Print Story Awesome Article Link
Diary
By Clipper Ship (Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 06:07:28 AM EST) (all tags)
Here

From A&L Daily a few days ago.



God, why can't people be more like the New Republic more often? Why does dogma so motivate the Far Right and Far Left? When do reputedly intelligent people begin to see through clouds of simple arguments to see a bigger picture, which always so much less crystallized and easy to prove?
< things the internet tells me | Diversity Training! >
Awesome Article Link | 34 comments (34 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
I hate being a Negative Nelly here . . . by slozo (4.00 / 1) #1 Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 06:53:03 AM EST
. . . but I found that article very poorly written and researched. His attack on Naomi Klein reads like sour grapes that her book did so much better than his.

I'm not a huge fan of Klein, but as I read through the reasoning behind his attempt at slander, I was constantly mouthing the word "wrong, wrong, wrong . . .".

I didn't really expect you to agree with him, by Clipper Ship (2.00 / 0) #2 Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:00:19 AM EST
but his piece-by-piece dismantling of her usual dogmatic rhetoric and blatant disregard for a full picture was pretty well-founded, don't you think. It's not like ol' Naomi appeals to the average well-balanced point of view, despite her enormous popularity.

---------------

Destroy All Planets

[ Parent ]
There is no piece-by-piece dismantling . . . by slozo (4.00 / 1) #3 Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:20:58 AM EST
. . . only piece by piece dissing. Naomi Klein is at the very least ten times better at doing her research than this neocon apologist.

[ Parent ]
Ah, yes. His politics really do by Clipper Ship (1.00 / 1) #4 Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:27:07 AM EST
make his article bad. As hers make her books good. Well presented.

---------------

Destroy All Planets

[ Parent ]
While we're at it: by Clipper Ship (2.00 / 0) #5 Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:35:58 AM EST
In what ways was this article 1) Poorly written, assuming you have more experience writing and could judge that sort of thing, and 2) poorly researched, since I am unaware that he presented all the areas he researched to write this article (assuming you are not friends with the writer and know how he did or did not research this article)?

nquiring minds want to know.

---------------

Destroy All Planets

[ Parent ]
Why don't you waste your time first . . . by slozo (4.00 / 1) #6 Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:51:38 AM EST
. . . and explain to me in what ways was this article 1) Well written, assuming you have any experience in writing or critique, beyond that of an internet troll, and 2)well stated, beyond the assertion that the writer delivered a, "piece-by-piece dismantling of her usual dogmatic rhetoric"?

btw - well researched articles are annotated, give sources and quotes (beyond snippets and soundbytes), and present counter-arguments that are based on divergent views of the subject matter, not characterisations and ad hominen attacks

[ Parent ]
Ah, I thought so. by Clipper Ship (2.00 / 0) #7 Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 05:03:45 PM EST
Is wild conjecture and overstatement just a bad habit or do you really think these things, because I notice that you tend not to explain yourself when asked to provide evidence as to whichever wild assertion you are currently making.

Or is it, you just like to play the Leftie troll and don't really know what you're talking about?

---------------

Destroy All Planets

[ Parent ]
I'm genuinely curious . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #9 Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:24:30 AM EST
. . . how does anything I said make me a "Leftie troll" (capital L, in fact!)? You seem to have a totally different sort of sliding scale of how you measure the left/right politics terminology, judging by your use of such terms as "marxist/libertarian" (you called me that in an earlier exchange). Maybe if you draw it out on a piece of paper for yourself, it'll erase any further confusion.

And, if you like self-examination, consider the poster who posits an opinion in the form of rhetorical questions, and receives an opposing opinion. They then demand a thorough explanation from the naysayer, without ever initially giving any good reasoning for their opinion first.

[ Parent ]
Yet again, nothing to back up your statement. by Clipper Ship (2.00 / 0) #12 Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 03:27:53 AM EST
I get it. I'll remember to ignore you from now on. You just enjoy trolling. Not backing up your opinions.

---------------

Destroy All Planets

[ Parent ]
So, you can't answer the question . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #13 Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 04:15:14 AM EST
. . . or you won't answer the question?

[ Parent ]
Hey whenever you want to qualify your original by Clipper Ship (2.00 / 0) #15 Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 04:30:31 AM EST
statement feel free. I notice that you never, ever do that. You just make a blanket statement and then tell the other person to tell why you're right.

I'm not going to do your work for you.

---------------

Destroy All Planets

[ Parent ]
You keep ducking the question . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #17 Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 04:54:08 AM EST
. . . how am I a "Leftie troll"?

[ Parent ]
Here's the deal: by Clipper Ship (2.00 / 0) #18 Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 05:10:41 AM EST
I'll answer your question, which I asked a looong time ago, when you have the courtesy to answer mine, you hypocrite.

You don't get to make silly assertions, not qualify them and then get away with not being called on it, you know.

---------------

Destroy All Planets

[ Parent ]
Oh the irony . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #20 Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 05:20:29 AM EST
. . . of this: "You don't get to make silly assertions, not qualify them and then get away with not being called on it, you know."

[ Parent ]
Right, so you're stuill not answering the question by Clipper Ship (2.00 / 0) #21 Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 05:28:45 AM EST
I've noticed the trend over many diaries.

---------------

Destroy All Planets

[ Parent ]
This is fun . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #23 Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 05:43:45 AM EST
. . . how many times can you accuse me of what you're not doing in the first place?

[ Parent ]
At nay point are you going to qualify by Clipper Ship (2.00 / 0) #25 Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 05:57:06 AM EST
your accusation of this being a poorly written article and poorly researched? I still have yet to see where you've even made the slightest attempt to try and explain yourself.

And a PROTIP: accusing me of not answering a question you asked 15 comments down the thread does not help you maker your point.

Have you ever argued a point before? It helps to provide evidence of your assertions. I notice you still haven't done this yet.

I'm waiting.

---------------

Destroy All Planets

[ Parent ]
Isn't that the socratic method? by garlic (2.00 / 0) #32 Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:09:55 PM EST
Hasn't it been proven as the World's best trolling method?


[ Parent ]
Also, I'll let you answer your own assertions, by Clipper Ship (2.00 / 0) #8 Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 05:07:52 PM EST
since I never gave an opinion on the writing or the research involved, you did.

There were plenty of quotes. I guess you didn't read the article.

New Republic is magazine, similar to Time or The New Yorker or The Nation. You don't tend to provide massive amounts of annotation in articles for the popular press. You may have noticed that. What you're talking about is the kind of article you get in a Scholarly Journal, which The New Republic is not, not has been for the 100 or so years it's been around.

---------------

Destroy All Planets

[ Parent ]
Are you slow? Because you clearly . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #10 Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:31:04 AM EST
. . . gave an opinion. You wrote this diary, with badly written rhetorical questions, showing that you completely agreed with the author of the article. That is what is called an opinion.

You might want to brush up on your reading comprehension.

Not just scholarly journals.

[ Parent ]
Just as I thought. by Clipper Ship (2.00 / 0) #11 Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 03:26:58 AM EST
Nothing to add, as usual.

Feel free to explain your opinion instead of trying to get me to explain it for you.

I said why I think it's a good article a few comments back: because he takes apart her argument piece by piece.

A helpful rule in arguing a point that i notice you DO NOT understand from this one and many others on this site is that when you bring up something like say, "This is a badly written article" you need to say why, not deflect the fact that you realize you put your foot in your mouth.

Loom up the author of the article. You'll see why you are making yourself look silly.

---------------

Destroy All Planets

[ Parent ]
If I have nothing to add . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #14 Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 04:22:41 AM EST
. . . why are you replying? Is it anything like choosing to live among a populace that you consider idiotic, then complaining about it online?

"because he takes apart her argument piece by piece" . . . how, exactly? Give specific examples, please. Then, when your opinion is much more clearly stated, I will more clearly state mine.

Your last two lines here really made me laugh though, I'll give you that.

[ Parent ]
You do have nothing to add. I'm replying by Clipper Ship (2.00 / 0) #16 Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 04:32:01 AM EST
because it just gives you even more rope to hang yourself with. I find that funny.

No, seriously, are you going to actually show why you think a Liberal Centrist writer is a neo-con and why that matters? Or are you going to keep ducking the actual work of explaining yourself?

---------------

Destroy All Planets

[ Parent ]
So, you're still unable . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #19 Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 05:17:58 AM EST
. . . to back up your original statement? How does the author take apart Klein's argument piece by piece? Please, we're just dying to hear all about it.

I never called the author a neocon - again, reading comprehension. I called him a neocon apologist. Those two things are different.

A neocon apologist apologises for and diminshes the severity of criminal and morally wrong actions taken by the neoconservatives currently in power. An example would be where he posits that Dick Cheney couldn't possibly be so evil as to profit from his stock in Gilead Sciences (Tamiflu) in the case of a pandemic, suggesting the old maxim of incompetence. By doing this, he attempts to wave away this serious charge by throwing out the term "conspiracy theory" beforehand, instead of examining how it happened, exactly, that there was a flu pandemic, etc etc.

I do not think a neocon apologist can ever be labelled a "liberal centrist", although the defining terms people use are so badly misused now that they almost have no meaning.

[ Parent ]
Then you're incorrect, because he has by Clipper Ship (2.00 / 0) #22 Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 05:34:18 AM EST
heavily criticized the current government.

If you don't like people waving the conspiracy theory flag then show how they are wring. Otherwise you're just assuming it is a conspiracy theory. A centrist view doesn't just accept wild conjecture, which is why he wants her to qualify the statement, which Klein generally fails to do in her books.

That's the point of this article. I can see why it bothers you, based on that logic alone: having to have a reason for your statements must ever so complicated and difficult to keep up, but somehow he does it.

And, as before, I'll explain myself when you explain yourself first, since you made the first value judgment on the thing. Show how this is badly written and poorly researched and I'll get to your secondary concerns.

Until the, I'll remain absent from your wild flailing at windmills.

---------------

Destroy All Planets

[ Parent ]
This is a bit better . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #24 Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 05:56:02 AM EST
. . . at least you used better buzzword character assassination phrases. Why not just call Klein a kook and be done with it, though? She must have been so lucky to dupe so many into thinking she was clever, or that she had done a good deal of research on what she wrote about. You also talk as if you have read more than one of Klein's books . . . hilarious, not because it's probably a lie, but because of the inherent contradictions.

How does his supposedly centrist (your choice of words) view not accept wild conjecture?

And . . . you're a windmill?!? rofl

[ Parent ]
Priceless. by Clipper Ship (2.00 / 0) #26 Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:01:29 AM EST
I have in fact read plenty of Klein's work. I enjoy seeing both sides of things.

I notice you still didn't answer the question, though I threw you a bone and answered a few. Why not qualify a few of your statements? Why not? Give it a try! At some point you may even add to this conversation.

His centrist (well-known fact about him that 100 year old magazine he edits) does not accept wild conjecture by pointing out that you can't white-wash a guy like Cheney or anyone else to suit your argument, as Klein does. He points out other areas where she does this kind of thing, as well.

Actually, anyone who has read any of her books with something approaching an open mind about the planet can see that she performs that sort of logical fallacy all the time. You should check out her books before arguing in favour of her, I think.

Also, as to windmills: you may want to check out Don Quixote.

---------------

Destroy All Planets

[ Parent ]
Which of my questions . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #27 Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:20:56 AM EST
. . . did you answer?

Yes, you mentioned the magazine is 100 years old before, got that. You have repeated that he is centrist, this time your proof is that it is a well-known fact. Brilliant! Klein making "wild conjecture" . . . uh, how? where?

I think it's the author of the hit-piece that makes the wild conjecture, same as you do.

So, if I am flailing at windmills, and it's a Don Quixote reference . . . wouldn't that be tilting at windmills?

[ Parent ]
Honestly, I'm done. by Clipper Ship (2.00 / 0) #28 Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:38:21 AM EST
You trolled me. Well done. You looked up Don Quixote, well done. At least I can say I helped you out a little.

Go read a book. Your ignorance is exhausting.

---------------

Destroy All Planets

[ Parent ]
So, you make a common misquote . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #29 Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:55:07 AM EST
. . . of classic literature (not the biggest of deals, except for the sanctimonious way you pointed it out to me), and accuse me of not having read the book, as well as being ignorant?

At least you can use google, and didn't totally embarrass yourself.

[ Parent ]
Yes, yes, you are so very intelliegent. by Clipper Ship (2.00 / 0) #30 Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:57:55 AM EST
You win. You have trolled me to the end. Well done. I have no more interest in debating you, since we never really did. You are the superior thinker here. I'm sure you have the bigger pee-pee. You have an excellent thesaurus and a wonderful Google hand. What an excellent arguer you are. In every way I have been defeated by your mighty Sword of Thought!

---------------

Destroy All Planets

[ Parent ]
That's much better. (nt) by slozo (2.00 / 0) #31 Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:08:51 AM EST


[ Parent ]
I think you may need to look up by garlic (2.00 / 0) #34 Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:17:17 PM EST
the definition of apologist.


[ Parent ]
I'm pretty sure by garlic (4.00 / 1) #33 Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:14:02 PM EST
Asking a question is not the same thing as stating an opinion.


[ Parent ]
Awesome Article Link | 34 comments (34 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback