Some thoughts of a Sunday morning
I don't really like manifestos. I don't think writing something extreme really moves forward the conversation; it more allows people to ignore the interesting thought that might be in the middle of all the condescension and villify the author. Those that agree can clutch the book to their breasts; those that disagree can throw out the book with the garbage without a second thought.
The recent politics quiz put me as a "third way liberal" and somewhere along the way I've become sort of reflexively in the middle. It serves me well as an historian; ask an historian a yes or no question and their answer is usually "sort of." I'm not sure where this comes from--perhaps it's the biracial thing, perhaps a positive outlook on other people--but I'm always looking for parallels, for commonalities, for a starting place for conversation, for ways we can start to move toward a place "beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing," to quote Jalal al-Din Rumi. Now, dear reader and friend, you may have a different feeling about this, but if I were to go on NPR and talk about "This I Believe" it would be:
Calling those with whom you do not agree delusional is never a good idea.
Being called a nut doesn't make anyone want to hear what you have to say; it makes them want to punch you in the face, or, with me, wonder why you hate them so much. Never mind the polarization, as though intelligent people can only think one way, which simply isn't true. In addition, changing the terms of the debate requires MUCH more subtle tactics. More seduction, less aggression.
The problem with being reasonable is that you won't get much attention for it. It won't win you fangirls. It won't make you enemies. You won't end up getting cited all over fandomwank or whatever supposed "true story" of the past is getting posted on journalfen. It won't give you an flist in the thousands. Most of the time no one comments on your entries, and sometimes you wonder if anyone even reads the comments you make in their journals, much less your own journal. I'd reckon that ten seconds after they read it no one will even remember that you wrote it or that you're on their flist. I've (mostly) made my peace with this, though I get a little grouchy from time to time. It takes me a while to decide how I want to respond to things and by then people have moved on to their new shiny and I feel like an idiot for still caring.
To that end, I'd like to link you to my latest bit of writing, which was about Studio 60 and was posted as a comment on Carrie's LJ, mostly because I like what I wrote. I would follow that up by saying that for all the people that have been killed and wars that have been waged in the name of capitalist imperialism, I don't see a lot of people screaming about how bad capitalism is, which makes the "religion kills" argument somewhat weak in my opinion; I more agree with Lord Peter Wimsey that "the first thing a principle does--if it really is a principle--is to kill somebody."
I had four bits of a post in my head this morning but two of them are moot at this point. The other two are about online friendship, and race. Poll
The recent politics quiz put me as a "third way liberal" and somewhere along the way I've become sort of reflexively in the middle. It serves me well as an historian; ask an historian a yes or no question and their answer is usually "sort of." I'm not sure where this comes from--perhaps it's the biracial thing, perhaps a positive outlook on other people--but I'm always looking for parallels, for commonalities, for a starting place for conversation, for ways we can start to move toward a place "beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing," to quote Jalal al-Din Rumi. Now, dear reader and friend, you may have a different feeling about this, but if I were to go on NPR and talk about "This I Believe" it would be:
Calling those with whom you do not agree delusional is never a good idea.
Being called a nut doesn't make anyone want to hear what you have to say; it makes them want to punch you in the face, or, with me, wonder why you hate them so much. Never mind the polarization, as though intelligent people can only think one way, which simply isn't true. In addition, changing the terms of the debate requires MUCH more subtle tactics. More seduction, less aggression.
The problem with being reasonable is that you won't get much attention for it. It won't win you fangirls. It won't make you enemies. You won't end up getting cited all over fandomwank or whatever supposed "true story" of the past is getting posted on journalfen. It won't give you an flist in the thousands. Most of the time no one comments on your entries, and sometimes you wonder if anyone even reads the comments you make in their journals, much less your own journal. I'd reckon that ten seconds after they read it no one will even remember that you wrote it or that you're on their flist. I've (mostly) made my peace with this, though I get a little grouchy from time to time. It takes me a while to decide how I want to respond to things and by then people have moved on to their new shiny and I feel like an idiot for still caring.
To that end, I'd like to link you to my latest bit of writing, which was about Studio 60 and was posted as a comment on Carrie's LJ, mostly because I like what I wrote. I would follow that up by saying that for all the people that have been killed and wars that have been waged in the name of capitalist imperialism, I don't see a lot of people screaming about how bad capitalism is, which makes the "religion kills" argument somewhat weak in my opinion; I more agree with Lord Peter Wimsey that "the first thing a principle does--if it really is a principle--is to kill somebody."
I had four bits of a post in my head this morning but two of them are moot at this point. The other two are about online friendship, and race. Poll