Wednesday, September 01, 2004

Wrong Direction II: The Blogosphere Let-Down

This whole discussion had disappointed me...my first fight with the blogoshpere…sigh…
I thought everyone 'got' the purpose of this blog...
My literary background hates that I now feel I have to explain it (like a comedian that explains the punch line of an obvious joke)

My site is meant to be a catalyst for discussion --often times discussions that are 'taboo' or normally shied away from or glossed over in polite society…

It is meant to physically extract the truest of emotions (from readers) so others can understand the origin of those beliefs --and maybe, just maybe those rationales can help someone understand/change/re-evaluate their own views/beliefs/conceptions about important issues.
If it takes me being blunt/harsh/controversial/personal to accomplish the great discussion that always seems to happen here...then so be it.

If you appreciate the ACLU/reparations/SBVFT/your favorite ice cream and I disparage it --you will be forced to think about why you are defending it as much as I am thinking about why I wouldn't --the debate only serves to make us all think more thoroughly about what exactly we chose to fight for and why.

I am disappointed because I didn't think that this needed to be verbalized --It would seem that I was wrong.

15 comments:

Tom said...

My 'you' was rhetorical at the end of my post on the ACLU.

leftyjones said...

Listen....just admit you're voting for Kerry and we can forget this whole thing happened.

Your site is a great place for debate about topics both mainstream and taboo which is why a lot of people join in. Your last post was another extension of being controversial and that said, there was nothing wrong with that either. It's a great topic for debate.
Frankly, I can list a whole bunch of cases that while I understand why the ACLU is involved....my first surface reaction is that it still makes my teeth grind.

You know I love the arguments....and you know that I'm used to you being controversial. I just think there is a difference between starting a conversation with a bold post on a "taboo" topic and then posting your personal responses and feelings inside the debate. A moderator is someone who starts a discussion and polices it....an engaged debater shares feelings, opinions and facts and then goes at it.
I can't speak for anyone but me but I view you as an active combatant and as a result I argue as if you are part of the debate and don't let you hide behind simply being a person that throws things out there to think about once the commenting has begun.
My battle in this case was with your comments, not your post. But in the future, if you decide to say something like......"There are those who believe that the ACLU's "hidden agenda is......" I'll know that you're being a chickenshit:) and hiding behind the mantle of a discussion starter, but you would probably then have people arguing the comment rather than arguing with the commentator.

riceburner147 said...

Ala71 re:
"My literary background hates that I now feel I have to explain it (like a comedian that explains the punch line of an obvious joke)"

with ALL due respect, excuse me....due to my total lack of intellect i must pray you explain the difficult concepts you have proffered. (Back to non-sarcasm) Who, did not get the concept. I see all commentators "getting it", just not always sharing your (somewhat wacky) opinion.
BTW Everyone knows the Anti-Christ is NOW/NARAL (keep this on the DL)

ps re: "takes me being personal"... (imho) it would be unwise to get too personal, all the others would be expected on a (great) blog such as yours.

Tom said...

I still don't see a problem with lifting the ban on teen nudist camps.

this we'll defend said...

Ok, Tom, you and I agree on one point.

~Jen~ said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ron Brynaert said...

I spoke to a few friends with the ACLU in New York City and they said that they're willing to work pro-bono for you to protect your freedom of speech rights. It's not like you wrote that post at a pulpit while wearing your uniform as an United States Army Lt. General.

Why Are We Back In Iraq?Gotta run and go back to telling your friends to go home!

Peace

ALa said...

Lefty- I wasn't trying to hide under the 'moderator' cover. I wasn't upset by the disagreement (has there been anything else?) I was confused by the "I did like this site but..." and the "maybe delete this whole post"...
Harmony was not a word that I had in mind at the inception...
I thought it was amusing that the first utterance of proposed censorship came under the ACLU post...
Proving once again that libs are only for free speech when it's not conservatives talking...
I know, I know...you were only looking out for me and trying to save me future embarrassment....
Like the Kerry campaign is only trying to stifle free speech to help the vets from further disgracing themselves...
Pleeeeeeeaaaase....

ALa said...

rab: Have I seen you on the news this week? LOL

~Jen~ said...

good one Ala71. *snicker*

this we'll defend said...

Stifle free speech? 1st Amendment?

Having the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Lefty was trying to help you, not censor you.

You have lost a lot (most?) of your credibility in my eyes and in others by your conspiracy charge. It's kooky UFO area 51 kind of talk. It's extreme right-wing radio talk. And you didn't take it back.

ALa said...

I guess I'm just another member of the VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY...

TWD: I am not blaming you for your belief in this organization...you have just completed law school and you’re on fire with belief in our system --and I appreciate that. If that didn't happen no one would pursue their fields. New journalists have to have faith that there is freedom of the press...new lawyers in the integrity of the law...teachers in the 'want' to learn --or none of them would do it. I don't blame you for this (naive?) opinion --so why do you blame me for calling it how I see it (even if it isn't PC to say). How many conservatives do you think are active lawyers for the ACLU? Don't you realize that it is not a conspiracy theory to think that 'group think' and 'vacuum think' really exist? If I hung out with only conservatives all the time (and listened only to talk radio) I would begin to think that all of the country feels like I do...If there is a bunch of lefy-libs that all hand out with lefty libs... the same will happen to them (as we see proof of in the Hollywood community who are constantly claiming the American people want a change when the President's job approval rating is 53% BEFORE the convention bounce...)
So don’t ‘talk down’ to me –and brandish the ‘lost credibility’ thing…it’s silly. If someone loses credibility with you over their opinion (that was fully backed up with naked facts) –then I am not sure what else to say…

ALa said...

...and I don't 'take things back'...I'm not five.

this we'll defend said...

Thank you for assuming that I am young and naive, even though I'm older than you, have been around the world, served as a drill sergeant, commanded a rifle company, been shot at and shot back, have a family, and am incredibly well-informed about the world and about history. Yes, I'm a pink-cheeked wet-behind-the-ears easily-swayed youth with stars in his eyes.

If your opinion that the ACLU is out to destroy Christianity and Judiasm were backed up by facts we wouldn't be having this conversation.

It isn't. You fall right into crowd of the UFO crash, alien abductions, the JKF conspiracy theorists, etc. when you make outrageous, outlandish, and inconsistent charges, and then claim facts back you up when you have provided no facts at all. And when you are called on it you cry censorship and accuse others of being naive or close-minded.

You need help.

Tom said...

TWD:

You sound like John Kerry. Any double top secret missions into Cambodia?