You'd better go in disguise...

Whoops. I went somewhere I shouldn't have gone on the Web yesterday. (No, not what you're thinking, this was perfectly SFW, just not safe for mental composure.)

Going there wasn't the problem. Getting involved was the problem.

Won't happen again. Well, at least not this week. I can get in enough trouble with comments and posts hereabout, and with my "too nuanced for either side" stances in Cites & Insights. This extra trouble I didn't need. My own stupid fault: As noted, I was somewhere I shouldn't have been...

The subject: Other old farts may remember Big John & Sparky [NOT the newer religious-indoctrination show], which got me up on Saturday mornings back when radio was, well, radio. Its theme was "Teddy Bears' Picnic," from whence this line comes. Man, it's amazing I can learn anything new at all, with almost six decades of c**p stuck in my brain!


Update, October 7:

I belatedly realized that the subject of this post may give a misleading impression--that is, that I might return to a weblog and comment "in disguise."

I don't maintain pseudonyms. I don't use pseudonyms. The only time I ever comment "anonymously" is with Blogger logs that require you to establish an account before posting with name, but let you post anonymously--and then, I always include my name.

(I did go back to the scene of this foofaraw, and see loads of comments that refer to me. None of them came from me, and none will. Some day I'll learn to look through some examples of how comments are treated on a log before stepping into the fray. Of course, I may be dead five days before I learn that, but there's always hope.)


So that's where DykeAppella got the idea for Lesbian Picnic! :)

I take it you got into a shouting match on some poliblog???? hmmmm????

Now, back to arguing about the damn Patriot Act... :)

With all due respect and your recent debate aside Mr. Crawford there is a difference between advocacy and intellectual discourse. Both are quite legitimate. The first usually means reaching out to those who aren't familiar with the issue, the second usually means sticking only with those who are.

If you want to spend your time solely within the intellectual thats your right. If you actually want to make change then you have to advocate, which means arguments that are less 'nuanced' and more to the point (and without acronyms).

Since I said not word one about advocacy vs. discourse, I assume you're saying that the only way to change anything is to eliminate all nuance and go for the black-and-white, total-opposition approach.

I don't accept that, and find the attitude terribly negative. If thinking (and learning, and even changing your mind) is anathema to effective advocacy, we're all doomed. And, for that matter, the idea that you can't educate people ("reaching out to those who aren't familiar with the issue") without dumbing things down is also unacceptable to me. If that means I'm a lousy advocate, so be it.

You're not a lousy advocate. Educating people is where it's at. GregS is kinda like MY mind, as you implied with your original post...full of it.

" eliminate all nuance and go for the black-and-white, total-opposition approach."

eliminating nuance and sticking to a black-and-white approach is not automatically a total-opposition approach. That is a negative attitude on your part.

Everything can be broken down into its smallest parts from biological cells to binary code. Breaking down a point of view (even a middle-of-the-road view) to its smallest parts is not dumbing down, its simply laying ground work. Talking points have a bad rap but every child's education is based on simplification and repetition. B is for Boy is not a bad thing.

Subscribe to Comments for "You'd better go in disguise..."