I see what you're saying. Let me respond in this way....
Part of what I think you're responding to is written emotionalism. For instance, if a murderer were let out on early parole and the very next day he raped and murdered a family, an author might say...
Murderer rapes and kills family.
Another author might say. Brutal butcher let out early to slay family.
And another author might say. Judicial system allows murdering killer to go free and he rapes and murders entire family.
Each of these descriptions are accurate. However, each one coveys a different message in a slightly different way.
My point is that just because an author writes with a calm detached demeanor, doesn't mean the words written are any more or less accurate.
I wish I could think of a better example, but that's the best I can come up with. Academic thinkers, (such as yourself) tend to place more credence in authors who write with a detached academic flavor. And it's one of the reasons I believe you sometimes fail to recognize the condescension in some articles I've seen you sight.
That article was written in a very professional detached way, but what did she really do with the article. She basically justified the curriculum and put a best face spin on what happened. She accomplished her goal and presented her point of view. Because (primarily) of the way she presented it, you and some others here gave her quite a bit more credence even though she never saw the film in question, and basically spoke to one person who was an active member of the course.
Karen earlier spoke eloquently about "default" truth recognition. And I mostly agree with what she said. But one thing I would keep in mind is our education and training has (to a degree) conditioned us to recognize this default and discard emotionally charged words and language. This default mechanism can also act as a barrier toward us seeing the truth because of the way things are presented.
I remember reading this board and seeing the reaction toward Marylisa at the news conferences. And almost to a person she was slammed for her emotional outbursts. It didn't seem to matter to most what she was saying, it was the way she said it that allowed many of you to dismiss her outright.
Real (uneducated) people sometimes feel things deeply and they express those feelings in written words and language which educated people sometimes find offensive. It doesn't however mean one point of view is true and the other point of view false.
Clinton was real calm and smooth on the witness stand while arguing the meaning of "is" and what defined "sexual relations". But just because he was calm and professional, didn't mean he was anything more than a complete liar! When someone argues the meaning of the word "tall tale" are they really doing anything that different?
This theme I am trying to express flows through quite a few other issues on this board. For instance, Vince has been lambasted for responding to rude postings by calling someone a vaginal whatever...Yet, out of the blue, E jumped in to call him "smegma" in order to defend X. Nothing was said to E, (even though she has rarely had a conversation with Vince one-on-one here). Yet Vince has been ridiculed. Why?
Now, E would probably use some sophistic clever wording and claim. "I really didn't say Vince was smegma, what I really did was ask a question". And she would be correct. Yet, any thinking person knows what the inferences and name calling were really all about. Why is one ok and another "shocking" and revealing?
Beyond the denial is the reality of simple rudeness. Is it really any less rude to say. Are you a piece of shit? Then to say, I think you're a piece of dog crap. I don't think so. One may be a sort of intellectual sophistic exercise in denial and the other not. But that's about it.
As far as Tazio is concerned his postings of contempt and rudeness defy description. Yet, because he has lined up on the side opposite Vince he's joked with and quietly accepted. Why?
These are my impressions of this thread. And although I have admired and enjoyed arguing with you and some others over the Elian affair. The atmosphere here has become to stained for me to continue my presence.
Before I close, I wanted to say I am grateful to you for the way you have stayed out of this ugliness and always tried your best to remain within the confines of our disagreement. As I am grateful to Karen and Rambi. But three people reasonably disagreeing cannot possibly survive amongst the prolific ugliness which has consumed this thread.
Take Care,
Michael |
