Re: Here's my email address
Subject: Re: Here's my email address
From: Dan COLLINS <vermontaigne@gmail.com>
Date: 10/2/09, 19:11
To: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>

I think that the reason that it has cerebral commentators is because its continuing mission is to consider the nature of language, particularly, but not exclusively, with reference to broadly "political" discourse.  It's interesting, because I recently wrote on Change.gov's promotion of Esperanto as a second language, and particularly the claims that Esperanto has less bias built into it than other languages and that it is capable of expressing any human thought or emotion.  In point of fact, Jeff and I take the view that every language, every use of language, has bias in it, because the function of language is largely to screen and focus the welter of information that we receive through the senses.  Of course, no language is capable of expresssing every human thought or emotion, which is why Shakespeare, to cite one example, was a great creator of neologisms, and why we have adopted so many borrowed words in our bastard language.

Still, bias and all, language is what, largely, we are stuck with, and its use and abuse is what we're after.  There's altogether too much ascription of meaning among those of all ideological camps who would impute motives to other people not actually denoted in their language.  It's not merely a matter of ad hominem invective; it's also a matter of psychologizing--a practice which has become distressingly generalized.  Take for example what Jeff would refer to as "second generation feminism" or "identity feminism."  The postulate that language is a phallogocentric mechanism whose function is to subjugate women with respect to men and to recapitulate an oppressive order functions in effect to rake all of the laudable human attributes to the side of "the feminine" whilst casting all of the noxious ones under the rubric of "the masculine."  It seems to us at Protein Wisdom that ideological orientations of all denominations have come to function in much the same way, and that this amounts to an a priori abuse of language.  So that's the skeptical and critical lens that we bring to bear on these issues.  PW is characterized by self-mockery and self-assertion that go hand in hand, and are sometimes hard to distinguish.

Having said that, we understand that despite our efforts to attain a certain objectivity, we are as limited as any other ego-bound, selfish creatures.  Insofar as we're aware of that at any given time, and insofar as we can distance ourselves from investing our egos in our arguments, and insofar as we're apt to consider evidence and reasoning that contradicts what we think we know, we are honest.  Of course, we fail, and unlike many of those who call themselves "liberal," since I'm as chary of those labels as you are, we don't believe that having an appreciation of our bias exonerates us.  And really, we tend to regard many expressions of altruism with a very jaundiced eye, particularly when the claim is mobilized to justify the redistribution of other people's property.  At root, we have probably more critical of human nature than the great majority of those who would self-classify as "liberal," while at the same time believing that people ought to be left to their own devices as much as possible as typically uniquely qualified to make decisions for themselves.  Whether that amounts to small-l "libertarianism" or not I'll leave to you, because I don't use the term very much and am not a student at all of the subject.

Having said that, if you regard yourself as a "libertarian," I don't feel it's my business to contradict you, because I feel that you argue in good faith, and make the effort to inform yourself and to consider other people's views.  This is why, as well, I'm not interested on what Frum or Brook or Friedersdorf or Moran have to say about what a true conservative is, and how awful Beck is for the "conservative movement," which is apparently on the wrong track whenever it deviates from their opinion.  The citizen aggregate in the free market is massively parallel in the computational sense, which is another way of saying that we believe in the unseen hand of the marketplace, but from a more systems-theoretical point of view, perhaps.  And we see the dangers, too, in "overconnectedness" within systems, and the likelihood of unintended consequences, which we believe that the present, wonkish administration will eventually come to understand, to our national sorrow.  Experimentalism is necessarily wasteful from a certain theoretical perspective.  At the same time, it's indispensable.

We are avid defenders as we iell of the Western philosophical/scientific tradition.  We find it extremely strange that many beneficiaries of that tradition denigrate it as a result of its own insights into its own bias, which is wielded against it by chauvinists for other traditions that will not tolerate such self-inquiry.  I think it's safe to say that most of us believe that many of the "academic liberals" seem to have no sense of allegiance to or even gratitude for the achievements from which they've benefitted.  Michael Moore's grotesque insistence that he hasn't gotten anything from capitalism at all is a recent example.  The peculiar selfish turpitude of the Hollywood defenders of Mr. Polanski is another, and so is the disdain for "the man on the street" shown by some of Obama's czar picks.


Yes, I would say that your two examples are fair.  I think, though, that to state that a different company or organization that has subscribed to provide government-funded care ought to be free to laud the presumed characteristics of a bill that hasn't even been subject to public scrutiny is wrong.  The government is not the executive branch, and the denial of franking privileges to minority Congressmonsters, the refusal to post the bill as Obama had promised for public perusal, much less broadcast the negotiations on C-SPAN, the firing of IGs, flouting of rules of succession in Massachusetts at whim by rewriting, and so forth really do indict the superior moral authority and transparency of these people.

The second one's just silly, and you have the right of it.

I've always found you civil at PW.

Before you go and say something flattering about me, though, keep in mind that I'm just older than a lot of the commenters there.  I get my strokes at home, and my wife and kids don't really read what I post.  I don't think that I'm smarter or wiser than most people over there, and honestly, and I'm just as narcissistic as anyone else who thinks his opinions are worth posting on the web, and dreadfully proud of my humility.  So, don't feel as though you need to treat me gently.

Also, I haven't posted at PW since June, so you're welcome to use any of this or ask me anything else you like, but I really haven't been over there recently.

Best regards,
Dan



On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, Dan-

Thanks again for taking the time to talk to me. I spoke with Jeff a bit earlier today, and we had a good conversation about the nature of political debate on the internet and some of the problems that are particular to that medium, as well as the specific drawbacks that can be seen at PW in the context of some of the debates I've had with commenters there.

The reason this article is focusing on PW is the same reason I've been debating there for so long to the exclusion of all other blogs - of all of the anti-Democratic blogs (I hesitate to call it "conservative"), it has, I think, the most cerebral commenters, and this of course is a function of Jeff and his unique style and viewpoints. I'm picking on PW's commenters because they're the best, which is to say that any faults they exhibit are probably going to be found among all lesser people as well.

So this article is going to draw heavily on incidents in which I've encountered illogical or dishonest debate tactics on the part of some of the commenters there. I know, of course, that I'm accused of being illogical and dishonest, and I'm going to give anyone who wants it a chance to respond to my article and point to any instances of rhetorical wrongdoing on my part, and I'll link to these from my article.

As you might expect, I'll be pointing to you, Jeff, and a couple of commenters like Sdferr as the reason that PW is the best and most interesting blog of its sort, as you in particular aren't afraid of conceding a minor point or making a correction if you're convinced that it's warranted; I remember one incident in particular when you'd gotten the impression from another, sloppier blog that a certain story was being "trumpeted by the MSM," and then immediately corrected that line when I noted that the MSM hadn't touched the story. Obviously, a lot of people would have gotten defensive and refrained from making a correction at all; I've run into some static at Daily Kos, for instance, trying to get people to correct minor points such as that.

So, I've got a couple of questions for you.

1. What sets PW apart from other blogs, particularly those in the anti-Obama/Democrat/"liberal" camp?

2. Take a look at these two incidents and tell me if you think that I'm right to see these as examples of poor logic:

MARKETING INCIDENT

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=15330 Darleen Click tried to claim that Obama had no respect for the First Amendment because Humana was told to cease sending out marketing materials that referred to government policy, with this being a violation of the agreement it had signed with the feds upon receiving a contract to sell federal medical treatment.

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=15330#comment-788190 Carin quoted a news article; her excerpt began with the following sentence: According to a source with inside knowledge of the way CMS regulates marketing guidelines, Medicare providers are only allowed to communicate with plan members about the benefits they have now, not about possible changes to benefits.

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=15330#comment-788201 Yea, I found it interesting that BB is changing this issue into code words. It was “marketing”. This was when I decided it would be a good idea to write this article.

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=15330#comment-788211 I noted this.

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=15330#comment-788229 And, honestly - BB twists until the argument fits into his nice little package. Humana said it would refrain from certain “marketing” … so all we have to do is call whatever we don’t like “Marketing” and they’re in breach. So, that's her response to that.

"They did it, too!"

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=13135#comment-508729 Big Bang Hunter wrote: Barrett, does it ever occur to you that arguments to the effect “well they did it too”, qualifies at the level of 5th grade discourse?"

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=13135#comment-508736 I responded: I’m sorry, BBH, I’m going to have to direct your comments to Mythos McGee, who was overheard to have told the duchess:

“Remember the laudatory proclamation that Gerry Studds (D-MA) got after he got caught shtumphing the pages?” Uh-oh! Blowback!

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=13135#comment-508738 Rob Crawford responds: WTF is your point?

3. Would you describe my contributions to PW as being generally civil?

4. Do you think I am being dishonest when I describe myself as a libertarian?


If you have anything else you'd like to mention for use in the article, feel free to add it. The piece will appear first on True/Slant, then possibly at Huffington Post and later my weekly column here in Brooklyn. An extended version will be used as the last chapter in my upcoming book, which will be released next year.

Thanks,

Barrett Brown
Brooklyn, NY
512-560-2302


On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Dan COLLINS <vermontaigne@gmail.com> wrote:
What did you need?

Thanks,
Dan