There has been much discussion and contemplation this weekend about the direction this blog has taken lately, and I'm going to attempt to change the course a bit. Not a total overhaul, but perhaps a change in tone. Lately I have been focusing a lot on outright mockery of the truly stupid or deluded. There was no ulterior motive for doing so, the reality is simply that I find people who believe patently ridiculous things to be fascinating. Despite my cynicism, I still continue to be astonished that people can say things in public that are so illogical or contrary to the evidence that even a 9 year old could poke holes in them. You'd think I'd be used to it by now, but it appears that I'm not because when I come across something as ridiculous as the claims on Jen Shroder's website, my immediate reaction is still to point and laugh and mock. I'm going to try and cut down on that in the future.
Does this mean I won't be fisking the views of others? Absolutely not. But I'm going to try and change the recipe a bit. A little less mockery of the clearly insane or intellectually challenged and a little more substantive critique of those with whom I have disagreements on the issues that catch my interest. Both of those things are part and parcel of my personality, so it's just a matter of emphasizing one aspect more and another less.
I have a tendency to decide right off the bat whether someone is worth seriously engaging or whether they are only worth ridiculing. It's probably not my most attractive trait, but it's not something I'm likely to stop doing any time soon. And from time to time, I'm sure I'll still blast some poor sucker who really has it coming. But I'm going to try and do less of that and more of the kind of serious critique that I enjoy doing.
I would also like to apologize to shulamite, who has left comments here many times. In response to his last comment, I was unjustifiably rude. While I still think that much of what he said or implied was invalid (such as demanding that I should have responded to something he wrote in response to someone else), the tone of my response was much harsher than it needed to be and I'm sorry for that.
I'm sure reaction to this will be mixed. Some people come here primarily to see me eviscerate the stupid and they'll be disappointed. Others will probably cheer the change. Still others will probably jump all over me whenever I say anything mildly sarcastic to someone (and I will) and accuse me of "falling off the wagon". Just bear in mind that this is not a promise to entirely stop going after those who really deserve it, just to change the mix enough to make it noticable and to avoid engaging the truly hopeless.
- Log in to post comments
Sounds great to me, Ed. When someone says, "The sky is yellow, so it must be made of lemonade!" there's no use pointing out how stupid and illogical that is.
Einstein was discusing his new found conclusions that the universe isn't infinite after all. College students in the audience were asking him if this or that were still infinite and with increasing frustration he kept saying no, if the universe wasn't infinite then those things couldn't be infinite either.
Finally one questioner asked him, "Well, is there anything left in the universe that is infinite?"
He answered, "The only thing in the universe that's infinite is human stupidity."
Or so the story goes.
There's no use wasting your time on this nonsense. You don't have an infinite amount available.
That might help us constrain our foul language as well. After all I try to encourage my children to read some of the postings.
Too much stupidity gets a pass in our culture, especially Christian stupidity, because we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. I'm not sure this is healthy. "The League of Extrordinary Stupid People" spews filth into the world and we remain silent about it. You haven't remained silent, and I've appreciated that. Don't change. We need more of the approach you've used rather than less.
Mr Willis,
I know Ed very well and you can depend on his ability to still go on the attack when need be. He is just not going to make that his life's work. LOL
Ed loves a good debate.
Two points:
First: it's your blog. Flail away as much or as little as you like. No need to explain or justify shifts in emphasis. That's one of the things that makes personal blogs [as opposed to say blogs with a more public end in view, like Panda's Thumb or Josh Marshall's] interesting. And we can [and I do] simply skip over posts that don't interest me or ones in which I think your anger got the best of your judgement.
If you insist on cutting back, I urge you not to abandon a your regular "Idiot of the Week" feature. Make it "Idiot of the Fortnight" if you like, but keep that feature in. I'd miss it.
RAB
Ogden, UT
Mr. Brayton,
The apology is happily accepted. There were also parts of my comment that were a bit curt as well and I am sorry for them.
I have always been impressed by the power of your mind and I am now even more impressed with it. Your blog now promises to be even more openly formidable and challenging to your opponents, even more convincing to your partisans, and even more illuminating to both.
Oh! I didn't mean to imply that we don't need our "Idiot of the Week." We do need a chuckle regularly.