Just kidding! I did it ... I read the ENTIRE post! As a slow reader, daunted by length, I feel as though I should get some sort of ribbon or prize.
Seriously though, it was much appreciated, as were the preamble's amblings and the assorted gratuitous artwork. Even more appreciated, perhaps, was the refreshing level-headedness and, dare I say, respectful/ civil tone that you adopted. And God only knows, if everyone was more factual/thoughtful and less presumptuous/emotional, we'd surely be closer to the truth we all ostensibly seek.
Of particular note, many thanks for going the extra miles in thoroughly elucidating and fleshing out what I had suggested to Shoniwa was fallacious, owing to a blatant interpretive bias. Perhaps your elaboration will succeed (where I failed), in convincing him of the validity of my submission — which, ironically, as your further data-rooting revealed, was but the tip of an iceberg. Of even more particular note, with regards to 48 B interacting with 259 W, your “Map of Elfland” visual/graphic clearly illustrates what my words only hinted at (in admittedly vague and clumsy fashion).
Thank you! I know that when I write something really long, I head into a diminishing return situation where I put in more work, research, and writing, all to have it seen by fewer people. But I figure numbers aren’t everything, and every now and then I just want to get to the bottom of something, see it all the way through, lay it all out, and I figure at least a few of my readers will want to join me for the deep dives. I’m glad you liked it.
Wow, Jordan, I applaud your effort to untangle the threads of this morass of issues and try to weave them back together in a coherent vision of a way forward. Here's one more angle to add that I don't think you mention, in your critique of some writers' shortsighted attempts to protect the illusion of a coalition. This angle would be less strategic and ideological, and rather personal and self-serving, if perhaps unconscious. Without naming names, I get the impression that some writers take positions that they hope represent cohorts of their readers, perhaps former ideological allies (especially on the "Left," or in the conventional "Anarchist" camp, as if there truly is such a thing, LOL!), or conversely, avoid taking what might be more consistent stances in order not to risk alienating segments of their readership. You, in contrast, seem to me firmly entrenched in the pursuit of truth and integrity, and let the fickle readership and commentariat flak fall where it may. Kudos for that!
Thank you Nowick! I appreciate the encouraging comment. Yes, the temptation to please readers is very strong, and I can see where readership capture of an author can be a thing. I’m pleased though that there was a lot of engagement with the last piece, even if a lot of the engagement was negative.
I’ve done that myself; I’ll attack an idea, partly because I don’t like it but also to see if it’s strong, to test it, then if the idea withstands my attack and proves it’s mettle, I’ll consider adopting the idea.
I’ve never had as much trepidation publishing something, actually, as that last essay I published, that started this. I thought okay, why, am I, an unapologetic anti-vaxxer, hesitating? Is it because something I wrote was mean spirited, flimsy, or better left unsaid? No? Then it’s just the strength of social taboo keeping me silent – I took that as a sign that I should contribute in my own way to opening up the conversation and letting in more light.
And the most insidious thing about that "social taboo" you mention is that its handmaiden, virtue signaling, motivates critics to sidestep the merits of an argument as they instead try to score tribal points by chanting guilt by association with "consensus" taboo offenders.
Epic post, but … TL;DR.
Just kidding! I did it ... I read the ENTIRE post! As a slow reader, daunted by length, I feel as though I should get some sort of ribbon or prize.
Seriously though, it was much appreciated, as were the preamble's amblings and the assorted gratuitous artwork. Even more appreciated, perhaps, was the refreshing level-headedness and, dare I say, respectful/ civil tone that you adopted. And God only knows, if everyone was more factual/thoughtful and less presumptuous/emotional, we'd surely be closer to the truth we all ostensibly seek.
Of particular note, many thanks for going the extra miles in thoroughly elucidating and fleshing out what I had suggested to Shoniwa was fallacious, owing to a blatant interpretive bias. Perhaps your elaboration will succeed (where I failed), in convincing him of the validity of my submission — which, ironically, as your further data-rooting revealed, was but the tip of an iceberg. Of even more particular note, with regards to 48 B interacting with 259 W, your “Map of Elfland” visual/graphic clearly illustrates what my words only hinted at (in admittedly vague and clumsy fashion).
Thank you! I know that when I write something really long, I head into a diminishing return situation where I put in more work, research, and writing, all to have it seen by fewer people. But I figure numbers aren’t everything, and every now and then I just want to get to the bottom of something, see it all the way through, lay it all out, and I figure at least a few of my readers will want to join me for the deep dives. I’m glad you liked it.
Wow, Jordan, I applaud your effort to untangle the threads of this morass of issues and try to weave them back together in a coherent vision of a way forward. Here's one more angle to add that I don't think you mention, in your critique of some writers' shortsighted attempts to protect the illusion of a coalition. This angle would be less strategic and ideological, and rather personal and self-serving, if perhaps unconscious. Without naming names, I get the impression that some writers take positions that they hope represent cohorts of their readers, perhaps former ideological allies (especially on the "Left," or in the conventional "Anarchist" camp, as if there truly is such a thing, LOL!), or conversely, avoid taking what might be more consistent stances in order not to risk alienating segments of their readership. You, in contrast, seem to me firmly entrenched in the pursuit of truth and integrity, and let the fickle readership and commentariat flak fall where it may. Kudos for that!
Thank you Nowick! I appreciate the encouraging comment. Yes, the temptation to please readers is very strong, and I can see where readership capture of an author can be a thing. I’m pleased though that there was a lot of engagement with the last piece, even if a lot of the engagement was negative.
I’ve done that myself; I’ll attack an idea, partly because I don’t like it but also to see if it’s strong, to test it, then if the idea withstands my attack and proves it’s mettle, I’ll consider adopting the idea.
I’ve never had as much trepidation publishing something, actually, as that last essay I published, that started this. I thought okay, why, am I, an unapologetic anti-vaxxer, hesitating? Is it because something I wrote was mean spirited, flimsy, or better left unsaid? No? Then it’s just the strength of social taboo keeping me silent – I took that as a sign that I should contribute in my own way to opening up the conversation and letting in more light.
And the most insidious thing about that "social taboo" you mention is that its handmaiden, virtue signaling, motivates critics to sidestep the merits of an argument as they instead try to score tribal points by chanting guilt by association with "consensus" taboo offenders.