html xmlns="" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> From the archives: Reasonable discussions, in polite tones.

Monday, October 08, 2007

Reasonable discussions, in polite tones.

via SLOG, which you should be reading anyway.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

This appears to be a parody.

But is it reasonable and in polite tones?

I think not. Rather, it is dripping with sarcasm (if one gets the joke) and thoroughly unreasonable since it intends to caricature its targets as unreasonable.

Consequently, I am left wondering: How could Megan post it here given her stated desire for resonable disussions in polite tones?

This is very perplexing indeed unless Megan herself is choosing to parody her own rules about polite discourse.

Could that be true? Is Megan using a parody as the basis of a self-parody?

I take this question seriously...but then again, you may not since you might think that I am myself just putting forth a parody of various overly analytic posters.

So let's clarify: Megan, what did you want to prompt when you posted this?

7:59 AM  
Anonymous Thelonious_Nick said...

While clearly a parody, without further context I'm not sure it's actually clear who the intended target is.

I'm assuming the target is those who so moderate their desire for peace in deference to others' views that their position becomes virtually indistinguishable from that of their opponents.

But then, the target might actually be anti-war protesters, and how ridiculous their flyers and banners would look without the usual overheated language.

8:18 AM  
Blogger Megan said...

Consequently, I am left wondering: How could Megan post it here given her stated desire for resonable disussions in polite tones?

Here's the deal, and it is a difficult deal to negotiate. This blog requires a fair amount of sophistication to follow, because it does lots of things simultaneously. Within a short time, I make fun of others and myself, say very serious things and say trivial things. The humor is often arch, so lots of people miss it, and I use profanity, which sends lots of people into a tailspin. I say in-jokes and refer back to old information without linking the reference. I wonder sometimes about explaining myself, but every time I do, I decide against it. Readers have to keep up.

Keeping up requires nimbleness. (This comes naturally to some people, I think. They don't know they do it, but I can definitely think of people who have never once missed the joke or the point, and make it better when they comment.) It isn't going to work if you are looking for rigid consistency and hoping to score off me when I contradict myself. I will likely contradict myself, because I think lots of things, and some oppose each other, and the degree of my belief changes with the situation.

I think my core beliefs are stable and I think they come through. I try, by and large, to be kind, and I am willing to get called on it if I am genuinely unkind. But I'm less receptive to being called on a misattribution, because the reader didn't read closely or get the joke.

That's a long defensive answer, and I'll also give you a short answer to your second question:

I don't know what I wanted to prompt. You're thinking too hard. It cracked me up and I linked it. I think t_n got it in his second paragraph. But all I knew was that it was funny.

8:53 AM  
Anonymous Peter said...

Okay, repeat that acronym ten times fast.

11:51 AM  
Blogger bBass said...

Megan is large, she contains multitudes.

2:17 PM  
Blogger Eric H said...

Here's a video from their spokesmen, Yoram Bauman:

9:36 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home