McFaul packs up... yeah, it's too bad, but it was also a no-win situation. So is this absurd kerfuffle.
Russians don't f* around when it comes to irony (or wooden phalluses). Then again, Ukraine goes, among other things, all Zoolander: unidentified men in track suits started beating pro-Europe demonstrator.
James Mollison's snapshot of the world, by way of where children sleep.
Let's talk about... civil, constructive internet discourse! But first, may I humbly suggest to the Times that it's time for David Brooks to retire, because what the f* is this? I didn't always agree with him in the past, but he was at least coherent and insightful; that last column resembled the musings of naive eighth grader. In terms of content, the column fundamentally confounded two basic concepts: manners (which you honor out of consideration for others) and appearances (which you keep up because you care what other people think of you). Two very different motivations, albeit sometimes people who don't give a s&it about anyone else will be polite out of social order, but Mr. Brooks is waxing (pseudo-)philosophical about how one should be.
But let's talk about internet discourse, harassment, and shutting people up. Perhaps you've continued to follow the conversation about the toxicity of the conversation about feminism, with some of the comments being along the lines of, "I'm not going to shut up because what I have to say makes you uncomfortable." I can't speak for every other white feminist on the internet about that or anything else, but I don't recall--by virtue of agreeing with The Nation article or anything else--ever suggesting that anyone shut up, much less to make me comfortable. I'm only expressing a preference that people frame what they have to say in a constructive way that foments dialog rather than division.
And I'm a big believer in depesonalizing these conversations. Take this really low personal attack on Amy Wallace. I don't know anything about Amy Wallace and I don't have a dog in the apparently toxic autism conversation, but I can't help but take AW's side based on the article. First of all--and I've addressed this in more depth on these pages--"other people have bigger problems" is not a valid point in response to anything other than "no one else has bigger problems." It doesn't challenge the validity of what the other person is saying. (See also Richard Dawkins telling first-world women to shut up about sexual harassment because women in certain countries have it a lot worse). So, on the topic of shutting people up--which, again, I don't encourage for whatever reason--"others have it worse" is a juvenile, amateurish way to do it.
And, in the way of another conversation we've had before about internet discourse--accepting (genuine) apologies and moving on--Erin Gloria Ryan's comment says it very well with regard to Stephen King's clarification:
Let's talk about... civil, constructive internet discourse! But first, may I humbly suggest to the Times that it's time for David Brooks to retire, because what the f* is this? I didn't always agree with him in the past, but he was at least coherent and insightful; that last column resembled the musings of naive eighth grader. In terms of content, the column fundamentally confounded two basic concepts: manners (which you honor out of consideration for others) and appearances (which you keep up because you care what other people think of you). Two very different motivations, albeit sometimes people who don't give a s&it about anyone else will be polite out of social order, but Mr. Brooks is waxing (pseudo-)philosophical about how one should be.
But let's talk about internet discourse, harassment, and shutting people up. Perhaps you've continued to follow the conversation about the toxicity of the conversation about feminism, with some of the comments being along the lines of, "I'm not going to shut up because what I have to say makes you uncomfortable." I can't speak for every other white feminist on the internet about that or anything else, but I don't recall--by virtue of agreeing with The Nation article or anything else--ever suggesting that anyone shut up, much less to make me comfortable. I'm only expressing a preference that people frame what they have to say in a constructive way that foments dialog rather than division.
And I'm a big believer in depesonalizing these conversations. Take this really low personal attack on Amy Wallace. I don't know anything about Amy Wallace and I don't have a dog in the apparently toxic autism conversation, but I can't help but take AW's side based on the article. First of all--and I've addressed this in more depth on these pages--"other people have bigger problems" is not a valid point in response to anything other than "no one else has bigger problems." It doesn't challenge the validity of what the other person is saying. (See also Richard Dawkins telling first-world women to shut up about sexual harassment because women in certain countries have it a lot worse). So, on the topic of shutting people up--which, again, I don't encourage for whatever reason--"others have it worse" is a juvenile, amateurish way to do it.
And, in the way of another conversation we've had before about internet discourse--accepting (genuine) apologies and moving on--Erin Gloria Ryan's comment says it very well with regard to Stephen King's clarification:
What's the point in anyone even attempting to understand why they were wrong and move on if we're going to punitively insist on people who mess up "living with the consequences"? Christ. People fuck up. It would be better if they hadn't, but apologizing is better than not apologizing.
My sentiments exactly. And it speaks to the bigger issue: is your goal to demonize the person, or to open people's minds? Even when it's someone easy to demonize, like Mr. "distressed babies," although apparently his 401(k) tactics are not unique.
Moving on to more noble thoughts, I love Eleanor Catton's meditation on art and consumerism:
At its best, literature is pure encounter: it resists consumption because it cannot be used up and it cannot expire. The bonds that are formed between readers and writers, between readers and characters, and between readers and ideas, are meaningful in a way that the bonds formed between consumers and products can never be. Literature demands curiosity, empathy, wonder, imagination, trust, the suspension of cynicism, and the eradication of prejudice; in return, it affords the reader curiosity, empathy, wonder, imagination, trust, the suspension of cynicism, and the eradication of prejudice.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment