Where it's at
My hastily written post (Tories living in Stalinist Britain) about the arrest of British tory MP, Damian Green (or more accurately about the absurd statements made about his arrest by the tory party) got quoted all over the place. As a result my readership has more than doubled in the past couple of days. Not quite as dramatic as the infamous Joss Whedon link that saw thousands of people showing up, but a bit weird all the same. Of course, it’s pretty much guaranteed that none of the new folks will stick around to become regulars, but all the same, I bid you a hearty “Welcome!”
From what I can gather, I’ve mostly been cited or linked-to in a positive context (e.g. Bloggerheads, Chicken Yoghurt, Liberal Conspiracy, Shiraz Socialist, and more). Though there has been one clear denunciation, from a blogger called A Very British Dude (I know!), who accuses me of promoting a “pinko mythology”. As well as that, someone on the comment-thread on the Liberal Conspiracy post seems to imply that my position is based upon support for the British Labour Party.
Regular readers will — of course — realise just how absurd both accusations really are. However, many of my visitors right now won’t be regulars, so let me take this opportunity to dispel those misconceptions as well as provide a little bit of information about where I do stand (in the hope that it might, perhaps, provide some food for thought).
Firstly let’s point out that ‘pinko’ implies a kind of wishy-washy left-wing liberalism. According to Wikipedia (that font of all conjecture):
Pinko is a derogatory term for a person regarded as sympathetic to Communism, though not necessarily a Communist Party member. The term has its origins in the notion that pink is a lighter shade of red, the color associated with communism; thus pink could be thought of as a “lighter form of communism” promoted by mere supporters of socialism who weren’t, themselves, “card-carrying” communists.
I am not a communist. However, I am a collectivist. Albeit in a restricted sense. Certainly I am an opponent of capitalism and I believe that a free-market in non-renewable natural resources is both a symptom of, and a contributing factor in, a collective psychosis that dominates modern civilisation. If you insist upon viewing politics in terms of colours, then I guess I’d be dark green with enough red to create a kind of muddy brown hue, flecked with non-militaristic white.
The reason I balk at the “communist” label is because I strongly disagree with a whole host of traditionally communist positions which are common to both the Marxist-Leninist and Maoist flavours. Two points in particular make it utterly impossible for me to board the communist bus.
Firstly, there’s an emphasis on “work” — in the sense of economic activity — and “progress” within communism that I believe; (a) is almost identical to that found in capitalist ideology, and (b) leads inevitably to large-scale ecological destruction, which is little short of suicidal.
Secondly, communism — like capitalism — is an ideology which insists upon viewing the world primarily in economic terms.
I just can’t get behind that. I’m not disputing that the economic model of human activity has valid uses and is appropriate for many situations. However my own position is that the vast majority of people who subscribe to an economic and/or political philosophy are guilty of ignoring Alfred Korzybski’s famous golden rule: “The map is not the territory”.
I believe that our civilisation is facing an imminent crisis; one that we are ill-equipped to deal with. That crisis could be loosely described as “unsustainability”. In other words, we have developed systems of production and distribution upon which we have come to depend, but which cannot be sustained even in the short term because they rely upon the consumption of non-renewable natural resources at a rate that cannot be maintained for very much longer.
As a result, I do not believe that the economic model of human activity should be given anything like the prominence (indeed, the primacy) it has enjoyed during the last few centuries. Partly because economics is so riven by politics that it engenders a kind of tribalism in those who view the world in economic terms. A tribalism we can ill afford right now. And partly because economics is an extremely limited map; one that ends up actually contradicting reality when a certain narrow set of preconditions are not met. But because so many people fail to grasp Korzybski’s golden rule, those contradictions are simply ignored — occasionally even openly denied against all the evidence — by those who seek the comfort of a simple model of reality.
I’ve recently completed a Master’s thesis on Group Psychodynamics. I believe that a synthesis of psychodynamics and systems-theory will provide the best model with which to understand the issues surrounding sustainability. We should also be cautious, of course, about mistaking that map for the territory, but I believe that it will prove to be a far more useful one, all told, over the coming years and decades.
Leastways, it will do if anyone bothers to consult it.
Road to … where?
So broadly speaking, where would this map take us?
Firstly profit needs to be eliminated as the primary motive for the production and distribution of food, energy and all non-renewable resources. Concentrations of power and capital need to be curtailed in all but the most narrow of circumstances. Biodiversity should be preserved as a matter of extreme urgency and the conversion of currently ‘untouched’ land into agricultural or urban land should cease immediately.
Economic activity needs to be minimised. Not maximised as is the current trend. This is not a prescription for starvation. “Minimised” does not mean eliminated, and a policy of minimisation would involve differentiating between essential and non-essential activity; retaining the former in as efficient a manner as possible while eliminating the latter if it consumes any non-renewable natural resources.
Non-essential economic activity could continue so long as it is sustainable (under a strict definition of sustainability). In the words of Gregory Bateson:
[A sustainable civilisation] shall consume unreplaceable natural resources only as a means to facilitate necessary change (as a chrysalis in metamorphosis must live on its fat). For the rest, the metabolism of the civilisation must depend upon the energy income which Spaceship Earth derives from the sun.
It goes without saying that the replacement of our current unsustainable life-support systems (the production and distribution of food and other essentials) with sustainable substitutes will itself require a significant investment of those “unreplaceable natural resources”. This is unavoidable, though we should obviously strive to make the process as efficient as possible.
All of this needs to be done in an environment of rapidly decreasing consumption in those areas currently over-consuming and a planned, incremental increase of consumption (particularly food) in those areas currently experiencing shortages (this will hopefully prevent the movement of large populations which itself consumes resources in a number of direct and indirect ways).
A large number of powers currently enjoyed by central governments need to be delegated to local communities and the localisation of production and consumption should be encouraged where possible.
Conversely, some powers need to be denied to “the public” entirely. Whether or not a population votes to continue — for example — burning petrol in their private cars, is entirely irrelevant. Such activity is damaging to humanity and the planet as a whole, and those who decide to act in that way should be prevented. This is why democracy will have to be abandoned. Local communities should be organised along democratic lines, but their powers limited by a framework of rules defined by an understanding of sustainability.
Oh, there’s plenty more, but that should be enough to be getting on with. I trust, though, that I’ve provided enough information to demonstrate that I’m not a stooge of the British Labour Party trying to score partisan points against the tories in order to keep Gordon Brown in power…?
This is why democracy will have to be abandoned.
I think there may be a mistake in your workings somewhere.
December 2nd, 2008 | 8:49am
by Phil
I think there may be a mistake in your workings somewhere.
I’d like to think so, Phil. Truly. But my psycho-analysis of modern culture suggests that we will not vote — en masse — for a radical and permanent reduction in our levels of consumption while the option to continue over-consuming at the expense of others (the ‘developing world’ and future generations) is on the table.
I see precious few historical precedents for that kind of collective decision, and those that do exist predate the age of consumerism.
If I may slip into psychoanalytic terminology for a second. The formation of a group psyche is defined by the introjection of a Group Ideal in place of the individual super-ego. Essentially replacing one’s own personal super-ego with a collective one. The super-ego, remember, governs the reality principle. It’s my analysis that the Group Ideal of consumerist society is the notion of a “demand driven” system of production and consumption. This can be viewed as another term for a collective pleasure principle.
So what we have, with consumerism, is a bizarre attempt to introject a collective pleasure principle as a collective super-ego; replacing our reality principle with a pleasure principle.
It’s schizophrenia on a grand scale. A schizophrenic society cannot be counted upon to choose the right solution to a problem. And when the survival of future generations depends upon us choosing that ‘right solution’ (or a right solution at the very least) within a decade or so, then radical therapy must be considered.
I await a demonstration that there is an alternative, democratic solution. But make no mistake; our culture is profoundly psychotic (in the Batesonian sense) and may already have passed the point of no return. There’s precious little time.
December 2nd, 2008 | 12:05pm
by Jim Bliss
“However, I am a collectivist.”
So the “Pinko” epithet was Bang-on then….
December 2nd, 2008 | 3:08pm
by Jackart
So the “Pinko” epithet was Bang-on then
Not really. I think I spent enough time in the post explaining where I differ from traditional communism to not have to repeat it all here.
There are a number of collectivist political philosophies aside from communism, and ‘pinko’ is specifically a derogatory term used to describe those at the liberal end of communism.
If forced to apply a label, I’d probably use the term ‘anarcho-syndicalist’ to describe myself which would certainly not fall beneath the ‘pinko’ umbrella (though even ‘anarcho-syndicalism’ is somewhat inaccurate given, once again, the emphasis it places on ‘work’ being the primary activity of society).
Of course, it’s possible you’re simply using the term ‘pinko’ as a generalised “more left-wing than me” insult. You’re free to do that of course, though it might be worth bearing in mind that it displays a lack of concern for “accuracy” that I suggest does you no favours if you want people to take your writing seriously.
December 2nd, 2008 | 3:17pm
by Jim Bliss
What is manifesto 17?
December 2nd, 2008 | 10:26pm
by pmm
What is manifesto 17?
Not telling.
Yet.
December 3rd, 2008 | 12:20am
by Jim Bliss
The question is whether someone like me, a Minarchist Libertarian who’s voting Conservative to get this shower out of office really cares about whether you’re offended by the ‘Pinko’ epithet. You think it refers to specifically to Soft communists. I think it refers to anyone Left of NuLabour. (though I don’t like the terms Left and Right). Certainly being a “Collectivist” who has a distaste for the profit motive is a brace of opinions I deem ‘Pink’.
Your savage Authoritarianism is less cuddly though. This
“Conversely, some powers need to be denied to “the public” entirely. Whether or not a population votes to continue — for example — burning petrol in their private cars, is entirely irrelevant. Such activity is damaging to humanity and the planet as a whole, and those who decide to act in that way should be prevented. This is why democracy will have to be abandoned”
Is just terrifying. At least you’re honest that your socialist, communalist nirvana will require crushing retribution to anyone who disagrees. Your brand of [insert ‘ism’ of meaning only to pinkos] is merely a worse dressed form of Fascism.
December 3rd, 2008 | 11:07am
by Jackart
Is that really “the question”? Well, if you say so.
But “offended?” What on earth gave you that idea? Actually I already know what gave you that idea. It’s the fact that you self-describe as a libertarian, isn’t it? I should have known.
When a person subscribes to a political philosophy that is based upon the fundamental primacy of their own individual ego, then it’s inevitable they will place far more weight upon their own utterances than anyone else ever will. I was a libertarian once. But I think most adolescents go through that phase.
Anyway, you described me in terms that are — just by definition — plain wrong. Then you decided that I must be “offended” when I contradicted you. In fact, I’m simply correcting an error. I use this blog, partly, to write about my own philosophy and want my readers to get an accurate picture. I’m no more offended by your name-calling than I would be if you claimed 2 plus 2 equals 5. I am amused, not offended, by your ignorance.
You’re missing the point. It’s not about what you or I think it means. The word has a definition. It’s been around since at least the 1930s and refers specifically to those who are at the moderate or liberal side of the left. Socialists with communist sympathies, so to speak. That’s what the word means.
I could provide more examples, though I imagine most of my readers can use a search engine should they require them. Every source I can find agrees that ‘pinko’ is defined as someone who has mildly leftist views that tend towards but do not quite reach communism. Given that I’m way to the left of ‘pinko’, it’s clearly the wrong word to use. Hell, the Urban Dictionary definition even begins with the phrase “Contrary to popular belief…” Not that it’s the ultimate authority on these things, but it’s revealing, no?
But look, you’re free to redefine words as you see fit; and as a libertarian you’ll no doubt be aware that, because the world revolves around you, it’s everyone else who’s got it wrong. Just don’t be surprised, when you start referring to “apples” as “bananas”, if the grocer hands you the wrong fruit. We do not all have access to the dictionary in your head.
As for my “savage authoritarianism”? I’m hoping here that you’re using the same definitions of these words as the rest of us. We should probably agree on some kind of signal for when you use your “in my head dictionary” so we don’t get crossed wires. I’ll assume for now, though, that you’re on the same page as the rest of us (however temporarily).
I find it illuminating that you chose to use phrases like “savage” and “crushing retribution” when I spoke of “denial” and “prevention”. I shall spare you my Freudian analysis of what that suggests about you as (a) it would go over your head or simply be ignored, and (b) it wouldn’t actually be very fair despite the fact that it would amuse me quite a lot.
However, for the benefit of those without your issues, I’d like to point out that removing certain choices from the arena of public policy already occurs. As Nietzsche — in characteristically strident fashion — points out:
In the world of physical systems — what Jung termed the pleroma (as opposed to the creatura, the world of ‘differences’… of ideas and meaning) — there are definite ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ answers to all questions. We may not know the answers, and they may turn out to be hidden within a complexity too intractable for us to ever penetrate, but they exist. How far will this ball move if I kick it with a certain force? Or, what is the force required to move this ball a certain distance? And so on.
The point being, the world of the pleroma is the world that sustains our bodies (feeds and shelters us). We can ask questions about this world and — if our understanding of the systems involved is deep enough — we can get the right answers.
The right answer to the question: “Can we continue consuming fossil fuels without it having a negative impact upon our ability to feed and shelter ourselves, or for future generations to do the same?” is an emphatic “No.”
The right answer to the question: “If the current population of western civilisation continues to over-consume resources, will it seriously compromise the ability of future generations to consume at even a subsistence rate?” is an emphatic “Yes.”
Of course, we do not have a precise value for some of the variables involved, so it’s difficult to predict with precision when the worst consequences of our over-consumption will begin to manifest. There are those who point towards certain parts of the world and insist those consequences are already there. It’s just the fact that the over-consumers are externalising them — a process that cannot continue indefinitely. The chickens will eventally come home to roost.
Even someone committed to libertarianism as a political philosophy (rather than an attempted justification for being self-obsessed) should object to this. From what I recall, libertarianism places an emphasis on individual rights up to the point that they interfere with others sharing those rights. Right? So the tendency of modern capitalism to externalise many — if not most — of the costs of its existence should be utterly anathema to a genuine libertarian.
Therefore, a libertarian should be in favour of “preventing” the externalisation of the cost of a given transaction to those without a stake in that transaction, or who have not consented to it taking place. Does all such ‘prevention’ come under the heading of ‘crushing retribution’? If a factory decides to dispose of some of the waste it produces by pumping effluent into your living room, are you a savage authoritarian because you seek to prevent them? Or does, for example, preventing a mentally ill patient from harming himself or others involve crushing retribution?
Well, if your “in my head dictionary” says it does, then I suppose I’m a savage authoritarian in favour of crushing retribution.
Because that is what I’m suggesting is going on. Western civilisation has descended into a profound state of psychosis. It is acting in a way that is likely to result in the death of perhaps billions of individuals. The prevention of that should be our highest priority, irrespective of the words you redefine to describe that process.
December 3rd, 2008 | 5:37pm
by Jim Bliss
Bloody hell! 1,200 words in response. There’s one person in this conversation Descending “into a profound state of psychosis”, and it ain’t me.
I misunderstood your objection to the word “pinko”. You think that makes you seem moderate. You’re right. You’re totally off the scale, loony, back to the stone-age, ultra-left eco maniac.
Look. I’m no tub-thumper for big, business which I merely regard as an arm of the state, but there are some things that only large organisations can provide – cars, televisions, pharmaceuticals. “externalities” are merely an unquantifiable stick with which you people use to beat anyone doing anything which isn’t locally sourced organic yurt weaving or something. I can see the case for pigovian taxes, but fuel duties in the UK are already well over pricing in the externalities.
You think billions will die because of Global warming. I say that might happen, but you’re underestimating human ingenuity when confronted by a problem. What is certain is if you get your way, nothing less than a complete re-organisation of society, Billions will die (like the last time extreme lefties got their paws on power) and that has never been good for ‘the people’.
December 4th, 2008 | 9:52am
by Jackart
And in any case I didn’t call you a Pinko, I accused you of spreading “pinko mythology” particularly the Tory=Autoritarian meme. Which is not the same thing….
December 4th, 2008 | 10:03am
by Jackart
Excuse me? This is another “in my head dictionary” thing, isn’t it? Psychosis as defined by verbosity.
If you look at the (admittedly rare) instances where this blog develops a significant comments-thread, you’ll discover that my responses tend to be a good deal longer than my initial posts. As I’ve pointed out previously in the comments here, “my initial posts are as much about provoking discussion as anything else” and it’s those discussions that allow one to work up a good head of steam.
“off the scale”: given the narrow spectrum of opinion that makes up the modern ‘scale’, you are absolutely right there.
“loony”: no. Strictly speaking, if you’re going to use the terminology of psychology (loony being short for “lunatic”, implying madness or psychosis) then what I’m proposing is far from that. Having just submit a thesis on the psychodynamics of western capitalism which has recently gained it’s second rave review from within the field, there’s more evidence to suggest that my ideas are — technically if nothing else — the opposite of lunacy.
What is true, of course, is that a culture that has already become psychotic will use a large number of self-reinforcing mechanisms to retain internal coherence; one of those is to make all criticism of it appear threatening, foolish or “loony”.
“back to the stone age”: absolutely not. The very last thing I’m proposing is a form of neo-primitivism. That is almost always one of the first responses to my critique and stems from — I’ve concluded — either a willful misunderstanding of my ideas, or a rather depressing lack of imagination. I shan’t go into the details of why the accusation of neo-primitivism is quite wrong (it would take a little time, and you seem to view “taking the time to clearly explain complex issues” as psychotic. It explains the libertarianism though… nice and simple, just like reality isn’t).
“ultra-left”: Ultra-left to a point. As I’ve already said, so long as an economic activity is strictly sustainable and does not involve the provision of services deemed essential, I have no problem with it being carried out in the private sector. I am a collectivist in a restricted sense.
“eco maniac”: Again, my views seem ‘maniacal’ precisely because you are viewing them from within a culture that is itself maniacal. It’s an easy mistake to make.
Cars? Well, that’s one product of big business that we’ll have to do without. Whether or not anything like my suggestions are adopted. I suggest you read a little about “peak oil” and the consequences for any civilisation of having progressively less net energy available to it. As for televisions and pharmaceuticals; we’ll just have to get along with far less of them. I’m not suggesting an end to all production, but a radical scaling back of consumption. “Television repair” will again become a career with a future. Men will have to return to the days before viagra.
There will be a period, certainly, during the transition towards sustainability in which research and development in many industries (including pharmaceuticals) will be reduced or cease entirely. But once we’ve established a sustainable way of living, there’s no inherent reason why it can’t begin again. However, it will be directed towards genuine needs rather than the fulfillment of desires manufactured by industry itself.
We’re so far apart here that it’s probably pointless to even get into this one. In my view fuel duties with respect to private cars are absurdly low and fail to take into account the externalities at all.
See, I haven’t actually mentioned Climate Change. I agree that it has the potential (and is perhaps even likely) to cause massive death and social collapse. But my points are actually being made in the context of resource depletion which I believe (a) is a more imminent threat of death and destruction, and (b) will, if we don’t address it quickly and effectively, accelerate and intensify Climate Change beyond the worst fears of the wildest eco maniac.
December 4th, 2008 | 12:51pm
by Jim Bliss
Hi Jim,
You’ve written a lot about your thesis. Any chance that I can get to read it?
Regards,
Michael Arnoldus
December 8th, 2008 | 6:40am
by Michael Arnoldus
Resource depletion, climate change… whatever! I say again, you’re missing the role of human ingenuity when confronted by a problem. We’re already close to fuel cells / electrolysers (for example) which will make renewable energy viable, and deliver abundant energy for personal transport systems (let’s call them cars), which will remain necessary, because outside metropolises, we need them. What’s more, we like them. Nuclear is clean and safe.
So Peak oil or not (and with the oil price collapsing back to $40, I think you’re a bit premature to call peak oil) we will still have something like cars.
My problem with your “sustainability” agenda is that it is merely a cover for your intense distrust of the profit motive as a driving force for change for the better. You see something of which you disapprove – cars for example and you use the language of eco wingnuttery to give a pseudoscientific rationale for what is merely a prejudice.
I like my car. I like the freedom it gives me to go and see friends and family or to go on work errands on short notice. Public transport will never be as efficient. That is genuine freedom, and it is crucial to how our society is structured. The question is whether the violence, chaos and death involved in changing the way society is structured (and I for one will be on the other side of the baracades to you, better armed and probably stronger) is worth it to end what you see as unsustainable resource depletion.
For if as you think, resource depletion is what is going to do it, surely as resources become scarce, they get more expensive. As they get more expensive the incentive increases to find alternative solutions, which become profitable to implement. That is what is going on, and I think I would rather bet on the process of devolved development than a society designed by a man whose principle interests involve getting stoned and listening to rare Jerry Garcia records (laudable though that is as a pass-time)
You criticise Libertarianism for being egotistic. It isn’t. It is an admission that the only thing I am expert at is my own life. Society will develop best if each person is able to develop his own abilities and excersise free will. Capitalist free market economics and liberal democracy remains the best means to deliver that freedom.
It doesn’t even preclude you deciding to live in a commune with like minded hippies – just don’t spring a revolution on me, because I don’t want to die, nor do I want all my things broken. Because that is what happens in revolutions and that is why I called you a loon!
You describe society as psychotic. I say it is the richest, healthiest and safest society yet developed. True we’re under too much pressure, and I blame over-regulating, over taxing nanny state for much of that, but these are issues that can be addressed in time.
December 8th, 2008 | 10:43am
by Jackart
Hey Michael. I’m going to HTML-ise the thing and publish it online in the near(ish) future. I kind of wanted to wait until I got 100% confirmation that it’s passed before I do that though. Trouble is, it’s damn near impossible to find out exactly when that will be. Trying to get a firm date for when the external examiner will announce his decision is like trying to extract teeth. “Sometime in the new year” is the current word… which narrows it down to a 12 month period!
Also, I’m going to rewrite the thing for a mainstream audience, so there’s not been quite as much urgency about publishing it in its current format as perhaps would otherwise have been the case.
That said, drop me an email to: blog ‘at’ numero57 ‘dot’ net and I’ll fire you a copy in Word format if you don’t want to wait until I’ve published it online. To be honest, I don’t personally think it makes for great reading (despite the positive feedback I’m getting) which is why I’m doing a rewrite. It feels more like a demonstration of just how much research I did, rather than a paper with its own reason for existing. But yeah, drop me an email if you really want to read it.
December 8th, 2008 | 1:50pm
by Jim Bliss
Jackart: You make some points that are probably worth discussing in a separate post which I’ll hopefully get to within a few hours (though I’ve got a godawful cold right now, so forgive me if it’s delayed a little).
However, you also make a remark that is probably best dealt with here, as it isn’t relevant to the wider discussion.
Firstly, far from it being my “principle interest”, I have no interest whatsoever in “getting stoned and listening to rare Jerry Garcia records”. Nothing against Dead-heads, mind. I’ve met plenty of nice ones in my time. But dear god that music is tedious to my ears.
Listening to Bowie, on the other hand (stoned or not) is a great way to chill out. Or The Smiths. Or David Byrne. Or Dexy’s Midnight Runners. Or Bjork. Or Patti Smith. Or… or… or… I love music, but don’t tar me with the Grateful Dead brush. I love the idea of them. But I don’t own a single one of their records. And doubt I ever will.
That said, don’t you think it’s a little… well… weak of you to assume that my “principle interests involve getting stoned and listening to rare Jerry Garcia records” based on a single blog post? Would it be a tad unfair of me, for example, to dismiss your opinions based upon the fact that your principle interest is slavering over pictures of young women? Laudable though masturbatory fantasies about Jessica Alba as a past-time may be.
See, unless you do actually want to start connecting one’s political or philosophical views with how one likes to enjoy one’s spare time (in which case, we’re all in a lot of trouble I suspect) then it’s rather silly to view my position through the prism of a single anecdote about an evening in the mid-90s. Or don’t you agree?
Anyways, I hope — as I say — to address the substance of your comment in the near future. Bear with me if it takes a day or two though. This cold really is a stinker.
December 8th, 2008 | 5:19pm
by Jim Bliss
[…] and Everything December 8th, 2008 | 7:22pm by Jim Bliss I’ve promised to write a response to this comment on a recent entry. But I’m really under the weather at the moment, so it’ll have to […]
December 8th, 2008 | 7:22pm
by Parrots, the Universe and Everything (The Quiet Road)
The post you point to was written by my Co-Blogger, Travelgall. My comment was meant as a light hearted dig. Jessica Alba is cute though…
Get well soon.
And if we are going to get into a discussion, you need to be dealing with my views, which are more subtle than they first appear. Basically that climate change is happening, and that we are at least in part responsible. However I am not persuaded that a slightly warmer world is a wholly bad thing, that hugely expensive forced carbon reduction programmes are the way to deal with it, nor do I subscribe to the IPCC model, which seems to be based on flawed data. So I’m a climate sceptic, rather than denier. I laid out my views here.
December 9th, 2008 | 8:12am
by Jackart
But that’s exactly my point Jackart. It’s all very well for we bloggers to chuck in a bit of hyperbole and rhetoric in our posts. It spices things up and makes things more interesting. But once you get into discussion in a comments thread, that kind of rhetoric ends up playing the man, and not the ball.
We’re all guilty of it — me as much as anyone. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be on guard against it. Automatically dismissing someone’s ideas because that person is a ‘right winger’ or a ‘left winger’ or because they might be a dead-head, or because they have a thing for Jessica Alba is ultimately counter-productive. Pretty much any half-interesting person will have an idiosyncrasy or two that can be spun in such a way as to make them appear absurd or unreliable. If we don’t engage with the ideas, then we end up legitimising those kinds of attacks upon ourselves.
“Mud-slinging” is another way of saying “losing ground”.
December 9th, 2008 | 7:26pm
by Jim Bliss