Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Open letter to conservatives
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 121 of 122 (566937)
06-28-2010 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Modulous
06-23-2010 4:05 PM


Re: Generalised Libel?
Hi, Modulous.
Sorry I took so long: I forgot I had even gotten involved in this topic (I guess that shows how much interest I have in it).
Modulous writes:
I think it relies on reading something in the worst possible way, rather than trying to understand the point the author is actually trying to make.
Sometimes I think you're too robotic about these sorts of topics. From the perspective of the audience, if everybody read the way you do, politics would be a lot more civil. But, I feel like this is a subject matter in which holding the audience accountable for forgiving insensitivity is not reasonable.
If there is a sincere desire to benefit the audience, then the author needs to be held accountable for giving as much consideration to the audience’s sensitivities as he or she does to the content of the intended message.
King appears to have not done this, or to have done this and judged the sensitivities of his audience unimportant. He paid great attention to the content of his letter, but his presentation is too pointed, too incautious, and lacks sympathy or sensitivity.
I just don’t see how he can expect this to be seen as legitimately sincere by anybody who doesn’t already agree with him or who isn’t Modulous.
-----
Modulous writes:
Or maybe he wasn't talking to the people that go into knee-jerk interpret this guys words in the worst possible way mode. Maybe he was appealing to the reasonable elements in the party...
...If the person reading it dismisses the comments as 'biased liberal slander' then that person wasn't the intended audience.
I’ll certainly grant that these are all feasible, but it’s difficult to make it stick ex post facto: retroactively defining the intended audience as something other than what was written on the salutation line feels a bit slippery to me.
-----
Modulous writes:
...but I think libelous is going a little overboard.
I've noticed that I tend to use the word more than other people do.
I have a strong distaste for stepping on toes. When I’m sincere about something, I try to be as sensitive as I can. So, when other people try to make a sincere point in a less sensitive way, they come off as fake and, thus, dishonest. Maybe I’m a little too sensitive.
Still, I think King is either extremely clumsy or extremely disingenuous in the way he presents his message.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Modulous, posted 06-23-2010 4:05 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Modulous, posted 06-29-2010 6:23 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 122 of 122 (566995)
06-29-2010 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Blue Jay
06-28-2010 6:13 PM


Re: Generalised Libel?
If there is a sincere desire to benefit the audience, then the author needs to be held accountable for giving as much consideration to the audience’s sensitivities as he or she does to the content of the intended message.
Sure - I've not argued that King is the king of diplomacy or anything.
I’ll certainly grant that these are all feasible, but it’s difficult to make it stick ex post facto: retroactively defining the intended audience as something other than what was written on the salutation line feels a bit slippery to me.
I think, given what he said - it was already in there. He was talking to those people with whom he politically disagreed with but who he thinks should be changing the discourse of their party to something less filled with demagoguery.
Still, I think King is either extremely clumsy or extremely disingenuous in the way he presents his message.
I think clumsy is a better analysis than disingenuous, but then disingenuous has shifted meanings lately - especially in political discourse so I guess it depends on how you are defining it.
Sorry I took so long: I forgot I had even gotten involved in this topic (I guess that shows how much interest I have in it).
It's not the most exciting topic - I'd forgotten about it too until you'd replied
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Blue Jay, posted 06-28-2010 6:13 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024