Log in 
New user? Re: Name Calling in Context
Message Details
Posted
12/13/2001; 2:06 PM by Jim RoepckeLast Modified
12/13/2001; 2:06 PM by Jim RoepckeIn Response To
RE: Name Calling in Context (#3720)Label
PoliticsRead Count
317
Message Body
On Thursday, December 13, 2001, at 10:50 AM, Jodi Ivy wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 12, 2001, at 05:10 PM, Jim Roepcke wrote:
>
> <If I understand correctly, Jodi thinks
> (http://speakshermind.redmonk.net/namecalling) > the liberal left
> never have to provide context for their name calling, > while
> conservatives constantly have to explain their views.
>
>
> Well, your insertion of "never" and "constantly" are a bit unfair
If i replaced those words with softer ones, "rarely" or "seldomly" and
"often" or "usually" it would have been a pretty weak sentence.
Note that your characterization on your site said "must" and an equally
exclusive phrase for the opposite situation:
>>> if someone wishes to express conservative views he or she must
>>> carefully explain the context, offer both sides of the issue, and
>>> clearly defend why he or she has opted to take on the conservative
>>> view. While the liberal left side can just say, "well, Bush is a
>>> moron and Ashcroft is like Hitler" without having to backup or
>>> justify their statements and all arguments to the contrary are moot.
The difference is, later you said you were exaggerating and I didn't.
But, most of my reply was full of hyperbole so I would hope that would
be understood.
> My "essay" was inspired by a combination of the discussion taking place
> here on your site as well as recent personal experiences and was not
> intended to be aimed directly at you.
Fair enough. I'm just replying to it from my POV then. ;-)
>> I'm not sure I agree, but maybe leftists ask rightists to clarify or
>> explain >their views while rightists just dismiss leftist views as
>> crap and don't ask?
>
> I don't think this is the case. Though to a point I think *both*
> sides are only willing to listen to the other's viewpoint for so far
> before rolling their eyes in frustration at the one-sidedness of the
> argument, mentally noting the bias and with pride and superiority
> validating whatever view you had of him/her (or the issue) to begin
> with.
You're probably right. (no pun intended, hehe)
>> Right from the start my opinion of him has been that he's a twit.
>> I've linked to plenty of pages to solidify that opinion...
>
> Hmm, that would be a case in point. ;-)
>
> I think we (at the very least *I*) need to be willing to ask more
> questions of those with opposing views to try to better understand
> their view and consider how it is they came to reach it. This I see
> happening a lot on your site with regard to certain issues. I guess I
> need to get in and participate a bit more and then I'll feel "safer"
> about posting my not-so-popular views while at the same time learning
> new info and ideas.
This is not a poopularity contest. (note the Jean Cretien accent in
"popular")
But asking questions and trying to better understand things is a great
thing, no matter where you stand.
Jim
> On Wednesday, December 12, 2001, at 05:10 PM, Jim Roepcke wrote:
>
> <If I understand correctly, Jodi thinks
> (http://speakshermind.redmonk.net/namecalling) > the liberal left
> never have to provide context for their name calling, > while
> conservatives constantly have to explain their views.
>
>
> Well, your insertion of "never" and "constantly" are a bit unfair
If i replaced those words with softer ones, "rarely" or "seldomly" and
"often" or "usually" it would have been a pretty weak sentence.
Note that your characterization on your site said "must" and an equally
exclusive phrase for the opposite situation:
>>> if someone wishes to express conservative views he or she must
>>> carefully explain the context, offer both sides of the issue, and
>>> clearly defend why he or she has opted to take on the conservative
>>> view. While the liberal left side can just say, "well, Bush is a
>>> moron and Ashcroft is like Hitler" without having to backup or
>>> justify their statements and all arguments to the contrary are moot.
The difference is, later you said you were exaggerating and I didn't.
But, most of my reply was full of hyperbole so I would hope that would
be understood.
> My "essay" was inspired by a combination of the discussion taking place
> here on your site as well as recent personal experiences and was not
> intended to be aimed directly at you.
Fair enough. I'm just replying to it from my POV then. ;-)
>> I'm not sure I agree, but maybe leftists ask rightists to clarify or
>> explain >their views while rightists just dismiss leftist views as
>> crap and don't ask?
>
> I don't think this is the case. Though to a point I think *both*
> sides are only willing to listen to the other's viewpoint for so far
> before rolling their eyes in frustration at the one-sidedness of the
> argument, mentally noting the bias and with pride and superiority
> validating whatever view you had of him/her (or the issue) to begin
> with.
You're probably right. (no pun intended, hehe)
>> Right from the start my opinion of him has been that he's a twit.
>> I've linked to plenty of pages to solidify that opinion...
>
> Hmm, that would be a case in point. ;-)
>
> I think we (at the very least *I*) need to be willing to ask more
> questions of those with opposing views to try to better understand
> their view and consider how it is they came to reach it. This I see
> happening a lot on your site with regard to certain issues. I guess I
> need to get in and participate a bit more and then I'll feel "safer"
> about posting my not-so-popular views while at the same time learning
> new info and ideas.
This is not a poopularity contest. (note the Jean Cretien accent in
"popular")
But asking questions and trying to better understand things is a great
thing, no matter where you stand.
Jim
Replies
None.
