I take umbrage...
Ah, I feel your umbrage. (That's my best imitation of a liberal. <g>)
...at the suggestion that being partisan means I, or any other partisan member of the thread, have lost brain cells or curiosity.
The basis of my point about curiosity is the general lack of interest in engaging on any substantive topic. It's next to impossible to get an exchange of ideas going here on any topic. Lotsa exchanges of slogans and shibboleths, though. That, to me, indicates lack of curiosity. People show curiosity by saying things like "what makes you think that?" And then they listen, dig into their own experiences, and try to relate. What I see in this environment is points scored/no insights gained.
Regarding brain cells, that I derive from the above so that assessment is on less firm ground. I subscribe to the "use it or lose it" school, so when I don't see it being used where it is clearly appropriate, I infer that it has been lost, or perhaps was never there. That is not necessarily the case. There could be other explanations. Perhaps stubbornness, or cynicism, or simply laziness. Or lack of time and interest. I will retract the "brain cells" part if that mitigates your umbrage.
I know that you realize tha I'm generalizing here. You personally engage quite a bit, and thoughtfully. And then sometimes you play the partisan game. I will give you one example: when something juicy has popped up on Drudge or the like, you have on occasion joined the pack who immediately tore into with gusto it as though it were obviously both gospel and significant. To me, that's partisanship run amok.
In fairness to the thread, Bill has said that his sense of "politics" is partisan politics--it's about winning, not issues. So my approach to political discussion is out of step with the thread head's.
Personally, I don't think veiling one's personal digs in collegiality is all that civilized. Passive aggressive is what I call it.
I can't argue in favor of passive aggressive behavior. Except to say that it's better than active aggressive behavior, that is. There was a time in my life when I thought a veil of civility was unacceptably dishonest and hypocritical. But those were less hostile times. And besides, sometimes what is interpreted by the sensitive as passive aggressive really is just plain civility. I believe in giving the benefit of the doubt until clearly shown otherwise.
I vote we try, just for one day, focussing on the content of the messages instead of each other's foibles.
Do you have some particular day in mind? <g>
Actually, I have been trying to avoid the question of personal foibles, which is why I've been generalizing, although it is hard to do given the subject. I do think that the partisan climate in this country is a dangerous thing, no less dangerous than terrorism, although in a different way. What we see in the 9/11 committee, we see here. Sometimes it is helpful to analyze scenarios by comparing them with scenarios closer to home. And sometimes that just introduces complicating factors, like personalities. |
