Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Apropos of which, here is a smart comment about the Harper's letter:
via Delong
|
I think Delong sucks. But I’ll put that aside for now.
On substance, the Harper’s Letter May seem to be rubbish. But that’s because it’s gutless. It’s a gelded way of saying the following:
“These new voices are kind of dumb. They howl. They’re very righteous, and sanctimonious — all about emoting, demanding empathy. They’re a departure from the rational, the dispassionate. They are not voices of the salon. They are not even eloquent voices of protest. The are the crowd. They confuse feelings with analysis, and defend their right to do so. They seem to think such error infuses their message with a special form of credibility. These are divergences from what characterizes serious rhetoric, serious debate, serious thinking.
To engage with these voices is to enter a playing field where disagreement is met with venomous hostility. A playing field where the other side of the argument desires to not only refute a point made, but damage the maker’s ability to make another.
These are not debaters as much as scorched earth activists. A form of ‘suicide bomber’ advocates.
They care at a level those of us who choose to discuss issues in a cafe manner do not. There’s a level of heat they bring which makes the conversations uncomfortable. At any moment, one can be accused of offense and then the debate steered away from the subject at hand and toward the subject of appropriate punishment.
They’ll call this ‘accountability,’ but it’s almost always a child-like anger bubbling out of frustration. They often don’t make their arguments well, or their arguments are flawed, and they explode when that’s pointed out to them.”
