« Can we please, finally, forgive Ted Kennedy? | Ramona's Blog | Josh, who is SG and why no link to this fine blog?? »
Speak your mind, even if your voice shakes
I've been following the dismissive and sometimes ugly posts and comments about the quantity and quality of writings in the TPMCafe. I've had a chance to sleep on it now. I don't really care about the origins of the posts or the comments or about who said what to whom. I care more about the Cafe voices that might now be stilled because they see their published works as diminished and not worthy.
My title is a quote from the great Maggie Kuhn, the leader of the Gray Panthers. I saw that quote when I was still new to writing--when I did, in fact, quake in my boots at the thought of anyone reading and critiquing the words I worked so hard at perfecting. I felt as protective about them as any mother hen.
What I've found along the way is that there is no "perfecting" to writing. It's never perfect. It is always hard work to hone your thoughts into words sufficient enough to put into print, and writing the first draft is only the beginning. I also found that no matter how good I thought my words were, there were always going to be those who didn't agree. There were also always going to be those who wrote infinitely better than I ever could.
It takes great courage to push that "publish" button when you're not sure that what you have to say will mean anything to anybody but you. The beauty of the Cafe is that it is a nurturing place for new writers--people who have found a voice and are building the confidence to go on using it. It's sometimes rather thrilling to watch these new writers grow and flourish as they discover they do, in fact, have a gift for expressing themselves.
I won't pretend that there aren't any posts here in the cafe that are thrown together and sent out without a lot of care. There are. But again, the beauty of the cafe is that you can read what you want to and leave the rest alone.
The Cafe is different from Muckraker or DC, even though many of the same posts appear in all three places. To those who don't like what they see here, I would suggest that you go to the other areas of TPM to find what you're looking for. TPM is unique because of the readers and writers, not in spite of them.
To those who feel intimidated by the remarks you've read in the last few days, I can only offer this: Write what you want to write, when you want to write it, and share it where you feel the need. It doesn't matter that there will be some who won't appreciate it. You'll have to get used to that if you're going to put your words out there for all to see.
And remember the words of Maggie Kuhn: "Leave safety behind. Put your body on the line. Stand before the people you fear and speak your mind - even if your voice shakes. When you least expect it, someone may actually listen to what you have to say. Well-aimed slingshots can topple giants. And do your homework."
My title is a quote from the great Maggie Kuhn, the leader of the Gray Panthers. I saw that quote when I was still new to writing--when I did, in fact, quake in my boots at the thought of anyone reading and critiquing the words I worked so hard at perfecting. I felt as protective about them as any mother hen.
What I've found along the way is that there is no "perfecting" to writing. It's never perfect. It is always hard work to hone your thoughts into words sufficient enough to put into print, and writing the first draft is only the beginning. I also found that no matter how good I thought my words were, there were always going to be those who didn't agree. There were also always going to be those who wrote infinitely better than I ever could.
It takes great courage to push that "publish" button when you're not sure that what you have to say will mean anything to anybody but you. The beauty of the Cafe is that it is a nurturing place for new writers--people who have found a voice and are building the confidence to go on using it. It's sometimes rather thrilling to watch these new writers grow and flourish as they discover they do, in fact, have a gift for expressing themselves.
I won't pretend that there aren't any posts here in the cafe that are thrown together and sent out without a lot of care. There are. But again, the beauty of the cafe is that you can read what you want to and leave the rest alone.
The Cafe is different from Muckraker or DC, even though many of the same posts appear in all three places. To those who don't like what they see here, I would suggest that you go to the other areas of TPM to find what you're looking for. TPM is unique because of the readers and writers, not in spite of them.
To those who feel intimidated by the remarks you've read in the last few days, I can only offer this: Write what you want to write, when you want to write it, and share it where you feel the need. It doesn't matter that there will be some who won't appreciate it. You'll have to get used to that if you're going to put your words out there for all to see.
And remember the words of Maggie Kuhn: "Leave safety behind. Put your body on the line. Stand before the people you fear and speak your mind - even if your voice shakes. When you least expect it, someone may actually listen to what you have to say. Well-aimed slingshots can topple giants. And do your homework."
Advertisement
I'm never posting again, it's to much work; I mean physically difficult not intellectually. The many insults cast about, all to freely, have taken their toll. They can have there wonk site, I'm not worthy to be in their midst.
August 31, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
So nothing I've said above means anything then? Seems I've wasted my time, too. (She said gently.)
August 31, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please stay and post - participate. You have been such a positive addition.
Reread Ramona's excellent post and reconsider.
August 31, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Goddam, jonnie, i just clicked on your blog to remind you of some of the pieces you've written so well. They seem to be gone. Please explain it, i don't want you to leave either. TPM has dire need of at least three hippies-with-humor! Now that we know how all three branches of reader posts can be used, help keep Cafe Vibrantly Diverse!
August 31, 2009 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bullshit, Johnnie. Don't let one crank, or a couple of them deprive the rest of us of your good work. Keep coming back! As Ramona so well writes, "TPM is unique because of the readers and writers, not in spite of them." You are an integral part of TPM. Keep contributing.
August 31, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not worthy to be in their midst.
Gotta disagree with this statement, vehemently.
I'd add: non illegitimati carborundum est(or correct Latin phrase roughly meaning "don't let the bastards get you down".)
Or, as my mom would say, "fuck 'em."
I'm with Wendy, and if needs be, us "hippies" can form a support group or somethin'.
Please - and this plea goes out to everyone who has or does contribute - if you decide to fold your cards and walk away from the table, please - leave your writing for posterity. Regardless of the slings and barbs, there is a value to it and having it to refer others to can make a difference.
August 31, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hope your just snarking Jonnienohands,I appreciate the energy you bring to the Cafe.Dont even joke about quitting.
August 31, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't say I'm familiar with your writing yet, but I felt compelled to comment anyway. I can see from the other posts here that you are very well liked and respected, and that you've found common ground with a good group of people. So toss me in with the group asking you to think twice before you let the petty people win. You're better than that, and you would be sorely missed.
August 31, 2009 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, Ramona, but it isn't that my voice shakes, but that I can't make it loud enough without sounding like someone I'm not. I wrote a bit more about that when I announced I was giving up blogging for the time being.
I can easily deal with being called an obamabot or an asshat or a concern troll of an intellectual snob. What I have a much harder time dealing with is the temptation to reply in kind and in spades. I was very good at that once, and I could become very good at it again--abuse rather than rhetoric is a great temptation.
My sense is that the coffee house, with its gentlemen smoking clay pipes and wearing horse-hair wigs has morphed into Dinty's saloon, and while I'm willing to gather around the piano and sing They called her frivolous Sal, a peculiar sort of a gal I wouldn't go there expecting to learn something or provide something someone else might find useful.
August 31, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry you feel like that, amike. I really hate barroom brawls and I almost never get involved. I get in, see the chairs flying across the room, and unless there's something really compelling that keeps me rooted, I get out.
But I have to disagree that there is nothing to learn in the cafe. There are people in there from all walks of life, in every possible circumstance, and I find many of them incredibly interesting. We all come at our politics with different points of view, based on our own life experiences, and the Cafe is where it gets less academic and more personal. I always want to know what makes people tick, and the Cafe is a good place to find out.
amike, I think you add value to any of the places you frequent. I hope you'll reconsider and begin posting again. But obviously it has to be your choice.
August 31, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right, mike. I fight daily against my natural inclination to unload with both barrels when treated rudely rather than reply with calm, measured words for as long as possible.
I am OK with that, for the most part, but it can get a little repetitive for my tastes. Fortunately for me, the rational voices seeking to engage in reasoned debate far outweigh the knuckleheads who would seek to keep our partisan status quo going full steam ahead.
You'll be back at some point. This place is too addictive for political junkies to ignore completely.
August 31, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to offer that it's been interesting to watch your transformation from the guy wanting to form a posse with the (at-the-time) ruling Genghis/articleman/DF clique to lynch David Seaton, to someone who sees the benefit of instead using forums like this one to interact civilly and to learn from that. BTW, at that time, it's was actually amusing to watch because Seaton was the one reacting like an old forum pro--no amount of invective, no matter how vile or how idiotic, could rile him, and he never whined about it, either. It's also amusing to see how well that worked out for him--meantime, some of his more juvenile attackers are long gone, one even banned.
I'd like to share with you an epiphany that I came to long ago on another site because I think it is related to that and you might understand it fully: you cannot successfully combine two site goals of political activism and discussion for learning purposes/analysis. They are two different audiences and they conflict with each other. That is where most of the friction comes from in vigorous debate. One group wants to play dueling spinmeisters, the other wants exactly the opposite, to decode the spin, and never the twain shall meet. When a site does try to combine them, best to just stay out of the way of the type of audience you don't fit in with, at least if you don't want to feel you have wasted your time.
August 31, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh oh... you used the "c-word"!
August 31, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, AA, I appreciate the shout-out. Even people in my own life have noticed the difference in how I communicate, though it is even more touch and go in person than it is online.
I don't have a "preview" button in real life.
It was really the moderate democrats who mostly supported Hillary Clinton that made the biggest impact on me, oddly enough. When I started seeing my own actions reflected in the words of others that I found offensive or obnoxious or both, I realized I had to change my MO.
Posting as myself was the start of that transition. Anonymity did nothing to temper my natural assholiness.
September 1, 2009 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
amike, we need your voice to remind us that HCR is not going to be a vehicle of instant gratification. Keep posting. I found your recent article to this effect important and a voice we need to hear. I also appreciate your writing style and humor.
August 31, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ramona,
Thank you so much for this.
Really excellent and so on point.
' To those who don't like what they see here, I would suggest that you go to the other areas of TPM to find what you're looking for. TPM is unique because of the readers and writers, not in spite of them. ' Exactly!
Rec'd.
August 31, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's really rich coming from someone with the habit of reacting with suspicion and paranoia of anyone posting here who does not dittohead the view of the world held by you and a small circle of your correspondents. Sometimes the way you react to comments on your threds it seems like you can't even get your head around anyone disagreeing with you, it can't be possible, there must be something wrong with them or they are in some plot. In any case, to me at least, you have often made it very clear that those who disagree with you and the small group of people you like here, even in the smallest most non-confrontational way, are to be suspected of having a larger nefarious agenda, may be trying to harm your small group and are not welcome.
A reminder: TPM comment policy, rule # 1
All political viewpoints are welcome. However, hate speech of any kind, libelous statements or threats to fellow users or others will be deleted and may be grounds for suspending or terminating a users account.
If you can't handle outsiders coming into the little realm (I believe you call it a "community"), even if they make what you think are unfair generalizations about your little realm or you think are spouting non-approved talking points, you should really take your club private.
August 31, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
AA
I've never understood why, without any provocation, you insist on jumping the shark and inserting snide, uncalled for comments. It's this type of comment and behavior that sets a negative tone. Attack, be disrespectful and bring up everything but the poster's message serves no one well.
Don't you think it's time to change negative reaction into positive action? I know most of us here do and hope you join in to create a better environment for all - with more positive discourse and less attack mode.
Peace.
August 31, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean like this?
August 31, 2009 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT,
That was not rude or disrespectful, but a response of factual data to another about the same issue.
I hope you have a very pleasant evening and wish you all good things.
Peace and blessings.
August 31, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I've said elsewhere, a vigilante will tell you that crime exists -- and he would be correct. That doesn't mean I want people carrying assault weapons.
While you may not have meant it to be rude -- and I know you probably didn't -- it sets up a hostile environment, the type that ArtAppraiser describes.
Dan K's blog got over 250 comments and 120 recs. In politics, that would be a major landslide. At some point, that should give someone pause.
Namaste.
August 31, 2009 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sincerely hope that all can be respectful and not engage in negative attacks, but instead civil discourse.
There's alot to be noted and appreciated in 'agreeing to disagree' - oft it isn't a matter of one being right and the other wrong, just different perspectives and approaches. One here(I actually think it was LaLo) advised me that we aren't that different, we want many of the same things, but we have different views on how to achieve the goal. I so appreciated his words and the manner he reached out.
I've learned much here about important issues in a myriad of areas. Even changed my stance on an issue thanks to others putting forth factual and pertinent information. Because they were respectful and willing to enter into civil discourse, I became interested and involved.
Again, Peace.
August 31, 2009 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I for one am at a loss to understand why all of a sudden diary content, comments, writing skills. writing style or the lack of has become an issue.
For as long as I have becoming here there have been diaries that soar and diaries that barely walk. There have been diaries that draw their strength from facts and one's that are based on a well thought out and well phrased personal opinion. And there are diaries that are weak because facts don't count and the personal opinion boarders on the insane. And in this mix there are ones that are beautifully written, ones that are just so so and some that you hope the author's english teacher never sees.
As to comments all of the above hold true, as well. There are commenters who will engage to give a heartfelt praise or to argue intelligently. There are commenters who confuse profanity with wit and wisdom. And there are commenters where the argument comes down to the weak "so's your old man" type.
In the end I would hope that those who write here continue to do so with the understanding that some will love what you write, some will dislike it vehemently and some will just ignore.
Taking amike's analogy a bit farther The Cafe can be like PJ Clarke's ( a great NYC watering hole) where having a intelligent conversation in the front of the house is daunting if not impossible. While sitting down in the back room can be a rewarding experience. Where you choose to hang out is up to you.
August 31, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
give me the passkey to the back room and I'll show up. :-) I tried the door I though got me there and I wound up in the alley.
August 31, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly you have to usually fight you way through the crowd up front to get to the back ;) Then again I did meet my wife of 26 years up front, however we did head to the back to get to know each other :0) (true story)
August 31, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The beauty of the Cafe is that it is a nurturing place for new writers--people who have found a voice and are building the confidence to go on using it. It's sometimes rather thrilling to watch these new writers grow and flourish as they discover they do, in fact, have a gift for expressing themselves.
This is interesting perspective, Ramona. Maybe there has just been a cultural shift here that explains part of my disorientation. At some point in the recent past, maybe as a result of the creation of the Reader Posts section, it started to become apparent that TPM Cafe had come to be seen by many people as a sort of creative writing workshop. I don't recall this outlook being very prominent in the past. Although there were obviously a lot of people writing all sorts of things here, in the form of comments and posts, I never thought of these written remarks as the work of "writers", as such. I write many things in many forms and forums, but I don't think of myself as a writer. The writing of which political blogs have usually been full - and which I sometimes contribute myself - is the application of a practical linguistic skill for the communication and consideration of positions, arguments and topics of debate, not the creative production of works of art intended to be appreciated for their inherent literary value.
My own background was in academic philosophy. My experience has been that creative writers, actors and other artists tend to develop their craft and training in an atmosphere of praise and support that is very different from the kind of training I received as an academic. I can understand that it takes a lot of courage for a budding actor, for example, to stand up and improvise the role of a psychotic killer or jilted lover or grief-stricken parent,and to reveal aspects of his awareness and emotional repertoire that many people would prefer to keep hidden. So actors in improv sessions tend to respond with a lot of encouragement in the form of "great job!", "that was so brave!", "you moved me!", etc. and make their criticisms very gentle.
My background in the academic world was different. We were encouraged to be harshly critical of each other and our work. The criticism was supposed to be dispassionate and professional, of course - not personal "flaming". But it was firm and unsparing. We weren't expected to be terribly considerate about how someone might feel if their argument or thesis was a failure and was torn to shreds; and one was expected to get over any hurt feelings one might have yourself about the criticism one received. The criticism was to be seen as essential to doing better next time. And the goal of the things you wrote wasn't so much to be creative or expressive of your self; it was just to say things which were, as best you could determine, true. The claims and arguments you defended weren't you, they were things that you had produced, but which were separate from you, and that could be changed, adjusted and jettisoned in response to intense criticism, while you remained perfectly intact.
When I write something, I generally expect people to either agree with me and elaborate on what I have written, or else disagree with me and argue with me or debate me, or a little of both. I have never expected people to say things like "nice job", "good work" and "well done". I find this kind of nurturing praise completely necessary and a little bit confusing, and not particularly pleasant, since I'm more used to a critical environment. Anyway, I feel more confident that someone actually respects what I have written and takes it seriously if they take the time to argue with me. If they just praise me, I worry that their real attitude is analogous to the adult who praises the child while thinking, "nice finger-painting for a little kid."
August 31, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan, thanks for taking the time to explain your view of these things. It's interesting that you seem to group all writers into a professional category. When I talk about writers here, I mean writers in the sense that they are performing the act of writing. There is no real hierarchy here in the Cafe.
I don't feel the workshop atmosphere, since nobody really criticizes the writer's style and nobody is making suggestions about how to write more effectively. There is a decidedly congratulatory atmosphere that can become annoying, I suppose, if all you want are the facts, ma'am (or sir), but this whole new blogging freedom is bound to bring in droves of people who are no longer content to just add their thoughts to comments.
I haven't been here long, and I don't know anything about the workings of TPM in years past so I don't know what I've missed. It could be that I wouldn't have been welcome then, either.
My main issue, and the reason I wrote this post, is the possible chilling effect your post and the responses of others will have on people who have recently started blogging here. They've found their voices, they feel they have something valuable to contribute, and I don't want to see that quashed.
At the same time, I can understand many of your concerns. There may come a time when TPM will have to adjust to their success and make some decisions about the use of their space here, but right now the Cafe is what it is, and most of the people who come here deserve some respect for the efforts they've made to get it right.
Argue against the content of their posts, sure, but let's not get into who has more right to be here.
August 31, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
DK
As usaul I really need about a week to respond to a comment, I will have to make the last 15 minets of my lunch break safice.
Tonight I will poruse your TPM blog as you deserve no less.
-want wonk, go to wonk; please.
-want to critic my posts or others please do! I look forward to it, your one line question to my last post sounded more like a complaint then a genuine question. When I answered with another short paragraph and ended it with an offere to discuse the issue I recieved no reply. You raise the bar and I will try to jump it. I might fail but what the heck my knees are well callused.
Ramomna
i thought I might stop posting at TPM but I will mearly tailer my words toward the substantiol; such was my gual in the first place.
Thank you for your vote of confadance.
Everyone-Sorry about the spelling, it has been an iron ball around my desire to write for my whole life and if i thought cutting off my leg would help I most certinly would.
M. Paul
August 31, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
M.Paul, do not even THINK about cutting off your leg! You know that old email that's been passed around forever about scrambling the letters in any word and still being able to read it? Okay, if you have something to say, forget about the spelling (I can't believe I'm saying that!) because we'll be able to read it, no matter what. And if we can't, we'll ask for a translation.
Fair enough? Okay. My husband says some of the best scientists and academics he ever knew couldn't spell their way out of a paper bag, but it didn't affect their intelligence even a little bit. Luckily they found secretaries who could transcribe.
You do what you gotta do.
August 31, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matt Yglesias, a very prominent blogger and publisher book author, is widely known for the abundant spelling errors on his blog. His readers pillory him for it, but it's no big deal. As long as people understand what words you are using,even if they aren't spelled correctly, write away.
August 31, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I you really believe this, you will help out when you see people you regularly interact with attacking newbies, with paranoia about protecting the site for the few already here, like here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/lizbensky/2009/08/one-term-president.php#comment-3579029
or in an especially disgusting example, which still nearly makes me cry when I read it, here
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/joanies/2009/03/the-special-olympics-athlete-w.php
Some here seem to think speaking out means challenging "outsiders," where outsiders must prove their bonafides that they are "people like us," if someone thinks they are part of a nefarious plot to "take over" the website for "the other side."
It is hilarious to see on another thread some of the same people I have seen attack newbies more than once because of their paranoia about Republicans are blathering how much they love diversity in voices. Riiiiiight, they're all for diversity as long as they are liberals and we know them and are friendly with them already. It's like this: liberal talking points from friends: "great!"--talking points that disagree with the liberal view: "evil! astroturf alert! plot to take over the website! j'accuse! circle the wagons, chase them out" About as open to diversity as a sorority at the U. of Mississippi in 1950.
In my experience as a moderator on another website in the past is not that talking in general about raising the quality of contributions on a website discourages contributions,
it's that what really discourages contributions is
1) direct hazing of individuals,
2) personal attacks in comments,
3) people constantly talking as if they know each other intimately, so much so that entering into the conservation would be like butting in to a private conversation
4) techniques to chase away like spamming a thread with recipes.
Seeing those kind of things scares the bejeesus out of shy lurkers and discourages lurkers with busy lives from contributing a thought on topic because they don't want to get involved in a fight and aren't looking for a circle of friends.
August 31, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. Like it or not, the "we are all friends, we are a community of friends" thing really discourages new contributions. I really strongly believe that. It's like having to adjust to a new school for many people, and lots of grownups don't exactly relish having to do that kind of thing again. It takes a lot of talent to handle that situation well and that talent is rare. (In my opinion, member dickday here has that talent, he always has something apt to say in response to someone he hasn't seen before, makes them feel welcome to speak without saying "welcome." Saying "welcome to the club" straight out makes many people pretty uncomfortable.) If you want diversity in voices, take the real personal club stuff off site, that's just the way it is, don't get so personal with each other, either positively or negatively. Humor & teasing is ok, no one expects people who have been here a long time to act like they don't know each other's personalities, but mutual support groups and hugs are real off-putting to outsiders and make lots of people uncomfortable about butting in with a comment. If you do the latter, don't expect a lot of fresh blood coming in, is what I am saying.
August 31, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The cafe has never had a shortage of "new blood."
Given that fact, you may want to review your need for spiteful words and rather offputting standards. The ones complaining about "standards" here are apparently unable to do so unless they put others down Why is that? I asked Dan yesterday, but he wouldn't reply. I find that behavior more worrisome and discouraging than any so called clique, which you yourself even point out is a fleeting thing at best. You have been here a long time, but I have not heard Josh echo your feelings, not even a little.
You do not speak for any majority here, and I feel that should be pointed out. Don't act as if you do.
August 31, 2009 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't speak for the majority and never intend to do so, matter of fact, that sort of goes against my grain.
I do intend to continue to speak out against bullying whenever I see it, whether you think its cool or not, and whether or not it affects this place. Just because it bugs me, ok (especially when it is so hypocritical, coming from people who like to yammer how much they care about other people!) I didn't speak out as a kid because I was chicken and wanted to be liked, now I have the luxury of being old enough not to care.
And you might want to remove that log from your eye:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/gregorzap/2009/08/the-clique-rulez-hahahaha.php#comment-3580461
about some people you are defending.
September 1, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if you're addressing this to me, ArtAppraiser, but I have to tell you, I read the Special Olympics thread and I was appalled. It was before my time, but I would hope I would have reacted the way Miguelito did. Yes, the responses seemed WAY over the top and very unfair. I don't know what preceded it, but on its face, it looks bad.
I have to wonder why you used the word "liberal" so often in your comment. What does being liberal have to do with any of it? Have you seen me respond in that way? No, you haven't. Oddly enough, I see it my duty as a liberal NOT to respond in that way. I despise personal attacks of any kind, no matter which direction they're coming from. And apparently so do you. So we can agree, and that makes me happy.
You make some very good points. I appreciate your comments.
August 31, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
3) people constantly talking as if they know each other intimately, so much so that entering into the conservation would be like butting in to a private conversation
This is an interesting one. As many educators and professionals know, there is an issue with cliques in many settings. The people in the clique might feel intimately connected, which is great for them, but those outside the clique feel excluded and are unable to penetrate into its thickets of mysteries, winks, nods and private jokes.
There have been several threads recently where I literally couldn't understand what was going on or what was being said, because the discussion was so insiderish.
August 31, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's possible that people assume too much about cliques. At least this "clique". They were all here when I arrived but I can't say I ever felt excluded or that I was crashing a party.
I can't say I really thought about it one way or the other before, because it wasn't my intent to come here to try and make friends. But I feel as if I'm among friends now, and it's not bad. Not bad at all.
August 31, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree on all points.
August 31, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Ramona. It only took me a couple months here and I found I could do nothing more than just be myself.
I found it and find it gratifying as Twain might put it. I get to incorporate the style sometimes of others because their line or thought touched something.
It is so gratifying indeed to really get into someone else's head. I mean something so simple as commenting:
Hey, that happened to me!!! I know exactly from whence that reaction arose.
Ha.
I used to be so perturbed by criticism. Now it bothers me not.
I do get a little upset when someone attacks someone else here.......
Ah but the ups and downs keep the blood flowing to my extremities...
August 31, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Ramona...I, too am concerned that many will stop posting because they feel inadequate. I don't have particularly thin skin. On my 1st post here I stood up to suggestions that I was republican troll, made my case and have felt like a part of the "community" ever since. Dan's mini rant caused me to question the validity of my presence here, so I can only imagine how other newer, less confident people have reacted.
I know there has been a suggestion that treating this place as a community is bad, but I just don't see how you can help it when you are spending so much time together. I admit, that although I have a very rewarding life, there aren't many grown ups in it on a day to day basis, and I treasure the grown up conversation I have here. And yes, I have found friendships here. I just don't see the harm in that.
Anyway, I may disagree with posters, and I may on occasion, be less respectful that I should be. I do try to be welcoming (and therefore offensive to some, I guess, but I do it because I liked being welcomed...) and I try to be respectful in my disagreements, disagreeing w/o being disagreeable as the Prez sez...
This place is never going to be perfect. It drives me nuts sometimes, and I've looked for other places that might be a better fit for me, but haven't found any that come even close. My solution is to be appreciative for Josh has provided here and filter out the "noise" as much as I can.
August 31, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stilli, I couldn't agree more. (Though I guess I should agree LESS.) This IS a community. Why fight it?
August 31, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Ramona, it looks like many of us are questioning our validity to be here and the worth of our posts after the BIG discussion. With our own eyes we can see the brilliance and skills that are displayed here by the best bloggers at TPM. We see what excellence is and are humbled, taught,inspired, and yes intimidated by the vast difference in our feeble attempts and those who are the best.When I was young and first learning to play the guitar,just when I thought I was getting good,I met guy a little older than me that could really play the guitar,excellently.I quit playing for a while because of the vast difference in what I saw was excellence and what I could do.But I loved playing the guitar so I started playing again,never have reached that level, but I play anyway for the joy of it.I still know what excellence is and realize I may never attain it.I will keep playing anyway,though some may say "I dont like your style, or that kind of music" I've been thinking about the discussion all day,to stay or to go,to say or to be quiet,can I ever produce an excellent blog like many I have seen here, to match the excellence now that Ive seen it? Probably not, but I think I will play anyway,because there is satisfaction in the trying.
August 31, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
DonDi,
Writing and musing in print can be as moving as a melody and/or lyrics. And in that same vein, some prefer classical - others the blues.
Play on - loud and long! Many greatly enjoy your 'tunes'.
August 31, 2009 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You see, DonDi, this is exactly what I'm talking about. So many bloggers with so much to say are now having to reconsider every posting because of nothing more than pure snobbery.
I've read some posts here that made me laugh out loud, they're so blasted full of hot air and esoterica. I've read some that were so pure and simple yet so full of wisdom I've teared up before I could finish them.
Guess which ones had the most big words?
August 31, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a writer, I believe words mean something and so I take umbrage with this quote.
You've diluted the word "courage".
Here is what takes "great courage": To be called into military duty, to defend rights by those who get to stay home, and go into battle with a good chance that you will die.
And when one posts under a pseudonym it doesn't take much courage at all. That is, I believe, the reason why we see such puffery on the Internet that few would exhibit in "real life".
I know we live in an age where there are no losers, only winningly-challenged, but the earth doesn't work that way. And as a writer, if you can't stand the heat, you won't even make it to the kitchen. There are simply too many others already vieing for these same eyeballs.
If you want to talk political courage, here is a standard to think about.
While I agree with the general sentiment of the blog (e.g. to encourage people to participate), I do believe that the continual watering down of words cheapens more and more activity.
August 31, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
For some writers, words are the expression of one's being regardless, and to have them attacked and ridiculed can cause deep wounds, not of the physical but of the pysche. It doesn't matter that those who do the attacking only know the writer through a pseudonym.
Personally, if I was centered and grounded like Tich Naht Hanh maybe I could just release such things like the pond releases the cloud's reflection once the cloud passes. But I am not there.
And while you feel "courage" is being diluted, I feel you are restricting it too much, that unless there is physical harm in the mix, the word courage cannot be used. I guess you'd say that some guy coming out to his friends and family exhibits no courage because he was in no danger of actually being shot or beaten into a pulp by them.
August 31, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did include a second example by explicitly saying that most post here anonymously. That doesn't take much courage either.
You know who has courage? Jason Miller, one of the few that posts under his own name.
Do I have courage here? Nope. In fact, without anonymity, I wouldn't post at all (but that's another story).
Do I have courage in my daily life? Yes. I have risked my career to do what I think it right (I had nothing to win and something to lose).
Let's have a bit of perspective about what is being discussed and describe it appropriately. The word "courage" does mean something.
August 31, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
We agree that the word courage means something. We disagree that your definition of courage is the definition of courage. Just because your personally don't suffer the slings and arrows of negative comments, others do. And for them, it does take courage.
Getting up in the morning and walking outside for me is generally no big deal. But for some people, to move past their doorway takes more than just a little bit of courage. Some people handle the passing of loved on with relative ease, and for others there is the need for a deep calling forth of courage to learn to live without that other (and it doesn't have anything to do with which one loved with greater depth).
And there is not just a Courage, but the courage one touches when placing one's life on the line, the courage one touches to open oneself to the judgement of others, etc etc.
August 31, 2009 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
As you pointed out with your career, courage has to do with putting something one values at risk and the fear of loss. Because people can post anonymously, you believe they are not risking anything, have nothing to lose, because you don't feel that fear. And since you don't feel that fear, sense that risk, anyone else who does feel such is just being ridiculous, etc.
You're behaving just like the guy who was good at public speaking and said to me as I stared at the podium, "come on, what, there's only about 40 or 50 people out." Was I putting my life on the line in a physical sense, no. Did going out to that podium take courage, damn straight it did.
August 31, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the difference:
When you post anonymously there is no tragic mistake you can make. None. You can make up a new ID and start again.
There is at least one poster here who was actually banned, and simply came back as a new ID.
Comparing posting anonymously to public speaking (unless you had a bag over your head and were called Mr. X and no one, not even the people who asked you to speak knew you personally) is apples and oranges in my view.
It is exactly the sort of word dilution that cheapens language and make it more and more difficult to have discussions.
August 31, 2009 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great. Then start posting under your real name, CT, and stop hiding under a bag.
Yours truly,
Lis Baumann
August 31, 2009 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is what I think you just don't get (and bully for you for being thick skinned): If I write something and post it here, something that I think is rather insightful and witty, a nice addition to a particular energetic thread, and then others turn on it, calling it stupid, without merit, a lame attempt, whathaveyou, it doen't matter that they know my name, know where I live, what I do for a living, or who my friends are. The cut is made regardless. It is not my face, or the way I stand, or the sound of my voice that they have taken issue with, it is my thoughts, my expressions embodied in my writings.
My writings are a part of me at the deepest level, even when I don't want them to be. And to give others a chance to rip at them, anonmyously or not (and I've done my time in workshops), does take a courage. A different kind of courage than the courage of a soldier, but courage nonetheless.
What I don't get is why you need to know the identity of someone in order for it to have any power when they say your writing stinks and your political musings obviously indicate that you haven't resolved your childhood traumas - not that I think that :)
August 31, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, Acamus. Thank you.
August 31, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is everything we write really part of our identities? Are your writings truly part of you at the deepest level? Or have you just developed an attachment to those words and thoughts that makes you feel challenges to them as an injury or threat to your own person, in the same way you feel such injuries when your new clothes get torn, your shoes get muddied or your shiny new car gets dinged in the parking lot? Maybe I should get over thinking that my words and thoughts are "me", or expressions of "me". Maybe I should get over the whole "me" thing as well?
There is a story told about the philosopher Nicholas Rescher. He gave a paper at Wayne State University in the 60's. The assembled faculty had read the paper before the session and they were prepared. At the sessions they sliced and diced the paper every which way, mercilessly reducing its thesis and argument to ruin, at least as far as they were concerned. At this point Rescher reached inside his jacket pocket, pulled out another paper, and said, "I guess you fellows didn't like that first paper ..."
The ideas we develop, and means we choose for expressing them, are those we need to face a challenging world and thrive in it. They are the ideas and words that others are counting on us to bring into our battles on behalf of the common good. If they are deficient and ineffective, they need to be exposed as such, broken down and repaired. Nobody does us a favor when they indulge us in our attachments to weak ideas. And if one is using one's words and ideas as a security blanket, a sense of identity to clutch and hold to one's bosom, then it might be better to find a somewhat more durable and less changeable basis for identity.
So let the criticisms fly. If the ideas and words we currently rely on are strong, they will withstand the criticism. If not, they should be discarded and replaced with something better.
September 1, 2009 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have it backwards. If no one knows a person's identify than what are they risking?
The cultural validation of your feelings in such a narcissistic manner is a relatively recent phenomena and one not even spread throughout the entire Western world. It stems from wanting to make everyone feel like a "winner" and not even keeping score during school games.
The corruption of language is always based politically. The right does it. And so does the left. This is an example of how the left does.
Perhaps it's time to review what that socialist, George Orwell said about language.
Corrupting language in this way gives us "peace keepers", "right sizing", and a whole lot of other euphemisms that continue to chip away at the power of language. Or in your case "a different type of courage". Whatever that means.
August 31, 2009 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
We seem to be from two different worlds here. There is a reaching out, whether in person or online, and to have that denied, closed off, etc is, for some, not you, painful.
And as for "cultural validation of feelings" - dang, try going to the zoo sometime and you'll see other sentient being comforting one another, even when they don't feel the same way. It's call empathy. Try it sometime. I have to admit empathizing with you right now is difficult.
And you can't understand that there are different kinds of courage? So the love of one's pet dog is the same as love of a partner as the love of wonderful poem. Only one love. One courage. One fear.
August 31, 2009 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kumbaya m'lord, kumbaya!
Seriously:
By your definition of the word, it takes a lot of courage from me to come on here and defend the use of the English language from the maudlin new-age, self-indulgent mysticism present in the entity of an entire set of bloggers on this thread.
So I guess that makes me courageous. Or, more exactly, a different type of courageous. Wait, I'm really not sure anymore. Care to help?
All artists have many moments, some extreme, of self-doubt. The spectacle of wanted to be rewarded for overcoming it, is a relatively recent phenomenon and amounts to so much navel gazing. Most artists that I know (the kind who are professional and get paid for their stuff) keep that part of the job to themselves. Bottom line: your life must be pretty damned good if that is what causes you anxiety.
And remember, we are talking about anonymously posting things -- as a hobby!
Me? I'll worry about people with real problems and issues.
August 31, 2009 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
And will you then write about them? Let me know when you do. I'd like to comment.
August 31, 2009 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem here is that you keep trying to view things simply as you experience them. Obviously writing here for you is just a hobby, you feel nothing is at risk. Fine. There's no problem with that. I respect that. But for others there is something at risk. And you don't respect that. Maybe you should try and see things from other people's point of view.
And you somehow have become fixated on this "reward" thing. All that was said is that it takes courage. To keep writing. And then you've gone done this path of how everyone is saying we all need to be rewarded for the smallest achievement. etc. This is some serious issue for you that you see it even when others are not talking about it.
And I don't understand your hostility to the notion of various kinds of courage. I mean seriously. Do you believe there is just love, and not different kinds of love. Some kinds of courage are more profound, others more inspirational, some are rooted in the physical and others the spiritual, and still others in the emotional.
Here's a suggestion: Read the works of Rilke and then come back to this discussion.
September 1, 2009 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to go with CT on this one and not as one of the handful of people around here who post under their own names. I have to go with him as a writer who has been honing his craft for twenty years now and knows that there can be no risk without identity.
If you are posting here anonymously and not getting paid for it in the real world as an operative, you are risking nadda. Your identity is safe. That is why most people actually write here, because it is safe and not risky. To attain even the most basic level of risk associated with becoming a "real write" one must be directly tied to the writing as well as the criticism.
Otherwise, there is no real reason to grow or to learn because you can always just start again as someone new when the "critique" gets too uncomfortable.
September 1, 2009 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
This hits home,"My writings are a part of me at the deepest level, even when I don't want them to be." Maybe there is a difference in the way people see blogging,to me anonymous does not mean I am not who I am,that I make up words and say things I would not normally say.There are not two personalities here, a real one and a make believe,only one.I see no reason to treat people here any different than if we were face to face.I cant see the reason for a pretend online personality and a real one.I suppose someone who has a online sim personality that they act through could easily do things,say things they might not normally do or say.In that case who cares if you flame my sim, I can always make a new one tomorrow, it's not really me. See, I dont think that way,I am still going to be me whether I post as Donny Curtis or Dondi.
August 31, 2009 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
August 31, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I recommend this comment.
August 31, 2009 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I second the rec.
August 31, 2009 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't an issue of two personalities. This is an issue of recognizing reality.
If a person is too fragile to post anonymously, they will never be heard politically.
It's really that simple.
August 31, 2009 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh my God, CT. You have GOT to be kidding. I wrote "great courage" because I meant "great courage". I could cite a million examples of great courage, but why would I? Why should I?
I'm talking about new writers putting their thoughts into words and then sending them out to face who knows what? For many, it takes great courage to do that. We've already heard from some posters who are backing away from writing again out of a kind of palpable fear that you apparently can't understand.
It'll have to be someone else who explains it to you. I just don't have the stomach for it.
August 31, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Dan K pointed out, your use of the word "courage" is the same sort of thing where people celebrate baby's ability to make a poo-poo. And it cheapens it for activities which require real courage.
If someone's ego is so very fragile that pressing the "submit" button on an anonymous post gives their heart palpitations, then I suggest they have a serious disability.
In which case, they wouldn't make it through 1 day of posting here (unless they turn off the comment section). So why are you setting them up for failure?
Translation: there is little logic to defend your position so you'll stop here.
August 31, 2009 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
And this my just opinion, and I know it won't hurt your feelings since we're both anonymous here, but you obviously are a writer that has purely intellectualized writing, politics and the whole kabang. You don't risk anything when you write because you really aren't risking yourself, all you are doing is pontificating, and the only prize is when you can point out the shortfall of someone's else post, or the use of a word in the post. At least you can go to sleep feeling superior.
August 31, 2009 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo.
August 31, 2009 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
And thank you again.
August 31, 2009 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, thank you.
August 31, 2009 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, someone trying to formulate a debate by ascribing motives and feelings.
Astounding.
And then you wonder why the left can't get their point across.
I've pushed many concept here forward. And in fact, tried to clue people into a few things as well. And there are even people I have learned from.
But I needn't tell you all this. You've already read my mind! Why bother being a writer, acumus, with this magic skill of yours?
August 31, 2009 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I wrote, it was my opinion. Of course I don't think I can read your mind, but hey guess what, writing does reveal something about ourselves. So from the little samples I have I went to what I thought was driving the debate, your motives if you will. And you are more than welcome to ascribe motives to me. Because here are my words.
And what is driving this debate is the crucial subtext of your original post, which comes out explicity later: are people who are sensitive to the criticisms of others just weak rejects, whose concerns should be roundly rejected, the courage they need not real courage, but some kind of distorted (disabled?) courage?
My point is that you seem to say the heart doesn't have a role to play in writing here, nor should we concern ourselves emotionally about how others in our community, whether it an online community or one in which pass one another physically, resond to us. For as long as the heart is absent, what does one really risk? Debate is purely logical, the words written merely tools to push forward an argument, a thesis. A factoid to be gleaned here and there.
Maybe the Left can't get a point across because we keep making the mistake that other side is bring their heart and not their just their mind to the debate.
August 31, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and "Barack Obama isn't a Muslim, as far as I know."
Are you sure you don't write for FNC? Your technique is remarkably the same!
When called out on your statements, at least man-up rather than hide behind cheap waffling.
Yes, only the left has a heart. Yes, yes. Sad little left. Poor little left.
Why is it that the left in other countries don't have this problem?
It's because the left in this country are afraid of their shadow -- and allow themselves to be self-indulgent. While the right may be intellectually lazy through ignorance, the left is intellectually lazy through fiat.
August 31, 2009 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Courage does not necessarily require an audience.
A person can show great courage in overcoming mental/emotional/intellectual barriers, scars from wars or childhood or assault, etc. Many of these acts of courage take place before the eyes of no one other than the actor.
Anonymity - or invisibility in the eyes of others - therefore, does not necessarily mean an action cannot be courageous.
Some writing can therefore be courageous, even if done anonymously.
September 1, 2009 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
When everyone is someone then no one is anyone.
All of us here have hit the "submit" button to publish a blog or comment. I guess we are all special. Okay?
Now what?
September 1, 2009 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
"When everyone is someone then no one is anyone." Ummm, no. If the world consisted, say of just you and JMM, both of you might have interesting and different characteristics, and be considered "someone." But that would not necessarily mean "no one is anyone," right?
"Now what?" Well, I just keep the two things separate. Someone might - for them, in their life - show courage in writing about something. The content of WHAT they actually wrote might be a load of old cobblers, however - compete crap. It's difficult - awkward - to confront someone on the crappiness of the content, when the act of writing that day might itself be full of courage. But there are ways to handle it. Sometimes, just give 'em air, and wait 'til later.
Everyone can show courage, be special, be someone, be respected... but there's still no necessity to agree with them.
And if some people get more engaged in supporting the process of a writer working something through and expressing it, rather than the content itself, well... so be it. I tend toward the latter, but can see some value in the former.
September 1, 2009 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is depth in what you say here Q.
All I can think of is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFxVlGR6g8A
September 1, 2009 3:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Consider the possibility that people are different. It took no courage at all for me to submit my first blog here or before that on other sites. That doesn't mean I don't understand how it can be a courageous act for others.
I have a friend, both of us had walked some on am American Indian path. I'm an extreme introvert, she very extroverted. She thought it very brave of me to sit up on a hill fasting alone for 4 days. The thought of being alone that long filled her with fear. But being alone is the easiest thing I can do. I've spent weeks alone in the mountains with out seeing another human being or even listening to a radio. Yet she had no fear when she walked out onto the sundance grounds while I haven't and wouldn't do it unless the call of spirit is so strong it cannot be denied. To take part in that ceremony under the gaze of dozens of people would be the hardest thing I've done in my life.
People are different and the same actions can be more difficult and require more bravery for some than others.
September 1, 2009 4:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
yes: "consider the possibility." This is the crux of the issue.
We aren't going to be able to deal with the problems of addiction in this country if those who don't suffer from it simply say, "hey, just stop using. What, you want a reward for not using?"
I could go on with examples, but the point is whether it is poverty, education, violence, or other society ills, the solution will not be found unless we are capable of considering the possibility that others may be experiencing the world differently.
This isn't about handing out rewards (it does seem that CT has watched the movie The Incredibles too many times)or that we can't judge a post or comment--it's about simply, simply respecting that for some to post here requires a kind of courage.
September 1, 2009 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
They aren't weak rejects. They just aren't writers.
September 1, 2009 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I remember going to reading by the poet Jane Hirshfield (I highly recommend her) and during the Q&A she talked about a period when she couldn't get words down on paper. She said during that time "I was a poet who didn't write." In other words, she experienced the world as a poet, even if she wasn't creating poems.
Being a writer (or any artist), ultimately is not about any specific words one jots down or how prolific one is , but the nature of the creative engagement one has the world.
September 1, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
My point was that an artist of any type, to be successful or even only fulfilled, must court the criticism of the audience to become better. It doesn't take courage to do what is necessary for a given endeavor to succeed on whatever level one deems satisfactory.
September 1, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree. This forum can be a tool to hone one's writing skill, but only if we don't meet every criticism with self-consciousness masquerading as derision.
At best it takes a small amount of "balls" to put our writing it out there for the world to savage, but absent the intimate connection to one's real-world identity or the ability to address and synthesize anonymous feedback in a logical fashion, this is more a forum for mental masturbation than any sort of real writer's forum designed to create more agile and effective political communicators. If anything, this forum does the exact opposite. It creates an echo-chamber of back-slapping and mutual adoration.
If someone really wants to see what it takes to put it out there on the line no matter what, they would have had to see the thread that came by way of seeking to make myself a better screenwriter. As soon as a TPM alum has a whole comment board started in their honor, I would suggest the risk as a writer is minimal. The name of my tribute site from that long ago sojourn on the Done Deal message boards? Jason Everett Miller must die! That was a doozy to read, let me tell you.
Good to see you around again.
September 1, 2009 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty harsh words up there, Jason, from someone who still hasn't forgotten the trashing you apparently had to take for writing a personal piece that must have meant a lot to you.
Both you and CT are coming at this post without fully understanding what it's all about.
It's about empathy. You don't necessarily have to had known the terror of putting your writing out there in order to find some understanding for the person going through it.
I've known many writers throughout my life, some whose names you would easily recognize. There are of course those incredible assholes, basking only in their own glory, but more likely I've run into writers who have been there, who have known those first terrors, and who show remarkable kindness and empathy to those who are early into finding their voices and are still embarrassed to call themselves writers.
Without that early nurturing, many published writers wouldn't have gone on to create works worthy of publication, and that would have been our loss. Read the forwards of any book and you will see effusive, heartfelt thanks to anyone and everyone who helped along the way.
Here we have the opportunity, on a much lesser scale, to encourage people who have much to say about the world and our places in it but who hesitate to put it out there for fear their work will be torn to shreds, or worse, that they won't be able to sustain their argument.
The Cafe should be the place for experimentation, for sticking a toe in the water, for having the freedom to make mistakes or even make fools of ourselves.
It is not some rigid classroom or committee room or war room. It's a place for ideas, for discussion, for argument, and that very atmosphere requires that we cut some slack for those who have an opinion but who might not articulate it as well as some others.
If that sounds like a place you would want to avoid at all costs, the solution is simple.
Avoid it at all costs.
September 1, 2009 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course I meant "acknowledgments" and not "forwards".
September 1, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
You apparently didn't read what I wrote, because your quote has nothing to do with what followed.
I spent months working out the kinks in my writing in an online forum designed for that. For my trouble, I had an entire site created to mock every word I wrote. Rather than being a wilting flower, I took those words to heart and became a better writer.
I challenge you to name a single writer who got published by sending anonymous pieces to publishers. It doesn't happen. Comparing the process of becoming a real writer with blogging anonymously on a website seems like comparing apples and orangutans. They aren't even in the same general vicinity as one another.
Without a direct, personal connection to the critique of one's writing, however nice or harsh, there can be no growth.
September 1, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, you need to read my original post again. This has become a discussion about what it takes to become a writer, when my real focus is on ordinary people who have something to say and are trying for the first time to say it in public. They are the ones I want to reach. I want them to be able to post blogs without the evil eyes of judgment or snobbery upon them. And after the posts and comments these past days, they've retreated into the woodwork. They need to know their voices have value. If you don't feel they do, I'm sorry. I didn't write the post for you, or even for me, I wrote it for them.
September 1, 2009 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I never said they do or do not have value. That is on a blog-by-blog basis for me.
You did imply that this place represents dipping a toe in the pool on their way to becoming a writer which prompted CT to respond that it takes thicker skin than that to be a writer.
You also clarified by saying that many professional writers started out as scared newbies as well. While that is undoubtedly true for many would-be writers, the wheat gets separated from the chaff by the individual's ability to take constructive criticism of said writing, especially if the would-be writer doesn't agree.
Nine times out ten, the criticism I most disagreed with about my writing was right on target.
September 1, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, Jason, I'm really not talking about people who want to become writers. I'm talking about people who want to write blogs on particular subjects.
I think I said somewhere above that I wasn't talking about professional writers but rather about people performing the act of writing. We did get off on the subject of becoming a writer but I've tried to steer us back on track.
I appreciate your comments, and the fact that we could carry on a civil conversation. Thanks for that.
September 1, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
No problem at all. Contrary to popular myth, I am not out to take every conversation into the gutter.
As to professional writers versus those who simply want to write, I am not so sure I agree with the distinction. In both cases, the writer is seeking to communicate an idea. In both cases, the writer must be willing to take constructive criticism in order to realize that goal of communicating a specific idea. Whether under our own name or a pseudonym, an inability to take feedback that is counter to our own beliefs means that real communication will never take place.
Given the massive lack of communication on all sides of the political debate for more than four decades, I think it is time we hold ourselves to a higher standard, whether for plaudit or paycheck.
September 1, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Constructive criticism about ideas is valid. Essential, even. I'm not seeking to protect anyone from the slings and arrows that come with opinionator territory. Before anyone blogs on here they've no doubt already been exposed to the comment sections. Not always fun places!
I'm addressing the snobbery I've seen on here lately about who is worthy of posting on TPM. It had nothing to do with politics or ideology. It had everything to do with the writing of personal blogs, and how they've perceived it as somehow diminishing TPM.
That's a slap in the face to many people who trembled at the thought of putting their hearts and souls out here, but took the step and did it anyway. Now, for the most part, they're gone. I thought it was a really rotten thing to do, and I tried to call them back.
I am not going to stop encouraging them. They have a right to be here as much as anybody, including those who've chosen to sit in judgment about their worth.
September 1, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I just don't see the snobs that you see, nor can I find any criticism that would fall into that category.
Lamenting a rise in popularity for what is mostly non-political commentary on a site devoted to politics seems reasonable criticism to me.
Then again, I have been getting my ideas shredded for decades, so I have a bit thicker skin these days than to take such things personally.
September 1, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, good to see you here still! ;-)
I think it humorous that the very point Dan K tries to make (mother hens being very offended about newcomers on TPM that they can't protect) produces this blog.
Apparently some have missed that TPM is a political site, first and foremost. Even if Josh wants the cafe to include "practice writing 101" on the Cafe (and there are real websites for new writers, they needn't come here), it's amusing that for Ramona misses that the first deal of a writer is to face his audience. And really, here they only have to face it in anonymity.
Naturally, she will sit and claim some of us have no "empathy"... that allows her the smug sense of superiority to deal with an argument that she really can't rebut.
One of the biggest problem that the left has is their inability to perform triage. Everyone must rigidly have something. Even the points 10 standard of deviations away from the mean. Well, you know what that means: you end up with nothing for anyone. (This is related to healthcare, but that's another story.)
So here is Ramona willing to butcher the English language for the sake of a hypothetical writer who can't even manage to "publish" under an assumed name. Now, that person deserves our empathy as a human being. But not as a writer. People here, apparently, can't make the distinction and so they roll back to their "better" empathy than the rest of us.
Here is a gift for you. Use it well. It shows that most of the country is indeed right-center on a self-identified basis. That's going to come as quite a shock for TPMers, but does so easily explain why their views never quite get heard. In the end, too many here don't understand that their arguments based on religion, morals, or... god forbid... natural rights, really just don't cut it with the majority. And then the TPMers are uncomfortable with pitching as a means to actually change someone's mind (perhaps because this is "unfair manipulation"?). You may also want to look up the book I recommended to Destor in his most recent blog. There are some ideas there as well.
You won't find me commenting much on TPM anymore except about meta-issues (like this weekend). Similar to the reasons why my blogs no longer exist. (As I've pointed out to others, some of them already came down as of Jan 19, 2009, but no one seemed to notice then.) I'm sure you can do the math.
I have found our interaction always interesting and seek out your avatar. Sometimes I think you are crazy (as you I) but I know you'd be a blast to hang with... and that's more important.
PS These days I think you are one of the larger voices of reason on the boards. Whether I happen to agree with you or not. Keep the faith, man, keep the faith! Best going forward.
September 1, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I am certainly crazy to have staked out the political position I have, but thanks for the kudos on my ability to rationally communicate a message most times.
Best not get too chummy while there is blood in the water on that very subject.
It has been a strange transformation for me this past year and a half, from far left "progressive" to claiming the original mantle of the republican party, but somehow my underlying ideology really hasn't changed all that much.
Just the methodology by which I would see those ideas take tangible form.
September 1, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I missed the whole controversy, so I have nothing to say about it. I just want to thank Ramona for writing an elegant little piece about writing. When I publish stuff on here, or anywhere else, I don't think about whether or not it will be trashed. I'm honestly not afraid to write down what I think and feel. I'm not very good at it, but practice makes perfect. If someone doesn't like what I wrote, so be it. I've had nothing but positive support from people here at TPM, and I'm not going to stop writing. Thanks, Ramona!
August 31, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was taught never to talk politics in polite company. My family, being Irish, ignored our own advice so we had plenty of verbal political brawls.
I find it incredible that people think you can get deep into political discussion without ruffling feathers. If your discussion remains perpetually civil and you are talking politics I have to wonder how much value there is there. Politics is about winning and losing. People die based on the decisions. We have all this talk about compromise and bipartisan postpartisan this and that and sitting around the gentlemen's club. Sheesh! We either do or do not send thousands more troops into battle in the next few months. That's real life and death stuff. So is healthcare. If you can't get angry about issues like these I guess I don't know what's wrong with you. It's not just an academic exercise. It's not just a social chat.
I prefer some passion even when I take a few jabs as a result. Shows I hit a nerve. Good.
August 31, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
And maybe a lot of times feathers get ruffled is because this country has had a long tradition of not talking politics. Culturally, we just don't know how to do it well, as the health care clearly shows. Sometimes feathers need to ruffled, but it is not necessarily the optimum outcome in every case.
If you what you want is to maybe show another how to look at an issue or a policy in a different light, then hitting a nerve may not be the best path. Sometimes all you accomplish with that is the schoolyard victory of hitting a nerve.
Some of this discussion has tangents that are best not travelled in my opinion, but overall it's nice to see people engaged in what means to be a part of community focused on socio-political discourse. There may be hope for this county yet.
August 31, 2009 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The same goes with sexuality. If we can't discuss politics (although, golly, we seem to be able to discuss religion more and more frequently here in America), we certainly can't discuss sex.
I find it gruesomely funny that other countries see us as the cowboy country big on guns and freedom. Yee Ha. Yet we're so Victorian when it comes to sexuality. We're downright prudish compared to Europe.
So....what does that say? We like our guns big and our women covered? We like our religion but only if it's one religion? We like our freedom but only if certain people are allowed to be free?
Some country we've become.
August 31, 2009 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very often I get told here that "people aren't that rational, you can't expect people to unemotionally talk about politics".
Well, now you are proposing just that.
Now, I happen to agree with you, but many here would not. Or at least they didn't.
The right is organized because those people know how to fall into line.
The left is constantly disorganized (or can only stay organized for very short amounts of time) because everyone has to feel "special".
The left has to learn to fall into line. But even the idea of that sounds like they will become little automatons, so they resist. As a result, they really do become little automatons with no control in a system they can't figure out.
We see the same trends here at TPM in a microcosm. It would be very entertaining if only the issues weren't so pressing.
August 31, 2009 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The left is constantly disorganized (or can only stay organized for very short amounts of time) because everyone has to feel "special".
The left has to learn to fall into line. But even the idea of that sounds like they will become little automatons, so they resist. As a result, they really do become little automatons with no control in a system they can't figure out.
The right know how to fall in line, yes.
The left won't fall in line, yes.
And it's not because we want to feel "special". And, no we don't have to learn to fall into line. That would just make us like the right, only worse.
The left is chaotic and rebellious precisely because we won't fall in line. The left is what's leftover from the right and those who left the right and those who always swayed or sat the fence.
Of course the left doesn't agree. But to step in line, just like the right, would make us equal to the right, only left.
Instead, we are many varied voices, many points of view, and we are sitting back and watching the right step lock step and goose step into what they are becoming. I'd rather attack the right from various points, i.e, the vanguard, the right flank, the left flank, and the rear, using multitudes of armies.
Keeping it varied, if nothing else, keeps them guessing.
Falling into line only makes us them, but on the other side of the trench.
Wasn't I told that in my last post?
September 1, 2009 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
No that wasn't what you were told.
You were told not to promote mindless blather (by not just me, by the way) which is exactly what you just did in this comment.
I'm hoping OldGoldenDecoy will show up and berate you for your Nazi reference, that's what he likes doing.
By the way, your comment makes exactly zero logical sense internally. Most people won't even speak for group here, and now you, oh of recent convert you, are speaking for the tire left?
But your logic is impeccable. The GOP is organized. I don't want to be like the GOP. Therefore I should be disorganized.
Perfect.
I think the Democrats in NY could use you on a ticket somewhere.
Yes, my little automoton. You won't have to fall into line. And then wonder why you feel so powerless. Because as it stand, right now, that's what you are. Powerless. You and the millions like you that "won't" fall into line.
Enjoy watching the failure of the healthcare reform. You helped it fail. Yes, you did.
September 1, 2009 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not your little anything, CT. Welcome back from the dead. Again.
Nice commenting at ya, but I won't do it again.
You're not worth the circle jerks.
September 1, 2009 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I in no way said that it should be unemotional. I don't see that the option is just between ruffling feathers and being unemotional.
What I am proposing is that we discuss politics infused with emotions, but those of compassion and empathy.
Check out the Buddhist concept of Right Speech.
September 1, 2009 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
acamus, I want to thank you for you comments in my post. This is the first I've seen you here, I think, and I hope you'll want to join other discussions on TPM. You have much to offer.
September 1, 2009 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks.
September 1, 2009 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would add the thought that first struck me: maybe if we better as a country of talking politics in polite company, we would haven't gone to war in Iraq in the first place, or elected Bush president (or at least got him close enough to steal it) (or have a constituency like the Republican base that propels people like Bush to top) (or...)
August 31, 2009 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great point. Because, after all, killing people isn't fun to talk about, in polite company.
acamus, I wish I could rec your comments.
August 31, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
...in polite company.
Some subjects are difficult to discuss. When they are of great consequence though, do we really have a choice? I wonder if our elected officials in Washington ever really discuss the ethical decline and the obvious misrepresentations of facts that have become so common. These things are of huge consequence and to not confront the reality of that consequence places the entire nation at risk. I don't see much value in being considerate of peoples sensibilities when the tradeoff is tossing the nation overboard.
September 1, 2009 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, tpc. I have to admit that I have a hard time reconciling the Obama that I read in The Audacity of Hope and voted for, with hope, to the man who now says he wants to put all of "that" (meaning torture, Cheney, Bush, etc) behind us.
Sure, it's politically expedient of him, and sure, it might move the country ahead faster, but....
...I thought he was putting "that" behind us so that he could work on important issues like health care. And now he's leaning right on that too.
For someone who's supposed to be slowly pushing us towards the middle or left, he sure is taking his damn sweet time about it.
Then again, we do need to be patient. Or so I'm told, and so I try to do. Just seems right now would be the perfect time for him to start striking out on his own, and politics -- and polite company -- be damned.
September 1, 2009 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are correct to be patient Liz. It has taken years, even decades to get us into this mess and it'll take a while to work our way out of it.
I am like you though. The pieces that we see as the foundation for getting us out of the mess, I don't think are being put in place or are being compromised. There really isn't much time to put them in place. As much as I would like to see the law upheld re: the Bush crime syndicate, that would probably lead us deeper into the political swamp and further away from a navigable road. Obama understands this and has made a pragmatic decision in favor of the country.
September 1, 2009 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, agreed. And, truthfully, if I were in his shoes, I wouldn't want to mess with it either. I'd want to leave that mess for someone else to clean up later. Instead, I'd want to move this country slowly towards the middle/left and leave office knowing that no bridges were burned.
It's just the angry side of me wants justice now, but Obama is a better chess player than I.
He's serving the party. He's helping the left. By being the better man.
Right?
September 1, 2009 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if I would say serving the party. I would say serving the country. Going after Bush / Cheney would be politically controversial even though it feels evident it would be about upholding the law. What republicans did with the Clinton ML indiscretions was about serving the republican party and in practical terms less about the law. That has been examined extensively and has been generally decided it should have been a matter for a civil court. Very different from the Bush / Cheney circumstance. Just my perspective.
September 1, 2009 3:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent distinction. My bad.
Serving the country, not the party.
I have to take a few days off and contemplate that. Thank you, tpc.
September 1, 2009 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
My pleasure.
September 1, 2009 3:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your family sounds a lot like my family bluebell.
September 1, 2009 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's too bad we cannot recommend posts more then once. This was wonderful. I'm glad I returned to see how things developed. It seems the DanK post has caused a lot of soul searching and it will make us all stronger. I doubt we will see fewer off-politics posts despite his rant and I see that we are not becoming less effusive in our praise for each other. This place is special. Why does that drive people so crazy?
September 1, 2009 3:05 AM | Reply | Permalink