Is it possible to have an honest opinion?
Mar. 26th, 2011 01:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
furtechVia a twit from ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Sorry if this is heavy/lengthy-handed...
Date: 2011-03-27 07:02 pm (UTC)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...
Date: 2011-03-28 01:01 am (UTC)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...