Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (54671)	10/25/2002 9:37:08 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I genuinely no longer have the slightest idea how to talk with you in a reasonable way, Nadine. Whatever I say, becomes for you an occasion to get angry. Let me back up a moment. I said I found Richard Landes' speech elegant. I could have said more. I was sufficiently intrigued by it to check his website for other work and skimmed some of it. It's extremely imaginative. Very good stuff. Here is his website, should you be so inclined. His specialty is Millenium Studies, a new one on me, but I'm fascinated by it now. mille.org But I disagree with his speech, however well written, well argued, and it looks as if he has a flair for speech making. He asserts a version of the "facts" about which there can be more than a little debate. But the speech is not about debating those "facts"; rather it's quite different. He assumes that his "facts" are like death and taxes, unavoidable, so one can then use terms like "denial" to describe folks who don't agree with him. My point is that's not a way to engage others in a conversation. It's a commentary on the state of the politics of folk who don't share his view and that's fine. But it's not a discussion with them; it's something else. I did not and would not accuse him of a "change the subject" tactics. He seemed not that sort of person. But the consequence of that kind of argument is to change the topic to a debate about whether the "left", whatever that is, is in denial. Well, my contribution to that debate is to say the word "denial" depends on a certain version of the "facts." Fortunately, those are debatable. The future is open ended. All of us who perceive a major disconnect between reality and the analyses of the Left (the author was right, the Right is filling up with refugees) have a civilized duty to ignore the subject, according to this analysis. As they would say in Israel -- lama mi met? -- who died and made you king of what is, and is not, to be considered "conversation"? It is one thing not to want to discuss certain subjects. Nobody can make you talk about it if you don't want to. But where do you get the moral high ground for this huffing and puffing? That paragraph is a bit disjointed so I'm not certain where to throw a response. Let's see, however, to take last first, I'm not proposing conversational rules; I'm simply making an observation as to just how hard it is to have one with you. You seem to think having a conversation is scoring debate points. Fine. Not mine. I do believe, however, that scoring points makes folk less willing to post to the thread, lowers the civility on it, makes it a less interesting place to hang out, and discards any wishes anyone might have to create a community of discourse here. But that wish is not making rules; just lamenting the missed opportunity. Now, moving up the list, you note that the right feels the left is disconnected from reality. It is, of course, an unfortunately common opinion of folk who think left-right divisions are a good way to structure political talk, for those of one persuasion to think the others are daft, out of touch with reality, in denial, whatever. I don't think we should celebrate that; I think we should wish to rid ourselves of that kind of parochial approach to discussions. But as civil political discourse gets harder and harder to come by, I can only lament; I can't change. But I can try to refuse to make it worse.