Conor’s response
Integrity and personal example compelled me to link to Conor’s response to me, which I failed to do, and I must. So linked. You should read it, if you read my previous post on the matter. And, if you must, you can read the comments which are universally about me, and, well, not cordial.
Personal insults don’t bother me on a intellectual level, although of course they hurt– in my experience, the only people who claim that personal insults don’t hurt are people attempting to shield themselves from the pain of personal insults. (I am called both a totalitarian and fascist, and a pussy, in that combox. I would have thought those were contradicting claims!) In my defense, though, both Conor’s response and the response from the comments misrepresent me in the same way that Conor is sure he has been misrepresented. They claim to argue that I am calling for politicized art. But, of course, the claim of my post was exactly that the NEA conference call wasn’t about politicizing art. I could be wrong about that! It wouldn’t be the first time. But I was not excusing politicizing the NEA; my entire point was that no such excuse was necessary because no such thing took place. To see so much vast verbiage expended at attacking me for endorsing politicized art, when my entire point was that I didn’t think such a thing was happening, is discouraging.
The self-critical process is invaluable, but it is also always in short supply.
Incidentally, should Conor ever show up in the comments section of this blog, personal insults against him would not be tolerated, both because of my personal regard for him, and because of this blog’s comment’s policy. I am told by those in the know that it is childish for us to care about such things, but we do, and I am proud that we do.
You’re damn right, Freddie. I’m proud that we do, too. The Scene’s comment section has really devolved if you ask me. That won’t happen here.Report
On re-reading all three posts it really seems to boil down to:
Connor says/approves of someone saying that the NEA is being used for political messaging and this is deplorable and Liberals should be ashamed.
You say No it’s not and conservatives are hypocrites for saying so.
He says yes it is. Then his commenteriate go collectively berserk like tweens in a mall though to be fair your first comment in his post made no sense to me.
And yes, lets keep the comments civilized. I hate scuffing up my monocle.Report
Dude, nothing is worse than a scuffed monocle.Report
Mine literally popped out of my eye and fell into my champagne flute, cracking both in the process. I’m terribly perturbed.Report
My god man! Here, you can borrow my emergency Monocle to cover your shame until you can arrange for a replacement. Now just hold a glass of water and pretend that it’s something high proof and you should be able to skate by without one of the moderators throwing you out.Report
Monocle or not, the rabble will still know you’re gentlemen by your spats.Report
Hey, come on now, aren’t we being just a little toooo sensitive? After forty years in heavy industry I’m rather immune to the occasional mofo, sob, or whatever? And, where’s the fun of aggravating my leftist friends if they can’t hurl an insult or two my way.
After all those years of arguing and fighting with commie union thugs, the internet and in particular the LOOG is rather like a gathering in a library.Report
Yeah but we’re more like a library that serves drinks. The hurling of a few insults and the use of some flame-baiting is not out-of-bounds, of course, but we strive to keep this forum from devolving into the rancorous and even obnoxious sort of place so many internet forums turn into. Balance in all things.Report
I could be wrong, Bob, but I think if I was too sensitive, I wouldn’t link to Conor’s response at all. Or, indeed, frequent blogs that didn’t satisfy my ideological preconceptions. You know?Report
Now Freddie, I’ve always associated you with the intellectual wing of the Left (now don’t go and get all haughty on me, that’s not exactly a compliment) and to be honest I’m not well enough acquainted with the sundry blogs and bloggers to know their political orientation, rather a bit confusing, and at my age I try and spend as much time with books as possible. But, I always enjoy a good epitaph thrown my way ’cause it makes me think I’ve drawn blood…but the wife says that’s not how one gains converts, and she’s right of course.
So however you wanna handle it is fine with me but this kinda made you look like you were seeking sympathy, which I don’t believe is your style. But, that’s just my overview from fly-over country plus the beloved, and slightly confused, E.D. is right about not wanting to let the place deteriorate into a verbal whorehouse.
So fight on, dude!Report
I don’t know about the “beloved” part, Bob. Just sayin’.Report
To me, it doesn’t sound like Freddie’s annoyed at being insulted, but at having his post utterly misinterpreted and the point he was making ignored.Report
I don’t know that Freddie’s point was ignored as much as both sides were talking past each other and the tone wasn’t that conducive to both sides feeling like they had to listen.
The one side was saying “this is not appropriate, signalling is going on, the federal government shouldn’t be doing this” and the other side was saying “but nothing weird was said during the call, read the transcript, if you’d read the transcript you’d see that nothing inappropriate was said, what’s so inappropriate about Service Day anyway?”
As tensions got higher and higher and more people resigned. This sort of made the argument appear to have a clear winner.
Which then turned into a ban on us calling Conor “Friedersdork”.
Which, if you ask me, is the biggest tragedy to come out of this whole argument.Report
Which is worse: a pussy fascist, or a scumbag who writes possibly accurate book about a former boss?Report
Freddie,
Two things:
1) We’re aware that comments at TAS have declined in quality, and we’re working on a solution.
2) Isn’t your position that there isn’t anything wrong with the NEA advancing a president’s political agenda, so long as that agenda isn’t controversial or partisan?Report
Wasn’t meant to be. Maybe I didn’t articulate that well. My point is that the guy from the NEA wasn’t there as a representative from the NEA offering funding or influence but rather offering guidance to people from the National Service Day administration in how to use art to support the event. That’s why I think it’s key to point out that no NEA money was ever on the table. And the Service Day is simply going to have some content in policy position, no matter what. As far as that goes, it seems as innocuous as possible. But I’ve been wrong before.Report
I guess I’d say that while I can’t think of any political agenda that is more innocuous and less controversial than National Day of Service, I do still think it is a matter of using art for politics, and I don’t think it’s innocuous for the NEA to be involved in that.Report