Re: Protein Wisdom

Believe this or not, I dont believe a persons credibility is dependent solely upon whether they agree with me or not

Neither do I. I think a person's credibility is dependent upon whether or not they present their arguments in a manner that accords with demonstrable facts as well as whether or not they are willing to admit to an error and adjust their arguments accordingly if they are shown that the facts contradict their case.

That you do is very startling.

I do not, and have never said that I do. Rather, you have simply claimed that this is what I do and have done so based on a misunderstanding of what I've actually said.

I have friends and co-workers I would trust with my life and trust to give me correct information/facts on things like the sun rises in the east that I have profound political differences with.

I do as well.

The old 70s meme the personal is the political has never lived in my home.

I respect that and agree.

Indeed, if you want to see the root cause (God, how I hate that overused expression) of the death of civil disagreement, it exists in that phrase.

Understood and agreed.

It is why Amanda Marcotte felt compelled to tell non-Leftists to shut-up and go away where it concerns rapist Roman Polanski. It is why even the most reasonable arguments against same-sex marriage are met with YOU ARE A HOMOPHOBE!! or dissents from Obamas policies are met with YOU ARE A RACIST!

Yeah, she's kind of a nut in a lot of ways. I have found little to respect among those sorts of "feminists," as well as among those who ascribe to racism what could more easily be explained by policy. And I don't ascribe objections to same-sex marriage to homophobia - I ascribe it to a fundamental misunderstanding of the history of marriage coupled with contempt for the right of the individual to engage in private contracts with other individuals, as well as an underlying belief that marriage and other such contracts ought only to be allowed if they're likely to prove useful to the state or the people at large.

The effort to destroy the credibility of the person you politically, and merely, disagree with is wrong.

Whenever one points out someone else's error, one has damaged someone else's credibility as a consequence - one has attacked, as you say, the person. This is what you yourself do when you attack someone on your blog - you seek to destroy a person's credibility. For example, when you attack Jennings for having, uh, being told by a guy who was of legal age that he had engaged in sex with someone who was also of legal age, and not running to the police with this non-crime or whatever it is that he was supposed to do, you are seeking to destroy his credibility - his worthiness of confidence. The entire point of your attack is to show that he is, in fact, not worthy of confidence, and that he should be dismissed from his role as a result. Likewise, the entire point of my attack is to show that a given person is not worthy of confidence, and that the person should be dismissed from his role as a result, or at least taken with a grain of salt. So it doesn't make any sense to single me out as some sort of sinister fellow who is unique in harming the credibility of those he writes about. We all do this.

Such a scorched-earth approach absent any real evidence of personal malfeasance or malice of misinformation is counter-productive. It is akin to giving 15 to life to someone caught with a few doobies in their car.

The point is that there *is* malice of information. That's what I've been saying all along. I understand that you yourself do not agree that this has been the case, but I do, and I'm preparing the relevant evidence right now. Think about it this way: I obviously think that it is the case. You don't have to agree, but you're wasting your time if you're trying to tell me that it's bad to say something is bad if something is not bad. I know that. My position is that I am saying that something is bad and the thing is indeed bad, which is to say that I'm calling a bad thing bad.

I suggest you examine what you are trying to accomplish because my perception is that setting the record straight is not your actual goal.

I'm sorry that this is your perception, but I tend to go by mine.

PS Ive had a very pleasant afternoon entertaining my twin grandsons, seven y/o last Sunday. Living in the now for a few hours and in real life imparts valuable perspective.

I am happy to hear it. Speaking of which, it might save everyone a lot of time and effort that could otherwise go to more wholesome things such as that if you were to post this exchange on PW, perhaps just in a comment, in order that everyone concerned might get a better handle on what it is that I am actually doing. There seems to be quite a bit of confusion about all of this, and I imagine that a number of people have the same questions and perceptions as do you.

From: Barrett Brown [mailto:barriticus@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 6:25 PM

To: Darleen Click
Subject: Re: Protein Wisdom

Certainly you have advocated that people "be stopped." When you criticize a politician or his policies which you believe to be harmful or based on untruth, you are attempting - as you should - to try to put a stop to that person's credibility and his ability to accomplish his political goals; you are trying to convince others not to vote for his party, to support the party that works against him, and to voice their opposition to that person - to stop him. Likewise, when I criticize a pundit or his assertions which I believe to be harmful or based on untruth, I am trying to put a stop to that person's credibility and his arguments, because I don't want disinformation to spread - I am trying to stop that person from succeeding in his goal of convincing others. I'm not trying to, like, "stop" anyone in the sense of tying them up and dropping them down a well or anything like that. I'm just writing an essay in response to what I think have been bad arguments. This is a very common thing to do, but of course, since I'm the one doing it this time, a lot of people are engaging in some pretty wacked-out histrionics.

On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Darleen Click <darleen@darleenclick.com> wrote:

Barrett

With all due respect, this isnt about my feelings. I am an opinion writer, not a reporter. I dont deliberately engage in disseminating inaccurate facts. Have I attacked other flesh-and-blood people? Well, I rarely attack dead people. Certainly, though I would argue my tone is more mocking than attack And I certainly have expressed my frustration and/or exasperation.

I dont know what you mean my job is to stop this from happening. Are opinions that do not fit in with your world view that threatening you feel you must put a stop to them?

Im curious, as I have never in any of my written pieces, even the most mocking, have advocated that the people making fools of themselves should be stopped.

What am I missing?

Sincerely

Darleen

From: Barrett Brown [mailto:barriticus@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 11:11 AM

To: Darleen Click
Subject: Re: Protein Wisdom

Darleen-

The editor of Mad is Joe Raiola <joe.raiola@madmagazine.com>; he is always looking for visual humor. I would suggest picking one or two of your best pics and sending them along with a cover letter to the effect that you'd be interested in assignments or just submitting some things down the road. There are a few other publications you might want to get in contact with as well; the conservatives weeklies seem to run full-page cartoons and the like on occasion, for instance.

I understand that you're a flesh-and-blood person with real feelings and the like, and I can assure that I understand where you're coming from. The problem is that you have made serious and continual errors in the course of attacking other flesh-and-blood people, and that sometimes inaccurate information can spread before it is corrected. My job is to try to stop this from happening. I understand that you probably don't see any of the things you write as false or misleading, but I do, and I'll be making that case in my article.

Barrett

On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Darleen Click <darleen@darleenclick.com> wrote:

Barrett

I rarely do behind the scenes emailing about posts I put up unless it is something serious. Many times such emailing can create hard feelings. Im very open about myself, my background and see little reason not to engage in an open forum about what I post.

Unfortunately due to time constraints (i.e. my day job and family), I do not always read all the comment threads. I was, until yesterday, unaware of your offer to put me in touch with anyone about my Photoshops. I so sincerely thank you and yes, I would like that information.

I dont believe you have been uncivil if we are talking about tone. However, the dishonesty I detected goes to your sky-diving into a thread and attempting to manufacture responses to your agenda. Now, of course, you will disagree with my assessment. But on the ACORN thread several commenters offered you legal descriptions of a criminal enterprise and you either refused to respond or brushed them off. Civilly, of course, but such a response gave immediate suspicion to commenters as a bad faith actor on your part.

I am a manager and as such I deal with all sorts of personnel issues on a day to day basis. I am sensitized, so to speak, on passive-aggressive behavior and how some people can appear civil and still be highly manipulative of others in order to produce the reactions they are looking for. I have found myself on more than one occasion counseling not only the reacting person on how they have been manipulated but also the person doing the manipulating. Interestingly, the manipulator always denies their role; and sometimes that is because they are entirely unaware of their own behavior.

I honestly believe if you really wanted to engage on good faith debate, the PW regulars would have given you that debate. As you know, I indeed corrected commenters that you were a Leftist. However, PW regulars are suspicious (and with very good reason) of bad faith debaters. It would be helpful if you realized your own role in creating the reactions you received.

If I may make an analogy you cannot arrive at a party were everyone is enjoying themselves and make snide comments about the quality of the guests and party food and not get heated reactions. Barrett, regardless of your resume, people look at behavior first and foremost. A disdain based on a perceived idea of how low brow everyone else in the room is a sure recipe to receive hostility. No one wants to be on the receiving end of barely disguised condescension.

My offer to talk to you by phone is not in order to avoid a paper trail. Indeed, at work I put into place an A.V.O. procedure (avoid verbal orders). However, I wanted it more as an opportunity for you to understand me as an actual living breathing human being and why I think the way I do. My presumption, at this time and fully acknowledged that I may be wrong, is that you carry some sort of cartoon idea of what I am (or any of the people at PW) in your head. I am looking to disabuse you of that notion.

Last September I did an interview with Skewz about PW and I think you should listen to it to give you at least some idea of who I am and how the PW commentariat works.

http://www.mevio.com/episode/125035/Skewz+Podcast+25+Talking+About+the+Nanny-State+And+Media+Bias+with+Darleen+Click+of+Protein+Wisdom

Sincerely

Darleen

From: Barrett Brown [mailto:barriticus@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 9:58 AM
To: Darleen Click
Subject: Re: Protein Wisdom

Darleen-

I'd be happy to chat with you via phone if you'd like, but I prefer to have a paper trail when dealing with anything related to my work.

You've had my e-mail address for months and have been free to contact me at any time, as it's included in my post registration and I even provided it to you and everyone else a few days ago in the course of offering to put you in touch with an editor at MAD that might be interested in your Photoshop pieces. Let me know if you would still like that info.

As far as I can tell, the last question you asked me was something like, "Why are you being so dishonest?" That's not the sort of question I can answer without resorting to sarcasm. If you have any other, better questions that aren't loaded, I will certainly do my best to answer them.

I will note that both Jeff and Dan have already conceded that my behavior has always been civil and that I have always engaged everyone in an honest manner, as will be noted in the article. Since the current strategy at PW hinges on trying to paint me as uncivil and dishonest, I would suggest that you fellows develop a new strategy.

Regards,

Barrett Brown

On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Darleen Click <darleen@darleenclick.com> wrote:

Mr. Brown,

In regards to the hit piece youre putting out on PW, youre talking to Jeff and Dan Collins but havent made the first effort to talk to me?

Im available; Ill even give you my phone number.

What say you?

Darleen Click