On 14 Oct 2010 at 14:56, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
> [email protected] wrote circa 10/14/2010 10:31 AM:
> > Having
> > myself come to the conclusion that _The American
> > Scholar_ was a piece of shit (during at least
> > part of Epstein's tenure as editor), I have
> > good reason to conclude that he's not a very
> > good editor, pretty good reason (I think)
> > to discount what he has to say about the value
> > of a "literary education", and very good reason
> > (independent of such discounting) to conclude
> > that his taste and mine differ a great deal.
>
> Saying someone's work is a piece of shit is entirely different from
> saying someone's taste is different from yours or accusing the subject
> of a non sequitur. The former isn't the slightest bit constructive and,
> indeed, is destructive and petulant.
As you might suspect, I disagree with this last sentence.
(I also question the modifier "entirely" in the previous
sentence, but agree with it in general.) Calling something
"a piece of shit" may or may not be constructive, may or may
not be destructive, and may or may not be petulant. Certainly
calling "someone's work" "a piece of shit" is ill-mannered if
it is addressed to the person whose work it is, or to any person
the speaker has any reason to believe (as I have not) that the
person or persons addressed is emotionally bonded to in a positive
way; but even in circumstances when a given act is ill-mannered,
its position on a notional scale from "constructive" to "destructive"
is not determined (and as far as I'm concerned--though your notions
of "constructive" and "destructive" may be very different from mine--
it may not even make sense to place it anywhere on such a scale).
Further, without conditions on the subject ("someone") and the
addressee(s) (the subject or people who are positively bonded to
the subject) like those above, I don't even think that calling
"someone's work" "a pice of shit" is necessarily ill-mannered.
(If I am a Communist addressing a convention of Communist,
presumably I will not be taken to be ill-mannered--much less
"destructive" or "petulant"--if I call _Mein Kampf_ a "piece
of shit".) Of course calling something "a piece of shit"
is a (somewhat strong) way of expressing an emotional attitude
towards it; so? Expressing such attitudes isn't _per se_
"petulant" (nor praiseworthy, nor this that or the other);
but it's part and parcel of everyday communication in every
medium, first and foremost face-to-face speech.
> The latter is, at least, somewhat
> respectful in the sense that it helps the reader know that, if they like
> Lee's work, then they may not like Joseph's work, indeed Joseph's work
> might be a waste of time for that person. And it's always helpful to
> know where your time might be wasted.
"Respectful" to whom? I will assent to these last two sentences
with the words "is, at least, somewhat respectful in the sense that"
stricken: "The latter" (A. calling X. "a piece of shit" in a
communication with "the reader") does indeed "help the reader know"
what A. thinks and feels about X., and thereby (depending on "the
reader"'s previous knowledge about A., and *possibly* about X.)
can "help the reader" assess and possibly modify his or her
thoughts and feelings about X. (and A.). Again, this is a very
usual part of everyday communication.
> I suppose the former is _useful_
> in the sense that it decreases Lee's credibility (because he calls
> things he dislikes "shit") and may, in fact, make Joseph's work more
> attractive.
Why in the world should my calling things I dislike "shit"
decrease my credibility? I don't see this at all (obviously).
I use language to express emotion (sometimes), to present
detailed reasoned arguments (sometimes), and to do both at
once (most of the time); so do we all (unless we are a certain
kind of fictional character with pointed ears, or the like).
Again, so?
> I'm fascinated with our tendency to fling insults back and forth at each
> other,
I flang (flung? flinged?) no insult at anyone here (unless
perhaps Epstein is lurking), nor for that matter am I aware
of any insult having been flung back at me (if you've intended
to insult me, please excuse my failure to be insulted; I will
try to do better in the future). Maybe Nick's mistakenly
list-posted phrase "mooning the group" was a bit petulant...
Certainly I insulted Epstein. I meant to. I don't see
why I *shouldn't* have meant to; or why, meaning to, I
should have refrained from doing so. The quoted material
on him was (not by the listmember quoting it, presumably,
but by its author the blurb-writer) intended to exalt
Epstein. Exaltation, insult...all part of the day's work.
> especially in these times of extreme political partisanship.
> Because this discussion is about credibility,
It is? Okay, I guess it became about credibility when I
claimed (without any expansion or documentation--the horror!
--until my later post) that Epstein's credibility on the
question "is a 'literary education' a Good Thing?" is
diminished by his having presided over a sterling example
of Bad Literary Publishing. But it's really you who have
(now) made "this discussion about credibility". So, if
you are willing, I invite to describe or define your
notion of "credibility", how it functions in communication,
and so on. I do think it's potentially interesting (and
it seems clear that what you mean by it is not what I
think I'd mean by it, if I were pressed to accept the
invitation I just gave you.
> I'll say that it would be
> interesting to study the extent to which "attack" or "negative"
> political ads lower the credibility of their target versus when (beyond
> what threshold) they actually lower the credibility of the supposed
> beneficiary. Does anyone know of any studies that target that sort of
> "blowback"?
>
> Here in Oregon, we're seeing lots of political attack ads. For the most
> part, to me, they increase the credibility of the attacked and decrease
> the credibility of the attacker, just as Lee's empty comment piques my
> curiosity in Joseph's work. The more others insult the target and make
> empty comments or call them names, the more I tend to think they had
> something valuable to say and their opponents are just "lashing out"
> with no real justification for their own position. Those expositions
> that avoid empty rhetoric and try to pinpoint, specifically, a
> distinction between the attacker and the attacked, increase the
> credibility of the attacker and decrease the credibility of the attacked.
>
> In any case, it's an interesting dynamic.
A distinct and (I think) very important difference between
advertisements (political or not) and conversations (including
asynchronous ones on mailing lists) is that advertisements are
all push, no pull. This suggests (I think correctly) that any
such dynamic as you identify in advertisements is very unlikely
to exist in the same (or even a highly similar) way in conversations.
I'm more interested in the case of conversations but I understand
that many people are interested in advertisements too.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
