Monday, November 5, 2007

Time-out

Justin,

Hold on a freaking second. I'm sorry that you feel that I've insulted you. Let me at the very least try and address the things that have hurt your sensibilities.

First you're upset because I find it hard to take what you say seriously sometimes. Now, I didn't say that I don't taking you seriously.... What I meant was that the integrity of your comments (in my own mind) are in jeopardy because you offer up a great deal of criticism, but not much in the way of alternatives. For example, how should we conduct interrogations? Or what kinds of policies do you want to see from a future administration in regards to interrogations (or rendition, or wiretapping)?

Now I don't know why you care so much about my opinions, but maybe I shouldn't have used that phrase. I wouldn't have done so if I knew it was going to cause this result. And I am sorry.

You also said I insulted you because I claimed you are political and because you blame Bush for everything. I don't think that it is a stretch to say that you engage in political conversations with me, Rachel, and others. In doing so you invoke common political themes in some cases, and in others you create your own political stances. So in my mind you are being political, and that is not a negative thing. In fact I admire people who understand not only the issue, but also the politics that revolves around the issue.

Now you also use examples of people who use politics to advance themselves or their party or the people they represent. If you use a person's comments to make a point and I suggest that that same person's comments were used to advance themselves politically then I don't understand why you have to get mad at me. Just argue your point.

Now you said this: "since it seems to be beyond your ability to process as a list of obviously fucked up examples of things that ARE DIRECTLY HIS FAULT"

You then went on to list 7 things, which I assumed you meant were 'directly his (Bush's) fault". Maybe you don't blame everything on Bush, but in that list you included the melting of the ice among others. So I assumed that you were blaming the melting Artic ice on Bush because you said it was "directly his fault." And I responded accordingly.

---

Now let me show you some of your recent comments directed at me:

"since it seems to be beyond your ability to process..."

"maybe you can keep up..."

"Do you think before you write that kind of crap?"

These all could be considered insulting. I guessing that you think that I am stupid or slow. But that's OK, I didn't take offense. I understand when you get upset you like to go on about these things. However I do find it amusing that you have issue with me as being insulting.

---

Why do you get so upset when I use a historical reference? It's not like what I'm saying isn't relevant to the conversation. And if you don't like the reference then I'm not opposed to you forcing me to defend it. But, getting angry just because I mention something historical? Me doing so is not meant to point out something you don't know, it's just meant to add to the conversation. If you don't want me to make historical references in the future then I'll stop. But I really don't see why it's a problem.

T

1 comment:

yootskah said...

Ok, perhaps you didn't mean to be insulting Tybz, but they were definitely dismissive. I know I didn't mean to be. My comments were the result of my frustration, not at your dismissiveness, but rather your complete avoidance of my points. I became abrasive as a result, and I'm sorry I did.

And still you continue to ignore what I'm trying to say, even after I went out of my way to try and clarify my rationale.

Of course I don't mind if you use historical reference. But I am going to point out when it has nothing to do with my point. And I am of course going to get frustrated when you so consistently seem to avoid my argument.

Frankly, I feel you are simply being ridiculous and avoiding my actual point because you don't have anything to say back.

Which you also did when I remarked on the ice melting. You attempt to dismiss my actual point that "Maybe we should be doing something about this, instead of denying it is happening as Bush is" as mere raving that "Bush did this!"

Of course this is a "political" discussion during the course of which we are discussing "policies" but that was not what you meant when you said it. You dismissed my point as being political, which is different.

--

The reason I care about your opinion is because you desire to get involved in politics.

The reason I challenge you is because I don't understand what it is that make you interpret things the way you do. I honestly can't even find the actual sensory input that would seem to explain your position. Thus far, it seems that neither can you.

---

Am I really being that obtuse? You keep asking me what I would rather do than our current policies on torture, rendition, etc.

So let me try again:

Stop doing illegal shit that is contrary to our Constitution.

Is that really a difficult concept?