The Talking Heads will Feed Themselves

Erik Kain

Erik writes about video games at Forbes and politics at Mother Jones. He's the contributor of The League though he hasn't written much here lately. He can be found occasionally composing 140 character cultural analysis on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

8 Responses

  1. …And centrism for the sake of centrism can be every bit as dogmatic as contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism. Good post. Between this and Freddie’s responses, I can see I have my work cut out for me when I next write.Report

  2. Kyle E. Moore says:

    You know, at this point, it’s almost worth exploring exactly what a good faith argument and opposition is.Report

  3. Kyle – to be honest, I’m not so certain it’s worth trying to figure out when an argument is and is not made in good faith. Instead, I think the relevant issue (somewhat expressed in the commenting policy I drafted for this site) is whether the speaker is attributing a motive to his opponent that the opponent has not expressly stated.Report

  4. E.D. Kain says:

    Mark, one problem with “expressly stated” is not all motives, even obvious ones, are stated. There is a certain amount of reading between the lines, or studying of patterns, requisite in attributing motive I think…Report

  5. Freddie says:

    That’s a temptation that I always expressly disavow and catch myself doing time and again… I’m working on it, really.Report

  6. E.D. Kain says:

    At least you can admit it, Freddie…. 😉Report

  7. E.D. – very true. It’s an extremely amorphous division between determining good and bad faith. There were two posts a few weeks back, one from William Bradford at his site, and one at, I think PoMo Con that would seem to have some significant implications for any discussion of attributing good or bad faith to a speaker.Report