My response to stupidity

[greybeta]

I expected to get hate mail over my article about how we shouldn't allow the gay agenda to fool us, but even I was surprised by a rather particularly scathing one from the former opinion editor. He's a fine young gay man now interning for Mrs. Clinton up in Washington. In student senate he's actually had the gall to call me his "opponent across the aisle" before. Those, those are dueling words, sir. You can disagree with my opinions, but never ever say:

I hope that in your future articles you will work to enhance, rather than degrade, the credibility of our newspaper.


Jonathan,

You do go by Jonathan instead of Kody now, right? I am happy to see that you are
disappointed in my article. In fact, I have you to thank for it since this article would
have never seen the light of day under your watch as Opinion Editor. And that's why I'm
glad to see you perturbed...precisely because we have a difference of opinion, my
opponent across the aisle.

Although, I must say I am disappointed you grossly misunderstand politics, Mr. Looper.
Then again, most people do disappoint my high standards.

Do you actually believe that I believe everything I write? Is it really my job to write
my true opinions, or is it to get people to read the Collegian? Is it Hillary Rodham
Clinton's job to say what she thinks or say what will give her the best chance to be
President of the United States of America? Is it George W. Bush's job to represent the
interests of the American people or to represent the special interests that stuff the
Bush dynasty full of dollar bills?

Don't be so naive as to think that only your side understands what's going on.

I understand you're working for a certain wife of Bill Clinton now. As you know, I grew
up in Arkansas. Yet I cannot respect Hillary. Let me tell you why. If you ever go to
Little Rock and visit the Arkansas Capitol building, you can find a picture of a rather
young Slick Willy with his dashing red hair. But, Arkansan governors only get their
portraits painted when they lose an election. If you asked your current boss why her
husband lost that election, she'll give you a bunch of reasons. She may casually mention
that's when she changed her name.

You see, Mr. Looper, your boss was known as Hillary Rodham back then. But then her
husband lost. When he ran again two years later (Arkansas had two year gubernatorial
terms at the time), her name was suddenly Hillary Rodham Clinton. You might ask her why
she changed her name then. She might complain about the bigots in the Bible Belt.

Quite frankly, the problem with the Democratic Party today is people like you, Mr. Looper.
You don't understand the rules of the game: You don't make the rules, you just play the
game. And the game is to fool the American people into voting for you. The neocons
understand this, but the liberals are fragmented and have no clue on how to pursue this.

You don't have to believe me. I'm just a moderate after all, though a moderate who can
think on both sides of the political equation. I'd argue with you on the points of my
article, but I find debates on the Internet to be too contentious without any sort of
tone indicators. Whenever you come back to TU, we should have coffee at the smoothie bar
at Collins sometime. They even sell Fair Trade Coffee if you're into that type of
thing.

And if you truly care about preventing the degradation of the Collegian, then why don't
you write an article yourself? Unlike you, I'll actually print the opinions of my
opponents across the aisle.

-Daniel
Opinion Editor, The Collegian
Judicial Council, Student Association

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
~Plato's Republic


(And yes, I know that he's eventually going to read this. I'd say it to his face so I can say it on my blog. That's the problem with trying to insult a straightforward person like me.)

Comments

[fub.livejournal.com]

Wow, that is quite a long piece for something that does not address the points of the other person and is, in fact, a protracted personal attack.

Dissapointing.

[moocowrich.livejournal.com]

Ditto that.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

You know me well enough to know that I only fight fire with fire.

[moocowrich.livejournal.com]

I also know you well enough to know that you won't change that no matter what I, or anyone else, has to say about it.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

But you also know that if I do change, I'd never admit it. ;)

[purplkat.livejournal.com]

I probably wouldn't have put it quite that way, but that's about what I was going to say.

The thing that I find the most distressing is this:

Do you actually believe that I believe everything I write? Is it really my job to write my true opinions, or is it to get people to read the Collegian?

I don't know what your JOB is, but if you believe something, I think it's probably your moral responsibility to, you know, argue in favor of what you believe. I think that most people would tend to agree with me, and it isn't unreasonable to assume that someone believes whatever it is that they argue in their column. I thought that I was about as cynical and disillusioned as they come, but at least I believe in taking a stand for what I believe in, even if I'm of the opinion that it won't do any good to do so.

Assuming that what you write in this journal aren't lies as well, I'd say that your true opinions are probably interesting enough to sell papers -- assuming that you actually have the courage to put them on the line.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

I'd tell you the answer to that question, but some answers in life need to be figured out on one's own.

[purplkat.livejournal.com]

While I agree that some answers in life have to be figured out on one's own, I'd say that the phrase is generally applied to great life lessons like "can you change people?" and "what are the most important things in life?". I think that "Is Greybeta writing his true opinions in his journal?" is one of those life lessons that I will never learn, as it's not really worth my fretting about and trying to figure out ;)

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

I think that "Is Greybeta writing his true opinions in his journal?" is one of those life lessons that I will never learn, as it's not really worth my fretting about and trying to figure out ;)
Truth. ^_^

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Fight fire with fire. You would understand better if you read the complete contents of his email, but I only air my concerns on my LJ.

[purplkat.livejournal.com]

I don't think it matters what the complete contents of his email were. Even if he wrote the most inane "u suxxors" letter, it behooves you to respond to him with maturity, which I don't think you did.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

No, if I were immature, I would have just emailed him back with "You're wrong" and left him at that. At least I told him why I thought he was wrong.

[purplkat.livejournal.com]

By backing away from your stated opinion, calling him naive for making the very reasonable assumption that the things you opined in your column were in fact your own opinion, attacking Hillary Clinton and claiming that the problem with the democrats is that they don't lie to people enough?

I can't even -begin- to extrapolate what kind of letter would make such a reply the mature responce.

[usmu.livejournal.com]

That's a non-argument. Giving reasons does not make a person mature. The way in which you give reasons does. Giving reasons in the form of a personal attack without adressing the issues is immature.

um... wow.

[yndy.livejournal.com]

Do you actually believe that I believe everything I write? Is it really my job to write my true opinions, or is it to get people to read the Collegian?

One would hope that it is your job to both write what you believe AND to get people to read that paper.
To write dishonestly turns your paper into nothing but a tabloid. Tabloids are seldom concerned with truth over the bottom line - it is true journalists who we rely upon to present facts.

Even in an Opinion article, one should be quoting facts in support of one's opinion. Rhetoric is not the only way to persuade the public.

Quite frankly, the problem with the Democratic Party today is people like you, Mr. Looper.
You don't understand the rules of the game: You don't make the rules, you just play the game. And the game is to fool the American people into voting for you. The neocons understand this, but the liberals are fragmented and have no clue on how to pursue this.

This is quite cynical, is it not? To "fool the American people into voting for you" may be the agenda of many a politician, but I could introduce you to a number of politicians from both 'sides of the aisle' that I know personally who would not only take great affront at such a suggestion, but by no mean espouse it, nor would they support those who do.

Not being a Democrat, myself, I don't know if 'the liberals' do or don't know how to pursue that agenda - but how distasteful to think that *anyone* from any political party would venerate those who not only *know* how, but actually put it into practice.

I'm not really sure what you were attempting to do here - to defend your position? to defend your right to print what you see fit as Opinion Editor? or to malign the character of someone you already hold in distaste because he criticized your actions and your writing?

I have not read the OpEd piece itself (44mb download is a bit much to wait for just to read that) but after reading this, it seems pointless. From what you have said here, it appears that you, yourself, don't believe it holds weight or merit - so tell me then why I should waste my time reading it?

This one is confusing... on many levels.

But that's just my 2 cents - which is about all it's worth... if that.

Re: um... wow.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

It's confusing because I didn't post the contents of his email. But if you understand fighting fire with fire, then you would be able to surmise what the contents of his email were.

Straightforward?

[nickel.livejournal.com]

By what standard do you consider yourself straightforward? You confess, clearly, that as opinion editor, the opinions you write are seperate from the opinions that you possess, the arguments you make are not the arguments you believe. In the most kindly of circumstances you can be called playing the Devil's Advocate, that's not a straightforward behavior.

Now, when challenged, you disavow any associations between that which you opine and that which is your opinion. Since you did not, in a straightforward manner, inform the reader ahead of time that this was the case, this disavowal is shadowed by doubt. Are you really just rocking the boat or are you, in the face of opposition retreating from your opinions in what will inevitably viewed as a cowardly retreat?

I can tell you that when I think of straightforward people, I don't usually come across such quandaries. Straightforward people are, by nature, straightforward, and don't require such lengthy investigations.

The simplest response to Mr. Looper is to tell him that as opinion editor you have a right and responsibility to express dissenting arguments you find worthy of the public's attention regardless how small the minority which finds them appealing. I would questions Mr. Looper's dedication to the first amendment which grants you freedom from censurious attacks on your opinions and expression of that opinion. Finally, I would call upon Mr. Looper's prior experience in your position and note that his lack of faith in your abilities signified a lack of faith in the abilities of those that chose you to replace him. If he is not proud of the publication that he once worked for and those that maintain it since his departure, then why is he wasting his time reading it.

To me, that is the straightforward response. Stick to your guns, liberals aren't the only ones who have the right to express a minority opinion.

Re: Straightforward?

[samroswell.livejournal.com]

The last point of your 4th paragraph is the clincher: the Collegian is not something to be proud of, and has not been for the last 5 years. Personally, when I do read it, I read it for comedic value, if the quality of writing is above the level of infuriating. And no, I have not and do not plan to write for it. I may recognize the quality of writing that I read, but I myself am not a writer (let alone a "journalist") and have no aspirations to become one.

Re: Straightforward?

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Then I must not be a straightforward person. ^_^

Re: Straightforward?

[purplkat.livejournal.com]

This is just a nitpick, but unless Mr. Looper suggested that the school ought to shut the paper down or a law ought to be passed preventing Greybeta from writing whatever it was that he wrote in his column, then there's no reason to question his dedication to the first amendment.

Arguing with someone, saying you feel that they're wrong, even saying that you're sorry and/or angry to see such opinions expressed at all are not first amendment attacks. They're part of the process of debate; you have the freedom to say what you want, and I have the freedom to tell you that you're wrong. First amendment issues only come into play once the talk turns to shutting down newspapers or passing laws against printing and/or saying things.

I wanted to point this out, because I get tired of seeing the first amendment waved around like a tired old flag whenever two people disagree.

That having been said, I agree with the 'stick to your guns' part.

[tu-oboe-girl.livejournal.com]

Daniel, I wanted to comment on this, but I think others have already done a better job than I can pointing out the error in what you have done. I just wish you would swallow your pride and let yourself see it. All I can say is that you call yourself a Christian, but I doubt Kody/Jonathan saw that at all. Frankly, you were mean and abusive to him. You can call it "fighting with fire" if you want, but that is not how Christ taught us to deal with other people. I encourage you to send him an apology. Even if he sent you a nasty e-mail that provoked your own nasty e-mail, you know what they say: 2 wrongs don't make a right.

[eyelashpeekie.livejournal.com]

I agree. Showing Christ to others should always matter more than a desire for revenge.

[jfargo.livejournal.com]

I find it interesting that you claim to be fighting fire with fire, yet the one line you allow us to read actually makes your "opponent across the aisle" seem rather intelligent, and then you go on to prove that you were degrading the credibility of your paper by waffling on whether or not what you wrote was truth, or pure lies.

And the personal attacks? No matter what he said, that just makes it look like he hit a few nerves, which in internet debate means he won a few minor points, usually.