Is it possible to have an honest opinion?

[furtech]

Via a twit from doronjosama, I got to see this train wreck.

In this age of near-total-accessibility, is it possible to have honest opinions anymore?

When a celebrity goes on national television (news, the daily show, whatever) and expresses a controversial opinion, they pretty much get what they deserve, whether or not they are "right". That's the nature of opinions-- there will always be those who disagree. If you offer your opinion to the world then the world has a right to react.

Things get dicier when those opinions are expressed in more specialized venues -- from speeches made to specialized groups all the way down to a personal blog or facebook posting.

Scott Adams is right to take down his post (IMO). He wrote in a reply:

In this case, the content of the piece inspires so much emotion in some readers that they literally can’t understand it. The same would be true if the topic were about gun ownership or a dozen other topics. As emotion increases, reading comprehension decreases.

Once emotion becomes a driving force of a discussion, reason goes out the window. The more emotion, the less reason and vice versa. The marysue link above pretty much bears this out: in her own post and in the ensuing comment-storm, there is little interest in a rational discussion-- just baiting and snarling and screaming.

I'm even more eyebrow-raising at the site that re-posted the Adams entry :

Wow.
Just…wow.
You were a childhood hero of mine dude, and all my respect for you just died.
Not only because you wrote this load of shit, but then you deleted it like a coward when it made people angry.
Well done.

Really? Guy says something you disagree with and suddenly he's a non-person? Geez-- can you imagine having this person as a friend? Talk about high-maintenance. Like having a case of sweaty dynamite as a pal.

You'd think Adams advocated genocide or kicking puppies. What I got out of his original post was two things: first, don't waste your time and energy fighting battles that you have no interest in or which have no resolution. Second, Adams essentially says (and this is what shows me that most of the screaming is from emotional reaction, not reasonable thought): Guys whining over "male rights"? Get over yourselves. Life's not fair.

Adams -did- use bad analogies (bad=inflammatory). And he isn't a great communicator-- but that's kind of what he is (a admitted nerd). But, if you put his blog post in word balloons and had Dilbert saying them, most of these people would be laughing.

Personally, I -like- interesting people who share their opinions and thoughts. This gives me insight into their creative processes and I like that. I may disagree, or over time I may decide that I -don't- want to know more and stop following them-- but I would hate that they stop expressing themselves*. I consider them sharing their thoughts a privilege and something valuable. It would be bad if reactions like the one Adams received to cause them to self-censor or withdraw entirely. Who wants a world of carbon-copy, politically correct people?




*The same doesn't go for the thoughts and opinions of stupid people (though "stupid" is a subjective measure): the net makes it possible for anyone-- however idiotic-- to show their true selves to the world.

Comments

[okojosan.livejournal.com]

What I got out of it is that Scott Adams thinks adult women are on par with retarded people and children. Nice. In view of that, I agree with the person who lost all respect for him.

Most of what he said was ridiculous. Men need rights because women get served first at the table! Men need rights because their suicide rate is higher! He's coming from a place of privilege. Yeah, I get what he's doing- he's telling men to get over it. I can't help but feel, though, that he really believes these things are an issue. And then he stops any possible dialogue because you know, those women are so irrational and emotional, they can't discuss anything logically.

He wasn't anyone I was interested in, so I'm not emotionally invested in what he wrote. But his piece aligns in my head with the way women are treated on the internet in general.

[octantis.livejournal.com]

Ugh. That article is written really, really badly. You think he was basically back-handedly grousing about "men's rights" under the guise of claiming men should avoid the conflict because they can't win? And trying to passively-aggressively marginalize women?

[furtech.livejournal.com]

First, I went back and read the comments on his blog (from the deleted post). Apparently Adams -does- like to shake-the-beehive. It's entirely possible he knew exactly what he was doing when he used brats and the mentally handicapped as analogies.

The reason he took down the post may have ulterior reasons, but on the face of it I still agree: his comments were directed to a specific audience and when it went semi-viral, that post lost its context:

[Writing is always aimed at a particular audience. I wrote the deleted post for a unique audience of regular readers who have a keen understanding of what I do here. When the audience changed, the writing no longer fit. It's really just that simple. New readers were getting worked up over something the regulars understand didn't actually exist. -- Scott]

I am wondering if you read his entire post...as far as I can tell, he described what "Men's Rights" are about, then told that group to, "Get over it, you bunch of pussies." I'm pretty sure that his post wasn't supportive of the Men's Rights agenda. Bad analogies, yes-- possibly intentially provocative-- but not pro-Men's Rights.

I'm not sure what your link means. I guess there are men who disparage women gamers...but I was under the impression that a woman who walks into a comic or games shop or a convention was treated like a goddess...?

[octantis.livejournal.com]

It's kind of an either/or thing, from what I've observed. Either she's worshipped or she's met with hostility. In both cases it'll be assumed she's less skilled until she proves herself.

[lironess.livejournal.com]

I have walked into comic and game shops. I am pretty much ignored...and I am not bad looking either...maybe they can sense that I am just looking because I look at everything, I do not head for any certain section.

[okojosan.livejournal.com]

I am wondering if you read his entire post...'

Yes, yes I did. As I said so: Yeah, I get what he's doing- he's telling men to get over it. But I don't think he would write those things in the first place if he didn't agree with them. He didn't come across as disagreeing with men's rights. If he'd started out by saying "Men's Rights Activists, get over it." and then said what he said, maybe there wouldn't be such a furor.

I was under the impression that a woman who walks into a comic or games shop or a convention was treated like a goddess

Because that's better? Why can't women just be treated like human beings?

[furtech.livejournal.com]

Actually...I think you're right. And reading the comments and Adam's replies to those comments, I think you're right even more.

Because that's better? Why can't women just be treated like human beings?

Hey, c'mon! I/we are geeks. If were weren't, we wouldn't be hanging around in comic shops. Most of us are nearly autistic compared to "average" people. That we don't start dooling and touching those women is something of a triumph.

[okojosan.livejournal.com]

I have to admit I did learn one thing- I never knew women were served first in restaurants! Is this true? I've never noticed, but then the places I usually eat are on-par with Denny's and then I think the server just slings the food at everyone at the same time.

LOL, you're making geek woman sound like a bunch of Lennies.

[furtech.livejournal.com]

At any decent restaurant, yeah. Women get menus first, food first. Also done by age: oldest first. At at Denny's, you're lucky if the server gets the food on the table.

Some ethnic restaurants don't follow this, though. And in certain more chauvinistic countries, men are served first. I still remember an incident in Japan, at a brunch buffet. There was an American couple and a Japanese couple: the American man got up and got all of the food for both of them; the Japanese woman did the same. I was fascinated.

Okay, I may lose my geek license over this: what is a Lenny?!?

[okojosan.livejournal.com]

Oh, hm! I'll have to pay more attention next time I go to a nice restaurant. And we do eat at a lot of ethnic restaurants (pho, Indian, Mexican) as opposed to places like the Stinking Rose.

Your brunch story is fascinating! I think I'd prefer to get my own food though. One thing I DID notice when I was a kid is that my dad would order for all of us in nice restaurants. We told him what we wanted and then he would tell the waiter. After a while it struck me as bizarre, and he doesn't do it anymore.

As for Lennie: from Of Mice and Men! :D

[desertcoyote.livejournal.com]

Daaaang... I wanna know where these places are that I can go to be treated like a goddess! /\_/\.... I've been hanging around comic shops throughout my life and have attended sci-fi/fantasy/whatever conventions and have never encountered anything vaguely worship-like for simply being female. I feel left out now. :D (Of course, people sometimes notice me for being an artist, but that's a separate issue.) As an anonymous female, I'm mostly just ignored like everyone else, or rarely I do meet Mr. Smarmy Misogynist guy. The most striking example being the guy in Colorado... I'll never forget walking up to this cool-looking shop with Lord of The Rings standees at the doorway and all kinds of swords and medieval-looking armor inside. An employee (owner?) was standing at the doorway smoking and I asked him what was in the shop. He basically shooed me away with "these are men's toys, you wouldn't be interested." My jaw would've dropped to the floor if it was physically able to do so.

[desertcoyote.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

[tori04.livejournal.com]

People make me tired.

[furtech.livejournal.com]

That's why I like dogs...

[octantis.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think it's either stupendously awfully composed, or it's a very deft troll. He gets to say, "How true all these inequities are!" and then say, "We should just deal with it" and make his position supposedly unassailable, because if you call him on it you've "got no reading comprehension" because you're "overly emotional". Durr hurr.

If he wanted to point out that inequity is a fact of life for everyone in some fashion or another, and that we should address it as we go along, he could have done that pretty easily. So either his writing is bad or his position is bad. Possibly both. Toxic.

[octantis.livejournal.com]

Though, speaking of reading comprehension, I should address what you wrote! Durr hurr.

Yeah, I don't want people to self-censor if they get a small amount of flak that isn't legit. On the flip side, I do want people to think about what they say instead of just vomiting up the first thing that comes to mind. There's a grey area here somewhere.

[okojosan.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's true, I don't want people to self-censor so I know whom to avoid. :D

[kynekh-amagire.livejournal.com]

Once emotion becomes a driving force of a discussion, reason goes out the window. The more emotion, the less reason and vice versa.

Not true. It is certainly possible to be emotionally invested in an argument and still argue one's position logically. (One can also be detached emotionally and employ shaky, irrational arguments: for example, "calm down, MRAs, women are basically whiny children so there's no harm in indulging them sometimes to avoid their womanly tantrums" with a side order of "sexism against men".) It is, in fact, totally unnecessary and thoroughly counterintuitive to be "unemotional" when making an argument: who argues about topics they honestly don't give a shit about? (Aside from trolls.) "You're emotional and therefore irrational" is a tactic for shutting down opposition, one which happens to be employed very consistently by men against women in, oh, every discussion about sexism ever since time began. Not cool.

Anyway. This doesn't actually change my opinion of Scott Adams at all: I've found Dilbert to be sexist, racist and obnoxious more often than I've found it funny, so Scott Adams saying sexist, obnoxious things on his personal blog fails to come as a surprise. However, I don't actually think his opinion is inrinsically more valuable than the opinions expressed by the people who pointed out that what he said was misogynist and ableist and awful -- see, I can support the right of people to express their shitty opinions while also supporting the rights of less clueless people to tell them their opinions are shitty. Maybe Scott Adams will think twice about posting hateful language in the future, and that's okay. "Political correctness" is about treating everyone with respect, and I think we'll have better discourse in general if there's more of that around, not less.

[furtech.livejournal.com]

Not true. It is certainly possible to be emotionally invested in an argument and still argue one's position logically.

I agree-- but you are talking about a middle ground, somewhere in the middle of that slider that has pure emotion on one end and pure reason on the other. Most good discussions are made of this. If someone is in the throes of pure emotion-- grief, rage, whatever-- you cannot reaon with them or even get through to them sometimes. They're in an almost animal-state (primal). On the other end, someone who is coming from pure reason cannot be swayed by any argument that involves emotion-- like mercy or hatred, etc.

who argues about topics they honestly don't give a shit about?

Oh, I've known many people who just like to argue. And win. I steer clear of most people like that. Most often observed near a big election. Some of the most vocal arguers before an election never even bother to vote!?!

I disagree with your comment about political correctness. Respect is about treating people with respect and sensitivity; political correctness is about appearing to be sensitive (usually to an excessive degree) so that you are lauded for being a "sensitive person".

[kynekh-amagire.livejournal.com]

No, that's completely the opposite of what I'm saying. "Emotion" and "logic" are not on opposite ends of a slider. They're on totally different sliders. Knowing the emotional context of someone's viewpoint will not tell you whether or not their argument is reasonable; only reason will tell you that.

Some people do use the language of social justice movements as a way to elevate their own personal views at the expense of others, especially on the Internet -- I definitely won't argue with that. But the problem there is "some people", not the idea of political correctness of speech, which really is just about recognizing slurs and not using them casually.

[lironess.livejournal.com]

I read the part in question. I "get" what he was trying to say. It was said very very badly.

I think he managed to insult everybody including men.

I have never been a big Dilbert fan anyways so I do not really give a rats ass one way or the other but it is sometimes fun to watch drama flamewars....

I also think he was deliberately provoking when he wrote this and now he is paying for it..his disclaimer at the bottom is no excuse for the whole article.

[furtech.livejournal.com]

Yes-- like a kid playing with matches: it looks like fun, but sometimes you get burned.

[martes.livejournal.com]

It's a huge deal to a lot of guys. I know three or four guys who are absolutely rabid about 'men's rights' and constantly griping about how unfairly men are treated.

The feeling I got from the article was that he was goofing on the men's right's crowd. In my opinion, of course.

[furtech.livejournal.com]

Those guys you know would probably also foam at the mouth on gun ownership discussions...

I got the same feeling, pretty much. I don't follow his blog, though, so if there were other agendas, I missed 'em.

Sorry if this is heavy/lengthy-handed...

[haamel.livejournal.com]

First a note about the phrase "all my respect for you just died". Some species of "I just lost all respect for you" comes up in conversations all the time, and from the frequency of usage alone I have to conclude one of four things. One: the speaker didn't have that much respect for the subject to begin with. Or two: "respect" in general as understood by the speaker is a pretty fragile, superficial quantity. Or three: the speaker is essentially lying in the heat of the moment; what they really mean is that they've lost "considerable" respect for the subject. Almost never should it be the case that it's actually Four: the subject has revealed something so heinous and so unheralded about their character that, on the strength of that one revelation alone, all previous knowledge of the subject can and must be reevaluated negatively.

Let's also scale back some of the hysteria here: "loss of respect", even "loss of 'all' respect" as it were, does not equal "non-person" for any rational, moral individual. If Adams is entitled to voice his opinion, the responder is also allowed to voice disapproval with that opinion, even to the point of the fourth option above, without our dismissing him out of hand.

In the case of Adams and in the case of this post, I'm not sure how much respect I had for him to begin with so I'm not sure how much respect per se I've just lost. I certainly don't respect Adams' post much: short on actual point and long on assertions and juxtapositions that range from awkward at best to incendiary and/or ludicrous at worst. Seeing a lack of obvious important content (such as any interesting proposal on how to address gender inequities and elevate society as a whole), I somehow doubt many people would have noted or commented on the post at all, if not for Adams' minor celebrity status as a cartoonist. As such, I for one will not invest any real invective of my own.

Since furtech mentioned it though, I do feel obliged to comment on the defense of Adams' "bad communication" on the grounds that he is an "admitted nerd". I reject the notion that nerds or "geeks" deserve a free pass just for managing to operate above the "autistic" level socially. I am not one of the regular readers Adams later claims he was speaking to, but if those readers share a common element that makes this post coherent for them, I fear they and I might not get along very well. In any event, Adams seems to have just learned a hard, and apparently overdue, lesson in how a publically-readable post on the Internet is fully public and will reach a very wide audience. Nor is this entirely bad, in my view, if it results in people being more accountable for the content they put out there.

At the risk of taking you to task at length in your own blog area, I wonder if you still stick by the notion that the post, in Dilbert word balloon form, would have everybody "laughing"? I would think a Dilbert strip that conflates women, children and the mentally retarded together -- and then offers a politician-like Oh, that was only a rhetorical device, honest as a non-apology later -- would ignite a national firestorm and probably cost Adams a goodly amount of income from lost readership and protested franchising.

Re: Sorry if this is heavy/lengthy-handed...

[furtech.livejournal.com]

Heavy/lengthy-away: I don't always agree with you, but you're thoughtful and I always respect what you have to say about things.

First paragraph: nice summation of the term. I would add to #3 something that about wanting to hit back by saying something hurtful in the heat of the moment.

From the comments, there may be a lot more to this than just a doofy post that is badly worded. As with you, I'm not infatuated with Adams to the point of following his blog, but I do search out "Dilbert" when I read the paper.

The bit about aspergers/bad communication is more an explanation than trying to excuse him. Like many of my interactions with people at fan-conventions, I understand why so many of them lack basic social etiquette, but don't always excuse it. I don't go postal on people, but I do point out when they're being inappropriate. Usually they are a bit surprised, but politely accommodating.

Re: last paragraph-- not necessarily a verbatim word-ballooning, maybe, but I could swear I've read a bit in the comic where Dilbert is talking to a woman and saying the same thing. Or later, Dilbert (looking disheveled and beat-up) explaining to Dogbert how you need to treat women.

You'll notice, interestingly, that in comments to his post few people have managed to recall the exact words he used. Adams (probably very carefully) used the term, "mentally handicapped," and many people have read that back using very un-politically correct names (hi, kynekh_amagire!) possible. Such mis-quotes intentionally paint Adams in a worse light. In just the few posts here I saw "mentally retarded" or "retarded people", where "retarded" is considered insulting all around (to the MH and PC people everywhere).

Re: Sorry if this is heavy/lengthy-handed...

[haamel.livejournal.com]

This is interresting to me in that I grew up around the medical establishment that deals with the handicapped of all descriptions. The impression I came away with was that all terms that connote disability were equally troublesome to the PC-minded. At least when I use "mentally handicapped" and "mentally retarded", I use them interchangeably and with no intended difference in connotation. The phrase MR feels more canonical to me for some reason, so I tend to default to it when writing my thoughts... nor do I personally find Adams post any more defensible for his choice of MH.

An aspect of the Dilbert strip worth noting is that all of its characters are established as losers in some form, prepackaging a grain of salt with which to take anything they say. Dilbert expressing futility of reasoning with women means something different than Adams himself stating the same. Or at least, it should, if we are to regard Adams as a human being and not a pitiful cartoon character...

[ruggels.livejournal.com]

I've had to censor myself for years. Even among friends. You will get some notion of the truth, but there is a lot of omission. I was politically out of step in The San Francisco Bay Area. Even in my own blogs I censor myself fairly strictly, because I am Very conflict averse.. to a point.