The Hierarchy of Disagreement

I found this illustration of how to order your arguments at the Starts With A Bang blog. This blog usually leads one to a first source. However, I had to do some digging to find the original creator of this image. This image is all over the web, but I think the first source is here, from the Create Debate blog in April 2008. This image (click on it to enlarge) was created to illustrate an earlier point by Paul Graham, whose text-only posts I've been (occasionally) reading for years. The premise is to always lead with your top level reasonable arguments, and never resort to the bottom layers. As Ethan Siegel (SWAB) put it,

It's sometimes tough to decipher what the central point of someone else's argument is, because most people don't argue clearly and logically. But if you can identify it, that's when you win. When someone else mucks around at the bottom of the pyramid, don't sink to their level; stay up high. Those top two levels are really the only way to ever change someone's mind, or to sway other intelligent, thinking people to your side.

This is an attitude that would serve us well on this site.

Continue ReadingThe Hierarchy of Disagreement

Verbing the net noun.

The word "texting" sounds harsh and garbled when it comes out of a speaker's mouth. A sentence where "text" is used as a verb, such as , "I texted him yesterday but he didn't text me back," instantly summons an image of a slack-jawed, gum-popping teenage girl- all ignorance and frivolity. The words just sound stupid. Don't blame me- some of us Gen-Yers fought off the term "texting" the same way we did bad fads like Crocs and Ugg boots. Even deep into the aughts, years after "texting", we still said "sending a text message" instead. "Texting" prevailed however, for the same reason that Crocs and Uggs became ubiquitous: aesthetics aside, it was damn comfy and easy. "Texting" might make for an ugly-sounding word, but it came out more smoothly and quickly than the correct "sending a text message".

Continue ReadingVerbing the net noun.

To Read Or Not To Read, And Yet to Write—‘Tis A Conundrum Devoutly To Be Solved

I've heard of this phenomenon, but never before encountered it directly. Excuse me, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the utter vapidity of this... I have a MySpace page. Admittedly, I pay less attention to it these days in lieu of my Facebook page (all these Pages...for such a functional Luddite, it amazes me I navigate these strange seas), but I do check it at least once a week. I post a short blog there. And I collect Friend Requests. I received such a request the other day from someone whose name I will not use. Unless it's from someone or something I recognize, I go to the requester's page to check them out. Saves on a small amount of embarrassment. This person had a legit page. Aspiring writer. Claimed to be working on several short stories and a novel. Great. I'm all about supporting other writers. Sometimes we're all we've got. But I scrolled down to the section where he lists his interests and find under BOOKS this:

I actually don't read to much but I do like a few. Twilight, Harry Potter, Impulse, Dead on Town Line, etc.
I sat back and stared at that and the question ran through my head like a neon billboard, "How does that work? Just how the hell do you want to be a writer and not like to read?" So I sent this person a message and asked. I told him that to be a writer you have to love words, love stories... Well, here's the exchange, sans names:
Okay, you sent me a friend request, so I looked at your profile. It says you want to be a writer, but then under Books you say you don't read much. How does that work? You want to be a writer you have to love words, you have to love stories, you have to love it on the page, and that means reading A LOT. You might just blow this off, but don't. If you really want to be a writer, you must read. That's where you learn your craft, sure, but more importantly that's where you nurture the love of what you say you want to do.

Continue ReadingTo Read Or Not To Read, And Yet to Write—‘Tis A Conundrum Devoutly To Be Solved

Conspiracies, Fiction, and New TV

Time out for a bit of pop culture. Indulge me, this is only marginally serious. I just finished watching the new show on SyFy called Warehouse 13. I enjoyed it, it was a good ride, even though they clearly went after the X-Files crowd with this one. It could be worth a few hours to see where they go with it. They took the endless warehouse from Indiana Jones, added some National Treasure grace notes, stirred in a dollop of Muldur and Scully, and introduced a bit of humor. That last is very important, because when you have a premise that is this borderline, taking it too seriously is risking alienating a lot of audience. The main reason the X-Files worked was the mood, the color, the textures that Chris Carter wove into it, and he played the conspiracy theory game like a master. But for me, it got very old very fast. The problems with the X-Files were manifold and manifest. The biggest one was Scully. She was the dumbest "scientist" I'd ever seen on television or read in fiction. To remain so obdurately unseeing through all that she was put through required zero imagination in the character, zero sense of humor, and probably some sort of serial fixation or related pathology. If they'd played that up it might have worked, but for pity's sake she was just dense. And therefore unbelievable. Not to mention, of course, that much of the "science" in X-Files was atrocious. But that's a charge that can be leveled as many shows on television, many movies, and quite a few novels. (It would seem to me, though, that when a show is based supposedly on science, even fringe science, an attempt would be made to Get It Right. It wouldn't take much in most instances, just someone on staff who could say "That won't work" and then offer a way that it would. I understand some shows have such a person, but he or she is more often ignored than heeded, probably because the recommendations wouldn't be dramatic. But I often wonder if the real reason they're ignored is because the assumption is made that putting in valid science would make the audience feel stupid---since clearly it makes the producers of the shows feel stupid!) The other problem with it was the profundity of the secrets ultimately being kept. It worked well when Muldur was just going through a bunch of old case files no one wanted to tackle because they led to bizarre places. Kept modest like that would have allowed the concept to work on the fringe, where it started out, and could have been very entertaining. But when it became this all-encompassing, "the aliens have been here and we are in league with them" kind of schtick, it became ridiculous. Because they were trying to keep it consistent with mimetic fiction.

Continue ReadingConspiracies, Fiction, and New TV

Want to know what I think?

That's why you're on the internet, cruising the interblargosphere. You're looking for things to read that you might not necessarily agree with but which spark your interest because you're always on the lookout for a new take or new point of view on something. It might even be something you already have a definite opinion on, but you read on because you like reading things that make you think regardless of whether you agree with them. You're all about soaking up as many differing viewpoints as you can, but you've no interest in entering a comment-battle so if you do object, you do so in silence (possible but unlikely). You may be looking for things to read that you already know you agree with and very little else (more likely). You may even be looking for things to read that not only contradict you but flat-out piss you off in order to inspire you to write a post for the blog you've been neglecting (if you have a blog, that's almost a given). I'll admit I’m one who trawls for material to inspire my personal outrage, vicious condemnation and inordinately long & verbose sentences, but it’s not a new addition to my activity budget. Long before the internet I was fond of writing essays, treatises, critiques, manifestos, poems (gah!) or comic strips about things which annoyed or intrigued me, or into which I'd put an inordinate amount of idle thought. They were many & varied: a convoluted comparison between the dangers of running red lights at a pedestrian crossing on my BMX with doing the same in a car; a detailed essay on the specific mechanisms of “clown evil” and the macro-karmic reasons for their hideousness; my pseudo-Freudian theories on why some men spend inordinate lengths of time reading in the toilet, delaying every other resident not currently using a colostomy bag and glorying in their own pungent stench; a series of unnecessarily graphic limericks featuring my best friend, a busty wench and zombies. Before 1994 and my first experience with electronic mail I'd fax (yes, fax), post or hand these missives to my friends and see what reactions I'd get. They ranged from “meh” to humouring me, the occasional laugh, occasional indignant defensiveness and – more often than not – sideways looks and quiet voicings of concern for my mental stability (especially when my letters were illustrated). I didn't know it then, but with my unsolicited opinionated ranting, arguments for or against things noone was actually discussing in the real world and blatant & ridiculous attention-seeking behaviour, I was in Gilbert & Sullivan’s parlance the very model of a modern major pain the arse. In today’s terms: a blogger. So, no, it’s not a new thing for me and certainly not a new phenomenon for humanity either, this public sharing of opinion with people who don’t care. Celebrated Protestant Original Gangster, Martin Luther, is famous for publicly posting his disagreements . . .

Continue ReadingWant to know what I think?