The Name of Love
Far Right Nutjob
I've been a bit self-reflective lately about the kind of writing that I do, and I think I should go over the work I've done. While I can be sardonic in an argument (as someone like @LordsFire would know by now), I do want to talk here about the mistakes in my works.
The number one mistake I believe I've been making is clarity. One of the most common complaints I've gotten are I just assert statements without arguing for them. While it is true I take a strident tone, this is a mistake I find difficult to catch in my writing. I haven't seen a paper I've written where I didn't try to argue for my points. For instance, in my recent remarks on Rush Limbaugh, I tried arguing that the right needs original thinkers since it suffers from cliches, and Rush Limbaugh doesn't produce or even talk about original ideas. LordsFire did not make his case well, as he essentially told me "you have to watch all twenty-odd years of Rush's content to understand the nuances and originally of his thought." I took this to mean that "I don't have any argument against you, so I'm going to make you do the work yourself."
However much at fault LordsFire was in this exchange, I cannot help but see that I was also at fault here. That LordsFire could not see the argument in my work is a failure on my part as a writer. I could not convey the argument to him in a way he could understand and productively respond to. This is a shameful blot on my record.
Similarly, I've been having trouble with people misunderstanding my work. For instance, LordsFire believed that (somehow) I as a Christian don't believe normal people can have a personal relationship with God. While I was able to correct him, I do think that this is a travesty. LordsFire isn't an idiot; he's at least as smart as I am. Yet he couldn't understand my argument. What does that say about my writing? Am I too obscurantist? Have I not mastered plain English?
Even if LordsFire was an idiot, I should not have basically said "you stupid person, I meant X!" That's not a constructive way of dealing with the idiot's critique. Rather, I should ask myself "how can I fix the paper so that even this idiot can understand me," and then warmly thank the idiot for their critique. Again, I want to stress that I don't think LordsFire is a moron, in spite of what I might have implied in the past. I just wanted to say that my language would be unacceptable, even if my critique was a moron.
Lastly, I'd like to apologize to LordsFire and anyone else for my attitude. I will warn you in the future that I strongly dislike having my ideas misrepresented, and that will affect my writing. I kindly ask that he and everyone else who discusses with me will join me in endeavoring to be better.
The number one mistake I believe I've been making is clarity. One of the most common complaints I've gotten are I just assert statements without arguing for them. While it is true I take a strident tone, this is a mistake I find difficult to catch in my writing. I haven't seen a paper I've written where I didn't try to argue for my points. For instance, in my recent remarks on Rush Limbaugh, I tried arguing that the right needs original thinkers since it suffers from cliches, and Rush Limbaugh doesn't produce or even talk about original ideas. LordsFire did not make his case well, as he essentially told me "you have to watch all twenty-odd years of Rush's content to understand the nuances and originally of his thought." I took this to mean that "I don't have any argument against you, so I'm going to make you do the work yourself."
However much at fault LordsFire was in this exchange, I cannot help but see that I was also at fault here. That LordsFire could not see the argument in my work is a failure on my part as a writer. I could not convey the argument to him in a way he could understand and productively respond to. This is a shameful blot on my record.
Similarly, I've been having trouble with people misunderstanding my work. For instance, LordsFire believed that (somehow) I as a Christian don't believe normal people can have a personal relationship with God. While I was able to correct him, I do think that this is a travesty. LordsFire isn't an idiot; he's at least as smart as I am. Yet he couldn't understand my argument. What does that say about my writing? Am I too obscurantist? Have I not mastered plain English?
Even if LordsFire was an idiot, I should not have basically said "you stupid person, I meant X!" That's not a constructive way of dealing with the idiot's critique. Rather, I should ask myself "how can I fix the paper so that even this idiot can understand me," and then warmly thank the idiot for their critique. Again, I want to stress that I don't think LordsFire is a moron, in spite of what I might have implied in the past. I just wanted to say that my language would be unacceptable, even if my critique was a moron.
Lastly, I'd like to apologize to LordsFire and anyone else for my attitude. I will warn you in the future that I strongly dislike having my ideas misrepresented, and that will affect my writing. I kindly ask that he and everyone else who discusses with me will join me in endeavoring to be better.