Here's why I don't take you seriously.
written by Julie R. Neidlinger 9 comments link this postBackground: Graeme's post begat my post begat my foolish involvement in the comments at Graeme's original post begat this post.
It's bad enough to pretend to have a discussion with people on the internet over conflicting topics, but to be forced to take some people seriously as they continuously comment, comment and comment, demanding response, is too much to bear. Here's why:
- If you write a blog post or leave a comment without using capital letters, decent punctuation, any sense of paragraphical spacing, or abbreviations common to text messaging, I don't take you seriously. Even if you are discussing Fermat's Last Theorem or have found the solution to world peace, you sound like a dumbass.
- If you find yourself using Hitler, Naziism, Taliban, Waco, tin foil hats, cults, or any other such obvious metaphors and name-calling in whatever discussion you are trying to have, all you're doing is showing that you aren't well-read and well-traveled enough to come up with something more accurate and intelligent. And you sound like a dumbass. So I don't take you seriously.
- If you have no understanding of the topic at hand and still think all opinions are created equal and demand that your opinion be as valued as someone who might know more, and then throw around some vague and unlearned reference to the First Amendment if you can't hold your own in the discussion, I don't take you seriously. Because you are a dumbass.
- If your argument defies any sense of logic or sequential and systematic case-building, and you don't realize the benefits of your shutting up to both yourself and those suffering around you, clearly, you are a dumbass. And I don't take you seriously.
- If you jump to a conclusion before building your case or base it on precious little information, you ask me not to take you seriously. The reason being that you are a dumbass.
I don't post on politics in the Middle East because I don't know enough about it to even begin to accurately touch on the subject. I don't write much about tech stuff, cars, general politics, Central America, the moon, and how M&M's are made. I don't know anything about it. Instead, I read what other people have to say in those areas and generally stick to posting about what I know or have had some experience in. I'm not going to go to a tech blog looking for knitting tips. That goes both ways, for the reader and the writer. Just because you are able to say something doesn't mean you should. You do have the right to remain silent. Exercise that right until you have a clue about the discussion at hand.
Don't know anything the subject at hand? Can't put together coherent thoughts and writing? Then shut up and listen. Or you are just another noisy dumbass. You have nothing to add to the discussion.
And I don't take you seriously.
Labels: blogging
Copyright (c) Julie R. Neidlinger 9/20/2006 03:05:00 PM
SHARE THIS POST: Facebook | Stumble It! | Del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Technorati | Blinklist | Furl | reddit | Newsvine
Like this post? Subscribe to the feed.
Click here to help support this site.
SHARE THIS POST:
Facebook |
Stumble It! |
Del.icio.us |
DiggIt! |
Technorati |
Blinklist |
Furl |
reddit |
Newsvine
9 Comments:
I understand your point Julie, but would just add one caveat: I don't think you necessarily need to be an expert in order to comment on certain issues. Like the middle east, for instance.
I write about issues in the middle east all the time, mostly from the perspective of an American citizen interested and concerned about the presence of my country's soldiers there. Now I'm not an expert on the middle east. I've tried to educate myself to some extent, but I'm certainly not a scholar...but that isn't exactly a reason to discount my opinion on the subject either.
A commenter on my blog is fond of saying that in a debate the side that sounds the most reasonable is usually the side that is taken more seriously by observers. That's the rule of thumb I use for reading blogs. If the blog sounds reasonable, if the opinions/facts presented mesh with things I already believe to be true, then I take the person seriously. And vice versa.
I, of course, strive to always be reasonable in my posts/comments on the internet...though being imperfect I often fail.
But that's just a small point as I certainly get your larger point. People who come into a debate more willing to tell you things than to discuss things with you are infuriating.
By 
Rob, at
20/9/06 17:35
I had sat this morning and followed the trail to that other blog. I just sat, shook my head and thought. It really would not take much to throw fuel on the fire now would it. You have such a great way with words, glad it was you responding and not me. The thoughts in my head on this subject will remain there.
By 
Jacqui, at
20/9/06 17:48
Boy...remind me to NEVER try and debate you without ALL the facts...or I'll know what you'll be calling me under your breath.
Michael
By , at
20/9/06 20:17
Ha ha, Michael.
I suppose you'll bring this up the next time I'm in church.
Juuuuust great.
By Julie, at
20/9/06 20:49
Julie,
I thought your comments on Graeme's blog were expressed very intelligently and you brought an interesting perspective to the discussion.
When you said, "Something totally out of your realm makes you crack unthinking jokes out of fear.", it made me remember something a very wise person told me when I was younger; "We fear what we do not understand."
You have to admit that the Jesus Camp video is going to be quite a shock to anyone who knows even a little bit about the subject, but for someone who knows nothing about it, it's really going to floor them.
Anyway, I just wanted to say hello and thank you for your comments in that discussion.
By PTCruiser, at
21/9/06 07:42
Yeah....and then I go call everyone a dumbass.
Sigh.
Thanks for the comments, PTCruiser.
By Julie, at
21/9/06 09:40
If I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed. Say something once, why say it again.
Byrne, Psycho killer
By troutsky, at
22/9/06 00:23
Yeah, Troutsky, just like that.
Hence, the above post.
By Julie, at
22/9/06 00:42
Bruuhahahahahahahahwwwww!
Sorry to be late to the party.
That YouTube clip is a scream. I can't believe how out of touch the media is with broad evangelicalism. Is that service going to look weird? Oh yeah.
I think Guns n' Roses is weird.
Even if I observe some of the bad habits or bad theology the techniques advocated by the minister might produce, the doomsday warnings, the parallels drawn between emotionally charged kids at church camp and the rising enrollment in Christian colleges or contemporary Christian record sales are laughable.
Before my white bread reformed days (wink), I grew up in a Charismatic congregation where the youthful youth pastors prayed for us, exhorted us and taught us to clap our hands and raise our feet.
They also taught us to fight. To fight for other people. I knew then, as I know now, God's army is the armor-bearer of joy. It is good tidings He bears. It is reconciliation He offers. It is freedom. Not from danger or harm or Republicans, but from ourselves. If it is "us versus them" as the bitter female academic in the clip suggests, then it is All that is Good (however pitifully we present it) versus All that is Misery.
By girlfriday, at
23/9/06 01:40
