[lbo-talk] 31-cent ice cream and anarchist theory

[shag carpet bomb]

At 05:08 PM 4/30/2009, Dennis Claxton wrote:
>At 01:47 PM 4/30/2009, shag carpet bomb wrote:
>
>
>
>>  There's a bigger world out there where
>>we're socialized into this "gotcha" mentality where the goal is to
>>humiliate the other into silence with back-against-the-wall questions.
>
>
>But in our little world here isn't it not so hard to give someone the 
>benefit of the doubt if you know they're not in the habit of playing gotcha?

but Doug does demonstrate a habit of doing that! In this case, he did once 
tell Eric he was interested, so I give him the benefit of the doubt.


>>hence, I think, the need to reassure the other person that you really
>>are interested in their answers.
>
>
>But not at the risk of violating the prime directive:
>
>
>"let's be civil and nice, but not to the point of obeying the rules of 
>debate as defined by liberal blackmail (in which, discomfort caused by a 
>challenge is seen as some vague form of harassment)."
>
>-- Dwayne Monroe, 11/19/08

I like Dwayen's quote because I'm reminded of people who, when challenged, 
pull bullshit stunts like "it's just my opinion" as if labeling it their 
opinion automatically protects it from challenge. It also automatically 
makes it an opinion they can wave around constantly, and if challenged, 
they go pout in a corner and cry about how meeeeeeen the other person is 
for, gosh, asking for evidence, a quote to back an assertion up, etc.

Interestingly, I looked up Doug's actual quote at the end of Wall St. where 
he says that, after engaging in lengthy critique, it'd be tempting to be 
"high-minded" and say that critique is worthy, in and of itself. But such a 
response, Doug thought, would be "cowardly."

heh. right there, the rhetoric tells us that Doug isn't neutral. He has a 
position: people who just critique are silly, engaged in moralizing 
snobbery and they are "cowardly" -- or, at least, he acnowledges that 
others might think he's cowardly. I mean, that's fine. If I could be arsed, 
I could think hard and decide if I agree or not with that statement. But my 
point is, if Doug recognizes the subtleties at play here, where the issue 
is about cowardice and power, not surprisingly, people are unlikely to 
interpret Doug -- the list owner with a POV, not to mention social power on 
this list -- as someone they should give the benefit of the doubt.

Which reminds me, I was thinking Doug. On your show, if you asked questions 
as if all you wanted to hear was an answer and you had no opinion and were 
unlikely to debate them, because you were just sort of neutral, it'd be a 
boring ass show!

shag