AFF's Doublethink

Freddie — February 1, 2009 at 5:39 pm

There are few things I like less than people who tell you they aren’t playing the game as a method of playing it.

Sonny Bunch — February 1, 2009 at 5:49 pm

That’s your prerogative. Doesn’t change the underlying point.

Freddie — February 1, 2009 at 5:58 pm

What underlying point? Look, where I get off is this– I have a brain, fingers to type, and a culture that permits me to speak my mind. And what do you bring against me? “You don’t do it professionally”? Is that, do you suppose, “intellectually impressive”? A naked appeal from authority? I’m sorry, but it’s precisely my position from outside of the places that you legitimize that allows me to tell you, “person X is a pro, so he’s better than you” is weak, rhetorically and logically empty. And I imagine you know it. So in that way, you’ve brought yourself exactly to the level you are complaining about in two ways. First you fight an argument you find frivolous with evidence that would get you laughed out of a freshman logic class. Then you claim that I am not important enough to criticize someone like Robert Stacy McCain– but then, you (a pro!) are writing about… me. Aren’t you?

As far as McCain’s feelings, well, I’m told “turnabout is fair play, you reap what you sow, etc”….

Sonny Bunch — February 1, 2009 at 6:27 pm

Freddie, my underlying point wasn’t about who had the better argument. It wasn’t about who was right, who was wrong, or any of that. It was very specifically about the terms of the argument, the manner in which we argue our points. That’s what irked me about your calling McCain a “tedious nothing.” It’s dismissive and mean, not to mention both wrong and off-topic.

(And I used his professional achievements as a method of quantifying his “somethingness,” for lack of a better word. How would you argue with an empty-but-clever phrase like “tedious nothing”?)

I have no problem with you—an amateur man of letters who has written about how much he wishes to become a professional man of letters—arguing with Stacy McCain. None whatsoever. I probably even agree with you on certain parts of the argument, especially as it relates to Sarah Palin and her place in the Republican psyche. My problem is with your tone and snide, condescending manner.

Why do I bother calling out an amateur who’s lowering the level of discourse on the web? Unfortunately I can’t focus all of my fire on fellow professionals like Chotiner because professional writers are, for the most part, not the problem; the vast majority of commenters, bloggers, etc. are amateurs. They’re the ones who are coarsening the arguments. They’re the ones who are lowering the level of discourse.

Philip Primeau — February 1, 2009 at 8:40 pm

Sonny Bunch is a tremendous pustule on the face of this fine spread of blogosphere. He’s dry as toast. He’s every bit as snide as those he ridicules. Not to say he thinks awfully highly of his profession, a rather distinguished form of whining but whining nonetheless. A writer’s just a glorified commenter. A miserable guy, Sonny, a helpless case.

Sonny Bunch — February 1, 2009 at 10:03 pm

Ah … sweet, sweet rational discussion.

Mark Thompson — February 1, 2009 at 10:51 pm

Sonny – all fair points, and the sentence you quote was probably not the wisest use of language. However, and keeping in mind the old adage that “two wrongs don’t make a right,” it’s worth noting that this was all in response to what Freddie (and I, for that matter) took as a rather personal or at the very least terribly ignorant attack on a friend of ours, not to mention McCain’s earlier post that included some pretty nasty – and unnecessary – attacks on others affiliated with C11.
Now, I fully acknowledge that “he started it” is not a terribly good defense. However, I think it does help to explain some of the emotion that made the situation particularly sensitive. It also removes this particular debate from the realm of political discourse more generally and into the realm of something much more personal.
All that said, what you write here is completely valid, and I think we would all do better to keep these points in mind more frequently. Unfortunately, we are all ultimately human and capable of going a bit overboard when we get involved in emotional situations.

Anon — February 2, 2009 at 2:38 am

There’s something full circle, as the nytimes will probably not make it until 2010, about a blogger/reporterish-person (do you consider yourself a reporter?) calling out commenters on lowering the level of the discourse. I remember when actual reporters would call out think-tank towing-the-company-line policy bloggers for ruining objective reasoning and informed debate.

As a frequent commenter, it’s nice to see us held in a certain amount of disdain – perhaps someday I can get an intern gig in DC and really contribute to the world. Congratulations on being a “professional man of letters.”

narciso — February 2, 2009 at 9:22 am

Robert McCain’s not everybody’s cup of tea, but one wondered the ahistorical nature of what Culture 11 was trying to accomplish.
Conor F. seem to disdain Governor Palin with
the same types of slights previously reserved
for Goldwater, Reagan and Nixon. Taking an imcomplete profile of her accomplishments, based on biased sources, like the Couric/
Gibson hatchetjobs really only reinforced the left critique of her. Is it really her fault that she trusted in the management of the ’so called experts in the McCain camp.
Would she have been taken seriously if she taken the Eagleton route. Do you have the nerve to compare her to the always wrong Joe Biden, who actually imagines events that never occurred, like Hezbollah’s expulsion from Lebanon and the FDR TV broadcast, and he’s actually occupying the Naval
Observatory. I’m sorry for Peter Suderman and other writers who I’ve appreciated on American Scene and other sites, times are tough all over, see the mess with Pajamas Media. The Daily Beast and the New Majority
will be the next to fall, because they don’t have enough of a target audience either

Robert Stacy McCain — February 2, 2009 at 9:22 am

Doesn’t change the underlying point.

Namely: PALIN ROOLZ!!!

Excuse my digression into cretinous talk-radio mode.

Sonny Bunch — February 2, 2009 at 9:44 am

Mark: I’ll be honest, I understand why you thought the attack was a personal one, but I think McCain was making some fair points about Culture11 (a site I frequented and even occasionally contributed copy to), in terms of their target audience, what they hoped to achieve, and (some of) their personnel (David Kuo, in particular). To be fair to him, they’re questions I’ve heard whispered from others but haven’t really made it into blog conversations yet… and I think it does the conversation in general a disservice to dismiss McCain out of hand because you don’t like the points he was making or the questions he was raising.

Anon: I apologized to Freddie for that little crack, both personally and in a post last night. One of the great things about the blogosphere–one of the reasons I keep up this shady little enterprise–is the useful feedback/discussion with commenters. And Freddie’s one of the best. But to be entirely honest, I’m not particularly enamored with many of the comments I get at my day job. Bringing it all back to the original topic of this post, Denby’s new book about snark, it’s an odd little feature of the Internet, the anonymity and the bravery it provides.

narciso — February 2, 2009 at 12:10 pm

Yes, she does Robert, that still doesn’texplain
why you voted for Barr, and encouraged others to do so as well leaving her in the lurch, on Election Day. Had you encouraged them to vote
for McCain as a proxy for her, there’s a possibility that we may have pulled closer, or at least not face the prospect of a filibuster proof Senate.
Winning Republicanism has always relied on a populist message in the 20s, with the
evangelical nature of Barton, the advertising
man turned Congressman. In the 50s, the anticommunist wave started by Nixon, and overreached by McCarthy. In the 60s, the Silent majority of white ethnics hardhats, and southern cultural conservatives. Reagan’s optimistic economic and forward thinking foreign policy, Gingrich’s message of reform. There really wasn’t much of that in the 00s (NCLB, the prescription drug bill, actually worked against right populism.)There was the war on terror, but that ultimately foundered between the maximalists who wanted to nuke Saudi Arabia, and the isolationist who wanted to retreat into Fortress America. The latter seems to have been the tenor of much of the commentary
on Culture 11. So we find ourselves in this spot where none of our cultural, economic, social, preferences are likely to be defended
and instead, it will be a rear guard action
all the way, through the next four years. Heck of a job, there, somebody.

James — February 2, 2009 at 2:39 pm

“Unfortunately I can’t focus all of my fire on fellow professionals like Chotiner because professional writers are, for the most part, not the problem; the vast majority of commenters, bloggers, etc. are amateurs. They’re the ones who are coarsening the arguments. They’re the ones who are lowering the level of discourse.”

Yes, it’s the Michelle Malkins, the Mark Steyn’s, the Glenn Reynolds, the Jonah Goldbergs, that are elevating the otherwise wretched state of the Blogopolis. No question. What fine examples of arguing with good reason and in good faith those hard working men and women truly are. If we left them to their own devices what a gorgeous place it would be!

Or: you’ve adapted Atlas Shrugged for the internet.

orethobifssib — March 20, 2009 at 7:54 am

very intresting