagree. Although I can sympathise with you for feeling left out, I can't really comprehend why. No one else has admitted to me they feel that way and some foreign-language speakers have told me they really appreciate seeing posts in a language other than English occasionally. This may not be a German LJ, but it's not an English-only LJ either. It's my LJ and I am not monolingual.

I simply can't be inclusive with every one of my posts without narrowing down my range of expression to near nothing. I'm sure every one of my readers (except the voracious prilicla) skips some entries because they aren't of interest. Some of the foodies could care less about the flowers or the HOT! BEAR! SEX!, some of the bears don't care about mundane work experiences or family fun, and so on. I just don't see posting in German as more exclusive than posting about German or in rhyme or anything else.

Maybe your style of responding needs to be "toned" down...

So many people have told me this that I've expended tons of energy into doing it. I often reread and rewrite comments three or four times before sending them in order to remove as much that might be objectionable as I can. But if I go too far, then I lose interest in writing. I don't want to write bland responses, even if risk alienating or insulting people by doing otherwise.

I hope I haven't insulted you... because I really do care about you.

No, you haven't. I appreciate constructive feedback, even when it isn't positive. I hope I haven't offended you with anything I've said, since I care about you, too.

I know astrophysicat says that if people respond badly to my remarks, then I'm better off without them, but I don't think that holds true universally. When people I respect and like like tbearpsy deFriend me or stop reading me because of something I've said, then I feel I need to reexamine what it was and how I phrased it. If you don't like how I come across, I want to know about it. I may not change my behaviour as a result, but I want the opportunity.

when a person writes

[darkphuque.livejournal.com]

I write for many reasons. I write because I feel a particular way about something...anger, love, disgust... as well as other feelings, and don't necessarily look to have the historical accuracy picked apart. Remember, these are not news reports. They are the expression of things visceral and may include the LJ equivlent of ranting, raving, and screaming....such was my post about Iraq. I read your response and thought your attempt to correct the facts was totally show offish. The Facts weren't important... the emotions were.
You chose not to see that, and responded with trite questions like "who are the *we*", etc. My mental response was....he didn't read a thing...he read words. Of course you did...as do we all. I almost defriended you, I was so pissed off. I didn't mainly because I love you even though I occassionally think of you as a self-centered snob...*chuckle*

I write because it is cathartic, if you read any of my auto biographical stuff, that's what I am doing. If someone started to rip it apart, I would probably defriend that person...including you. Sometimes I wonder if you look at the sensitivity of what was written....

I often don't respond because I feel "what's the use...I didn't post a debate" here. I didn't say... "and what do you think?...

If someone askes for a response I give it, if I can. Often I cannot.

The Kanji thing keeps me spinning. I spoke to 3 educated chinese (educated in China) men, all of whom said...the order is fine depending on what *I* was writing. I wasn't writing a sentence.

Of course it was done with Japanese in mind...save for my LDBF, I have little contact with/or knowledge of Things Chinese (except food, of course)...

There was a issue a while back regarding one of my friends who is also on LJ. He had responded to a post that a LJ friend of yours wrote. You jumped all over my friend in your post. He saw your aggressive response as "pushy" and know-it- all. He is a well schooled Chinese, and took your "tutoring" as offensive.
He has said that he would never respond to ANY post where you were potenially included. I have heard this from several other LJ'ers who have been the recipient of your comments on their comments.

You are right, Daniel... it is *your* LJ. I guess I will always feel "left out" when you post in a foreign language that I don't understand...or I can think that all you are doing is "showing off" *shrug* Either way I lose out, right?

In the end, we all write what we want and how we want. Each of us has the choice to respond or not to respond. LJ is an interesting world...wouldn't you say?

Kanji question

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

The Kanji thing keeps me spinning. I spoke to 3 educated chinese (educated in China) men, all of whom said...the order is fine depending on what *I* was writing. I wasn't writing a sentence.

Important caveat, darkphuque. Chinese syntax is very flexible in the sense that the same words can be arranged different ways to give very different meanings. I had assumed that what you wanted to do was translate "SF Kuma" into Chinese. If that's the case, the proper order is "Gold Mountain (Big) Bear". If you change the order around, then you're saying something different. For instance, "Mountain Gold Bear Big" [which is what I think you sig says] would be "The golden bear from the mountain is big." It's a similar story for Japanese as well.

It's a lot like English. You can write "black boot" or "boot black", but these are two entirely different things.

He has said that he would never respond to ANY post where you were potenially included. I have heard this from several other LJ'ers who have been the recipient of your comments on their comments.

I'm sorry to hear that. But if no one ever tells me about these things, I don't see how I can ever do anything about them. I'm willing to apologise to your friend if he's willing to identify himself.

Re: when a person writes

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

The Facts weren't important... the emotions were.

This is what confuses me. If the facts were different, wouldn't the emotions be different, too? I happen to think that the facts are different. This is important because those emotions will guide decisions that will affect the fate of us all. I want them to rest on the firmest basis possible. What I hear you saying is, "The truth doesn't matter; what matters is that my friends validate me." This confirms exactly what I feared: The expected etiquette in these situations isn't that you'll try to help a friend see things clearly, it's that you'll murmur some supportive words and leave it at that. That's not what I want my friends to do in a situation like this.

But that's politics. I would never react in the same way to a personal post. When you post reminiscences, you're not dealing in "facts", but in a highly subjective presentation of experiences. It's not subject to the same kind of criticism.

Re: as to responding to posts...

[astrophysicat.livejournal.com]

That's not what I meant...

Just that rather than working so hard to try to couch everything in an inoffensive manner, save your effort for those people who appreciate that style of input. People who really are your friends but seem to take your comments in a manner that you would never have intended obviously don't appreciate that particular aspect of you. That in no way means you can't be friends in other ways.

Re: as to responding to posts...

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Ah, good point. Maybe I just have to accept the fact that I can't converse with as wide a range of personalities as I'd like to. If people are going to get offended and write me off because I question their judgement or try to correct them, then we're probably both better off not going at it.

[alfaboy.livejournal.com]

Personally, i love your crankiness.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Even when I trash Coulter?

Figures. You're a cranky old bitch yourself sometimes...

[alfaboy.livejournal.com]

'tis true...

on the topic of these political discussions... things have gotten to the point where the two sides have ceased to even agree upon the facts... from my own narrowly partisan perspective, i think sometimes the left is suffering from a mass psychosis. The events of 9/11/01 fractured their worldview and they're now hallucinating vast webs of conspiracy in an effort to keep the fissures together.

If not, then they're guilty of crassly politicizing the war... and i hate to think people would willingly put their country's wellbeing at risk for the sake of seeing their friends in power.

I don't agree with any of the right's social agenda... but i really think the culture war issues are nothing but windowdressing. Anyway, there may be republicans who don't want gays to marry... but our enemies (the islamo-fascists, not the democrats) don't want gays to exist.

What matters is a free market, because that's the arena in which people can live their lives according to their own wishes... the more control of resources is surrendered to the state, the less control individuals have over their lives. And i'm talking about fulfillment, self-expression and creativity as much as just the chance to get filthy rich.

And, especially in a world where islamo-facists want to kill americans because they see us as the decadent playthings of the devil... i proaction. If we leave the initiative to the enemy... well, we found out what happens on 9/11/01.

[mollpeartree.livejournal.com]

Hmm, reading the discussion between you and darkphuque, I'm wondering if this is a case of U of C unfitting grads for normal interaction with other humans? Because I had a serious problem with this on a quite good friend's journal too, where I disagreed with something (politely enough, so far as I know), and she more or less explained that I had violated the spirit of the discussion by disagreeing with anyone and derailed everything, and told me to shut up, basically. So I thought, okay, no more arguing, but then in a few weeks I forgot about that and did it again and the same thing happened. So, apart from feeling totally dissed at being told to shut up all the time, I had to just stop reading her journal because I knew I'd forget again.

I think it might be because there's a more critical tradition at the undergrad level at U of C? Where you get used to adopting different positions on various things and thrashing them out with other people and don’t take it so personally? Whereas maybe the “teacher sez” pedagogic method (i.e., the notion that there is a “right” way to think about anything) prevails at most other places? I’m just speculating here (I don’t really know that much about the teaching style at other schools), mainly because I’ve never ever had a problem with U of C people getting defensive at the mere fact of disagreement, but it’s something that can crop up any time with non U of C folk. Also, there seems to be a divide between people who think politics are mostly about their own feelings and identity, almost a sort of substitute religion, and people think politics are just about politics. Although the problem is wider than just about politics, evidently. (I.e., people being offended that you've spoken if you're wrong about some linguistic point or other, instead of just pointing out that you're wrong).

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

monshu made exactly these points last night. He agrees that one of the effects of a UoC education is an ability to disassociate oneself enough from ideas in order to discuss them (at least somewhat) dispassionately. There was a mentaltity there that anything can be questioned, as long as its done in a reasonable, respectful manner. Enough run-ins similar to yours have shown me how rare this attitude is. For many people, some things are simply not to be questioned, no matter how politely and tentatively you try to do it.

I'm not sure how much of it is "teacher sez" and how much is "I'm OK, you're OK". A lot of discussions I've witnessed seem to accept as a basic premise that everyone's opinion is equally valid, no matter how uninformed, and that professions of strong belief should preclude further questioning. It's not about finding the truth, it's about uncovering how everyone feels about a topic, affirming those feelings, and moving on. This makes some sense for me in very emotional matters, but I see those as highly restricted. Not only are politics not included, they can't be included because politics are a battleground. There's too much at stake and there's little room for chummy affirmation. (Outside of the UN, that is.)

Your last comment to me was a good example

[darkphuque.livejournal.com]

You are telling me that *you* know more than 3 highly educated, native speakers of the Chinese language.
Somehow I find this incredulous...You might be right, but then 3 experts say differently...who am I to believe?

So what about this...

Some years ago, I was at a Chaji and had read the Jiku in the tokonoma...better I should say I tried to read the Jiku, since it made no sense. When the Head guest asked if there were any questions for the host, I asked about the Jiku...the head guest smiled and nodded.

As the Tea Event progressed, The Sho Kyaku asked the Teshu about the Jiku...
He translated it as a famous Zen Koan, as i looked that the Kanji, it still made no sense....then, the Sho Kyaku asked about the order of the Kanji, The Teshu reminded him that order can mean "something or nothing" Like the Koan, the reader can see what he sees. It was meant to say "read this however you will and it will mean something to you."

I don't remember the exact Koan, but I remember the event with great joy.

Re: Your last comment to me was a good example

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

You might be right, but then 3 experts[*] say differently...who am I to believe?

That's why I don't trust vague arguments from authority. It's not enough to tell me that some person feels that a particular thing is "right" or "wrong" without telling me why they think this way. Otherwise, when I encountre a contradictory opinion, how do I go about choosing between the two? It could be that both opinions are at least partially right, but that each opinion holder has a different idea of what they're being asked.

If one of your expert friends would explain to me why they feel the way they do, then we could have a discussion and discover if we're just talking past each other or if one of us is mistaken about something or what. Alternatively, I'm willing to post my detailed analysis of the four characters and and you can take it to them for specific feedback.

I like your tea ceremony story, but I will point out one thing: Koan are a very unusual, highly formalised form of discourse. They are meant to be superficially confusing or absurd, since their entire purpose is to demonstrate the limitations of rationality. I'm working on the assumption that you wouldn't want your signature to have these charactertistics, but I could be wrong.

[*] Note: This is a separate issue, but being a "highly educated, native speakers of the Chinese language" does not necessarily make you highly educated about Chinese. zompist and I have both known many people who are less knowledgeable about their native languages than highly-educated non-native speakers. I'm not saying that your friends aren't experts on Chinese, only that it takes more than telling me that they're native speakers to determine this. I'm also by no means claiming that I'm highly knowledgeable about Chinese, but I have been studying it for 15 years now.

[prilicla.livejournal.com]

Though a native speaker will often have an instinctive sense of what sounds right, even if he can't explain why. Not that this is foolproof, of course. I once worked on a study where a questionnaire had to be translated into Spanish. One of the questions was, "Do you think your child is underweight, normal weight, or overweight?" It was translated by a native speaker who had some sort of certification in translation, then back-translated by another native speaker, who may or may not have had certification. They both agreed on "de un peso demasiado alto" as a good translation for "overweight." Unfortunately, several of the data collectors, who were also native speakers, said that if they heard that phrase, they wouldn't interpret it as just "overweight" but as "really, really humongous." Since one of the data collectors who pointed this out also has some sort of translation certificate, my boss ended up just throwing out the results.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Actually, when I wrote that, one of the things I was thinking of a situation that zompist describes in his office. His wife, a graduate student in Spanish, was brought on board to help them with translations of tests into Spanish. However, it doesn't sound like her opinions on the language were given any more weight than those of any of the other Spanish speakers, many of whom had little or no formal instruction in it and spoke primarily a single dialect. They would often phrase things in an informal, Mexican way and La Zompista's attempts at using a more cultured, generally-understandable Spanish sounded funny to them. So they weren't used. Spanish is especially tricky because of all the geographical and sociolinguistic variation. I don't envy someone trying to come up with a phrasing that sounds natural and unambiguous to Mexicans, Castilians, Argentinians, Ecuadoreans, Californios, Canarians, and so forth.

Chinese has many complications of dialect and register, too. Spoken dialects differ tremendously from standard written Chinese, which in turn is entirely different from the Classical/Literary Chinese that is used in formal, historical, and artistic contexts. Someone could have no problems reading a newspaper, yet be unable to speak to the person selling it or to divine the meaning of a the scroll hanging on the wall behind him. I'll accept a native speaker's gut feeling if it's all I can get, but I'd really rather have something more substantial to go on.