Skip to content

I need more readers

December 18, 2009

I want a 458 comment thread on topics that make no sense.

or to be able to have open threads with 4,000,000,000 comments like LGF.

Advertisements
12 Comments leave one →
  1. Ric Locke permalink
    December 18, 2009 9:35 pm

    jenn, “I don’t understand” is not synonymous with “makes no sense”.

    Regards,
    Ric

    • jenn1964 permalink*
      December 19, 2009 9:14 am

      Oh, I understand what both of them are saying. The fight itself makes no sense. Thanks for the insult anyway 😀

      • December 19, 2009 5:16 pm

        Ultimately it seems to boil down to “Mine’s bigger.”

  2. December 18, 2009 9:58 pm

    Well, it does seem to be an inexorable rule of blogdom that the less sense the thread makes, the longer it gets.

    • jenn1964 permalink*
      December 18, 2009 10:05 pm

      I am learning that the hard way.

  3. December 20, 2009 8:01 am

    I can’t speak to what all people everywhere might find interesting. What I can say is, that my site has been dedicated to arguing the importance of the proposition that how we believe language works has a necessary and significant impact or our epistemologies. I’ve argued, over 8 + years, that the commonly understood view of what “interpretation” is — and, beneath it, how that view of language functions structurally — leads inexorably toward progressivism, because the assumptions that undergird progressivism have been slowly but surely institutionalized and internalized over the past 40+ years through language.

    To some, the argument is tedious: they’d much rather read about the latest OUTRAGEOUS OUTRAGE we should be OUTRAGED OVER in some giant “conservative” herd.

    And that’s fine, if that’s what floats your boat. But having an argument offhandedly dismissed as nonsensical, or about “whose is bigger,” diminishes the importance of the argument, and is frankly an easy way to ironize away the discomfort people have when bloggers on the same “side” “fight.”

    Personally, I don’t much care about Patrick Frey personally. I do care that he has continued to exhort conservatives to adopt a view of language whose only endgame is to chill speech, and to award an epistemic victory to progressivism, with the resultant policies moving ever more toward identity group power and individual powerlessness.

    But hey. So long as you can get off a nice quip, may as well poke fun, right?

    • jenn1964 permalink*
      December 20, 2009 8:14 am

      Jeff,

      Thanks for stopping by.

      I think that if you look closely I pretty much take your side, although in my opinion by prolonging the argument you don’t come out well. I know that in one place (perhaps at Little Miss Attila’s) I definitely said that Frey started this and he was coming off as deranged. I think you make good points regarding intentionalism.

      My problem with this whole issue is that you are fighting a battle with someone who cannot be convinced and that is why I think it is stupid. Everyone that you can convince has been convinced by now.

      Anyway again thanks for the visit.

      • jenn1964 permalink*
        December 20, 2009 8:16 am

        look closely should have been look around.

    • December 21, 2009 1:03 pm

      I’ve never derived any particular discomfort from the occasional blogfight; I figure if two people always agree on something, I can quit reading one of them altogether.

      But here’s the crux of the biscuit: to paraphrase Upton Sinclair, you can’t persuade Frey, or anyone else, of these matters so long as his salary depends on his being unpersuaded by them.

      I do appreciate the effort being made to keep this on a properly scholarly basis, but unfortunately, what’s probably going to be needed is a massive escalation in the use of Rahm’s Imperative. (Which is two words, the second of which is “you.”) This is the only useful response to the playing of the race (or whatever) card, because it shows the appropriate level of disrespect.

  4. Bill S. permalink
    December 20, 2009 8:19 am

    Works the likes of George Orwell’s “1984” (and a few of R. A. Heinlein’ books) impress the importance of what is said and HOW it is said. Political arguments over the last 20 years or more often boil down to “he said / she said”, with any meaningful evidence being brushed into the trash bin and buried as quickly as possible.

    These days, it doesn’t seem to matter a whit if you have a good argument or bad, if you can make your opponents look like complete whack-jobs with nothing better to do with their time.

    • Bill S. permalink
      December 20, 2009 8:23 am

      Of course, I’m kind of amused that I am using works of fiction to make my point…

    • jenn1964 permalink*
      December 20, 2009 8:24 am

      That may be true, but there is an underlying truth that has to be addressed. Pretty words presenting a lie are eventually revealed as just pretty words. A perfect example is the Obama administration.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: