John C. Wright ([info]johncwright) wrote,
2009-08-13 20:12:00

Flash Crowd!

Some craven decided to stir up controversy by soliciting his friends to come troll around on my livejournal. I have disabled comments from non-friends until further notice.

The vast majority of comments were logically irrelevant to the discussion, and hence contained nothing of value, neither as argument, nor entertainment, nor as a study in psychopathology.

To those happy few who were kind enough and mentally alert enough to write a reasonable, if opposing, viewpoint, allow me to congratulate you, express my respects and gratitude, and to apologize. I would have liked to discuss the matter further with you, but the sheer mass of Jacobin zealots makes this difficult. Perhaps we can revisit the discussion after things return to room temperature.

Even though we are on opposite sides, I assure you that the real division in the world is not between Right and Left, not between Homophobes and Pervertarians, but between men of reason and good will, we men of the mind, and our mutual foes, the men of unreason, the men of mere emotion.

Do not be fooled into thinking that because they agree with you for now, that they are like you.

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    switch
     
    Help
  • 18 comments

[info]kokorognosis

August 14 2009, 01:09:12 UTC 2 years ago

The trolls are thick these days.

[info]arhyalon

August 14 2009, 13:17:27 UTC 2 years ago

Mark had me laughing with his version of this same comment:

"Who let the Trolls out?"

I keep hearing, "Woof, woof."

[info]whswhs

August 14 2009, 02:13:43 UTC 2 years ago

I'll go with that conclusion. Over on an Objectivist blog that I follow, there was much discussion of the White House's "report Internet traffic that criticizes our health policy proposals," and a lot of people were enthusiastic about sending in statements beginning "Dear Big Brother" and the like. I thought that was a bad idea, in that it activated the us-versus-them emotional mindset and made it very unlikely that anyone reading such statements would have any reaction other than being entrenched in their own political loyalties. And in the discussion that followed I realized that I also thought it was a bad idea for someone who opposed the current administration to lash out emotionally, because it would get them into a mindset of adhering to their own positions out of emotional reaction and not out of reasoned judgment, and a position held in that way is not the same position. I was rather disappointed that the admirer of Ayn Rand I was mainly discussing this with took my position to be one of weakness!

At any rate, it was a discussion I learned something from, though not exactly what the other person was arguing for.

[info]maradydd

August 14 2009, 02:48:57 UTC 2 years ago

Congratulations for learning something of value.

Reasonable men may disagree -- indeed, hold entirely opposing viewpoints -- and yet engage in amicable discussion, even reach compromises acceptable to both sides. Unreasonable men seek to push as many of their opponents' buttons as they can, in the hopes of provoking the same fury that they feel. They would rather "win" a skirmish whether doing so benefits the campaign or not. It is very short-sighted.

It saddens me that the term "dispassionate" is now thought to mean that someone does not care about a topic, rather than that he has set aside his passions in order to confront that topic with reason.

[info]marycatelli

August 14 2009, 03:01:36 UTC 2 years ago

Every term that means "can view in a detached manner" comes to mean "does not care" -- very quickly.

Semantic drift is a nasty thing.

[info]whswhs

August 14 2009, 04:18:35 UTC 2 years ago

Yes. C. S. Lewis, I believe it is, talks about the old phrase "equal and indifferent justice," when many people back when he wrote about it took to mean "justice of mediocre quality." He objected to this interpretation and asked a gardener he was acquainted with, and the gardener said, "It means not making a difference between one man and another." That one was already lost, at least in southern California, by the time I learned the word "indifferent" sometime around 1960.

"Disinterested" is pretty well gone, too. I had not thought of "dispassionate" as fading, but I can see how it could happen.

There is in fact a body of historical linguistic investigation that traces the paths by which meanings of words fade over time; unfortunately I can't find where my favorite book on this is hiding (it's not on the linguistics shelf), so I can't check the title and authors, but Hopper and Traugott's Grammaticalization is worth a look. You get a word that starts out with an objective meaning, such as want=lack; it becomes subjective, want=desire, and then becomes a prefixed auxiliary, want to=>wanta=>wanna=intend to. Earlier words have gone down that track to simple futurity (will) and then faded into clitics ('ll) or even been dropped entirely ("I be going to the game tomorrow"). It's happened over and over and will continue to happen.

Which is not to say precision in language isn't worth the effort. But it's like cutting words into stone to make them last longer; even stone will weather away over time, as one of Robinson Jeffers' poems points out.

[info]maradydd

August 14 2009, 05:52:28 UTC 2 years ago

Yup. The trick, I think, is to focus on what semantic content one wishes to convey, and maintain a sufficient command of language, even through shifts in morphology, to be able to make one's meaning understood.

[info]oscillon

August 14 2009, 04:24:45 UTC 2 years ago

test 1,2,3... test 1,2,3... I'm not banned? How can I not be banned? I need to work harder at this.

[info]johncwright

August 14 2009, 07:00:34 UTC 2 years ago

"test 1,2,3... test 1,2,3... I'm not banned? How can I not be banned? I need to work harder at this."

Compared to them, you are my bestest buddy. When you call me an idiot, you at least treat me like a human being, and you can correctly identify what idiotic thing I said you are disagreeing with. We have real conversations.

Those folks are all mad at their fathers or something, and wanted to say to me hateful things they never got a chance to say to the people they are really mad at. Your clashes with me are not even in the same boat.

Thank God you are around, Oscillon. If I wasn't a bigoted hate-filled homophobe, I'd kiss you.

[info]arhyalon

August 14 2009, 13:20:22 UTC 2 years ago

I can't speak for John, but I'm quite fond of you.

[info]oscillon

August 17 2009, 16:20:16 UTC 2 years ago

ah, now i'm blushing.
I hadn't even looked over at your journal to see what all the fuss was about until just now. Wow, what a nightmare. You have my sympathies.
Congratulations on the adoption.

[info]noahdoyle

August 14 2009, 05:19:47 UTC 2 years ago

Between the mess here (which I missed) at Arhaylon's place (which I read some of)...I'm not sure what to say. This sort of thing used to make me intensely angry - and it still angers me, but to a far lesser degree - but now it mostly feels sad and predictable.

[info]cmzero

August 14 2009, 06:51:02 UTC 2 years ago Edited:  August 14 2009, 06:51:14 UTC

I found the source. It started with this notice, although [info]naamah_darling covered her ass by specifically saying "and no trolling!" However, then [info]seize copied it to this community with the link to the same post but minus the "no trolling" warning. Not sure whether the floodgates opened before or after that happened. No one actually said "start the attack!" but it was what we in the law business call a "foreseeable outcome"; not enough to be considered bannable harassment under the terms of service, though.

(I really started to go WTF about the time they started going "I posted and he didn't even respond to me! Clearly he doesn't have a good answer! It can't have anything to do with the fact that I'm the 200th separate poster in the past 6 hours and it's the middle of a work day; everyone knows fundies don't have anything better to do than shoot back quick and braindead answers to someone ripping into their arguments!" And then they followed it up with "Oh, he closed off further posts! How rude that he didn't want to hear the same questions, insults, and 'I'm destroying your books' another 500 times! Just like a fundie not to want to answer every last one!")

Please do open things up again once you're no longer worried about 50 billion comments to juggle. Maybe even invite as friends those you noticed giving thoughtful questions or responses. If the mob swarms back in, then your closing things off will have been justified (it's the recommended first step for this sort of thing).

[info]maradydd

August 14 2009, 06:53:32 UTC 2 years ago

Ah, I see now which post it was that prompted a flood of comments. I somewhat regret, now, not having spoken my mind about it before; but it is likely for the best that I held my tongue, as it pushed a number of my own buttons and I was not at the time certain that I could comment and remain civil. As I value the standards of discourse which you seek to uphold, I am bound to observe them. One does not accept a man's hospitality only to disregard it utterly.

That said, I object to many of the things you had to say in that post, and should you at some point re-broach the topic, I intend to voice those objections, buttressed by reason.

From a rhetorical standpoint, your post also struck me as deliberately crafted to inflame, though I cannot and do not claim to know your mind or to be able to divine your precise intent; I am no psychic, and prefer to restrict the subject of debate to the empirical and the dialectical (in the Platonic sense). The only mind whose contents I can speak with authority on is my own; and I can say with utmost authority that the essay in question brassed me off considerably.

But enough; this is not the time or the place, and the proper one shall be of your choosing, not mine. In the meantime I shall brush up on my Empedocles, Protagoras and Isocrates.

[info]cmzero

August 14 2009, 07:06:55 UTC 2 years ago

From a rhetorical standpoint, your post also struck me as deliberately crafted to inflame...

This part I will agree with wholeheartedly, although I see that in the next post you also do so. Please remember that just because you're talking to your close friends does not mean you are not at a public party, where anyone CAN walk up, and then invite others to "come over here and listen to this moron!" to boot. You're now being watched all the more (congratulations, you're a celebrity!) and as an example for Christ, you should make your arguments in Christ's love, whatever they might be. Maybe those hovering over you waiting for something else to mock will be reached, maybe they won't, but give them no ammunition they didn't have to make up themselves.

[info]johncwright

August 14 2009, 07:12:02 UTC 2 years ago

"That said, I object to many of the things you had to say in that post, and should you at some point re-broach the topic, I intend to voice those objections, buttressed by reason."

Bless you. Merely for saying those words, I would grant you half my kingdom, if I had a kingdom, and the head of John the Baptist in a charger, if I had John the Baptist. I don't think he's a Catholic, though. I think he's a Baptist.

"From a rhetorical standpoint, your post also struck me as deliberately crafted to inflame...."

Nope. Just something I tossed off without thinking an anonymous crowd of ill wishers would stop by. No one seemed to notice in that post that I was not angry at GLAAD, but at Sci Fi Channel, and not because they bowed to the Homosexual lobby, but because they are my people, science fiction writers, and when they let themselves be censored in order to play to (what I consider) illegitimate pressure, it encourages illegitimate pressure.

Of course, that is not what I said, and, as you say, you are not a mind-reader.

Deliberate? No. Thoughtless? Arguably.

"The only mind whose contents I can speak with authority on is my own; and I can say with utmost authority that the essay in question brassed me off considerably."

I could have said the same thing in the same order without such intemperate language, that is for sure. Sorry I brassed you off. You seem a paragon of reason, as well as a capital human being. If only we had met in happier times!

[info]maradydd

August 14 2009, 08:18:47 UTC 2 years ago

Your compliments are both kind and appreciated, though, to my mind, unearned; I am just as irrational as anyone else, especially when provoked, but in the last few years I have devoted much time to the practice of biting my tongue when I know that I am angry. Perhaps that is a form of reason, though I put it in the same category as using a potholder when taking a pan off the stove. Still, thank you.

Do let me know if you and Mrs. Wright are ever in Belgium; as you do not drink, the first bar of chocolate is on me, if you are of a mind to break chocolate with a self-professed pervert. :)

[info]cdenmier

November 14 2009, 22:39:55 UTC 2 years ago

Smart Quote

I read the following quote on this post months ago and it stuck in my head. I've thought of it nearly every week by seeing new examples of the principle in action. It may be the truest thing you've ever written:

"I assure you that the real division in the world is not between Right and Left, not between Homophobes and Pervertarians, but between men of reason and good will, we men of the mind, and our mutual foes, the men of unreason, the men of mere emotion."

I know this is a really old post (in Internet terms) but I wanted to share with you my admiration for the words of wisdom.
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…