Public Address | System (Home)

Posted at 6:10PM on 16 Dec 07. Permalink.

Ben, I think its more that whenever I want to write a comment on any website I feel a bit like I'm drunk at a party. I'll get excited and say what I mean but not in the way I mean to say it. Then I'll wake up the next morning and be embarrased. Then I'll have to stay at home for at least the next week and avoid certain bars...

Margaret, when you can roll out a simile like, you have nothing to be afraid of. Please, post more: you write really well.

I've had the odd in-real-life comment about the intimidating degree of erudition in System -- and there are discussions where I feel out of my depth.

But like Sam says, don't fret. Post what you think, with clarity.

Also like Sam says, posting is a way to work out for yourself what you think. I do that all the time with the blog.

Posted at 7:45PM on 16 Dec 07. Permalink.

Yes, and sometimes you only figure out your own view has gaping holes in it once you start trying to explain it in writing. Well, OK, maybe that's just me...

Posted at 8:00PM on 16 Dec 07. Permalink.

Yes, and sometimes you only figure out your own view has gaping holes in it once you start trying to explain it in writing. Well, OK, maybe that's just me...

Believe me bro, it isn't ...

Posted at 9:17PM on 16 Dec 07. Permalink.

But like Sam says, don't fret. Post what you think, with clarity.

And blunders don't seem to be taken to seriously, I'v e never had any negative press over mine... yet.

Posted at 11:11PM on 16 Dec 07. Permalink.

And blunders don't seem to be taken to seriously, I'v e never had any negative press over mine... yet.

Man. What internet did you hook up to? I need some of that.

And, why does firefox underline 'internet' in red? since when did internet need capitals? And if internet does, why does it not indicate that the start of a sentence needs capitals?

Any why is firefox underlined? OK, I know that needs a capital, but pretentious a little? "umm, excuse me, I'm capitalised. Thank you." It doesn't even suggest it with a capital. It suggests 'firebox' and 'fire fox'. But the title of the browser itself says 'Firefox'. The browser that doesn't know its own name?

Umm. Regularly scheduled programme... returning... etc.

Posted at 6:33AM on 17 Dec 07. Permalink.

since when did internet need capitals?

The argument is that "the Internet" needs a capital to distinguish it from "an internet". But since when does anyone talk about having an internet?

Perhaps internets exists in computer science circles, but in everyday life there is only one internet and I don't think it needs an initial capital.

Wired magazine made the decision in 2004 to drop the caps.

Posted at 6:55AM on 17 Dec 07. Permalink.

Also like Sam says, posting is a way to work out for yourself what you think. I do that all the time with the blog.

absolutely. blogging and arguing in comments has actually improved my ability to write and argue subjects in my day-job.

something that a lot of education did not...

Posted at 8:44AM on 17 Dec 07. Permalink.

But since when does anyone talk about having an internet?

I don't know about an internet. But there's been allot said about 'My'
Internet and your Internet. And 'what' Internet.

absolutely. blogging and arguing in comments has actually improved my ability to write and argue subjects in my day-job.

Blogging has given me something the NZ education system robed me of. The confidence to write. Grrer the dumb education system that thinks in weird strait lines.

Posted at 9:00AM on 17 Dec 07. Permalink.

My opinion on getting more people posting/commenting outside the liberal white middle classed straight male demographic is that they all need to harden up and post or comment more.

Okay... I'll bite.

Here's the thing. You can set up some rules so that they appear to apply to everyone, and hey, that's fair, isn't it, but they can be skewed so that in practice, some, or even many, people are excluded.

By analogy, think about suffrage. As we all know (or bloody well ought to know!), NZ was the first country in the world to extend suffrage to women. But as it turns out, various other polities granted votes to women earlier, provided they held property. So they had what looked to be a 'fair' rule for granting suffrage - all property holders could vote. Leaving aside the complexities of disenfranchising the unmonied part of the population, the effect of this rule, which seemed to apply equally everyone, was to exclude the overwhelming majority of women from voting.

So, if we set up rules of discourse in such a way that they look fair - everyone gets to be tough - but in effect a large number of people feel that they can't participate, then we have an effective exclusion of those people. Of course, they can participate, if they choose to adopt the get tough ethos, but that could well mean that they have to, as it were, leave themselves behind, and adopt a different persona for the purpose of participating in the discussion. "That's fine, dearie. You can participate, as long as you don't mind becoming exactly like everyone else around here, instead of participating as yourself."

Kapai?

One of the many good things about PAS is that the rules of discourse around here are far more civilised than on other political blogs around NZ. If I want to be shouted at and abused, just for having a different opinion, I can go over to No Minister any old time, or the threads at Kiwiblog. No thank you!

PAS has a different set of rules, defined through its practice, and through its explicit ideal of encouraging and supporting diversity. Here's what Russell said in November last year, when PAS was launched:

I’m keen to expand the pool of people engaged in online discussion and I think an atmosphere of respect is vital to that aim.

Having said all that, it is worth just having a go, especially around here, where the atmosphere is for the most part, tolerant. People will tell you if they think you are wrong, but it tends to be people saying, "I don't agree with your argument and here's why" (__pace__ my arguments above, I hope) rather than "You stupid lefty lickspittle tool of the Hulun Klark commie gummint - you're so stupid you can't even pick your own nose."

I think that's why people can get more upset over being yelled at here, which does happen occasionally, than they would over at some other blogs. It's simply becuase the ideal here is not a rugged free for all where the loudest voice can win, but an ideal of genuine exchange of ideas. So being yelled at here (a very rare ocurrence) can feel rather worse than being yelled at elsewhere.

Russell said something the other day which is reassuring - I can't recall whether he said it upstream on this thread, or somewhere else on PAS, or onmy blog or Che's - it's somewhere where this distributed discussion is taking place. Remember that it's just a discussion thread, and there will be another one along tomorrow. It's good advice that I will be taking to heart.

Posted at 9:29AM on 17 Dec 07. Permalink.

OK, I disagree with some aspects of Deborah said. I don't agree that women are disadvantaged as analogized by pre suffrage. The rules of
'discourse' don't extend beyond the written word to the realms of physical gesture.

this is my true self speaking. I think the real rules of PAS discourse are academic.

Posted at 10:26AM on 17 Dec 07. Permalink.

"If I want to be shouted at and abused, just for having a different opinion, I can go over to No Minister any old time..."

Having written a post at No Minister disagreeing with your view, and reaped a bumper crop of abusive trolls as a result, I can fully understand any reluctance you might feel to drop by and argue the point. It doesn't change my view that the blogosphere has to be shared with its mutier participants, but I can appreciate why you also wouldn't change yours.

Posted at 10:38AM on 17 Dec 07. Permalink.

I took a look. Yeeuuuch.

It doesn't change my view that the blogosphere has to be shared with its mutier participants

Mutier? So we need to find a way to encourage people to speak up some more?

'Tho I do agree about the blogsophere being open to all, including the munts.

Posted at 11:12AM on 17 Dec 07. Permalink.

Sorry, I was absent-mindedly using old in-group slang - should pay more attention to what I'm writing. "Mutie" as in "crazed mutants," a regular feature of lurid SF comics in my now-distant childhood.

Posted at 11:18AM on 17 Dec 07. Permalink.

Have peoples minds been changed by a well reasoned argument on the intarwebby?

I know mine has.

180 degree turns are admittedly infrequent.. but by being exposed to the actual logic/explanation of opposing thoughts (as opposed to just the yes/no right/wrong headlines)... it allows me, and I presume others, to inform my own decisions. And frequently the degree or etrememty of my view, and/or or the distaste/abhorance of those with opposing views is often modified.

I frequently keep quiet if I see my point has been made by another... but If I think I have a point, even if a week one, its worth posting.... Someone else may back it up, or show you why its wrong.

Posted at 3:11PM on 18 Dec 07. Permalink.

Deborah, thanks for your bite. I was hoping someone would because it partially goes to hardening up ;-)

I feel you misunderstood me a little. I didn't mean that the lurkers need to 'post tough'. I meant they need to 'get tough, and post'. They shouldn't change their style towards the blog median, unless they want to.

I think Woman's Suffrage is an absolutely perfect example of what I'm talking about. The Suffragettes didn't sit around silently waiting for men to politely let them vote. They loudly demanded the right and when they got it they used it.

I agree that some can be scared off by fighting, as happens to almost every woman on Kiwiblog. I can't hold myself blameless, having given at least one woman a good, hard serve on there once. In my defense, she started it, and I'm not the kind to patronize a woman by going soft on her in fight that she wishes to stake her claim as my equal/better in.

I further agree that the generally polite tone of PAS does mean the idea of a serve is simply recalibrated, and a blow as soft as "I disagree with you" carries about the same weight as 5 personal attacks from a Kiwiblog troll. But recalibration is always going to happen, and so is disagreement. It's in the nature of expressing your opinion. This is not an aggressive white middle class male fact, it's just a fact. When you post anything of substance, some people are going to disagree with you.

If anything, this is the strength of blog/comments. They're feedback. Sure, it can be intimidating to be cut down by witty intelligent people. But if there's any truth in what you say, you'll also get witty intelligent people supporting you, cutting down the cutdowns, and you'll have grown just that little bit as a writer. You learned something by doing it.

Posted at 3:28PM on 18 Dec 07. Permalink.

Have peoples minds been changed by a well reasoned argument on the intarwebby?

I know mine has.

Mine too. Many times. I don't see that as having a weak position, it's about being rational. Often the other person can't see what you're not getting until you tell them your reasoning. Then you get the killer comeback which shows you where your facts or reasoning are wrong, and hey presto, you've learned something, and so has everyone else who thinks like you and can use Google. More often than not the capitulation is simply that you did define your initial position poorly. That can even be an amicable capitulation, the 'we're not really disagreeing at all, except about the meaning of a few words'.

That's because I argue to understand and be understood, rather than to win. On PAS at least.

Posted at 4:39PM on 18 Dec 07. Permalink.

Have peoples minds been changed by a well reasoned argument on the intarwebby?

I know mine has.

Interesting!
It's precisely because I think no-one's opinion will change by anything I say (or what anyone else says for that matter) that I've cut down on posting on PAS. Most of my posts are done around the midnite hour because that's when I have time to get on. I respond to blogs/comments in order to vent, but not expecting to change anyone's opinion. And sometimes I just like to play the fool.

But as it turns out, various other polities granted votes to women earlier, provided they held property. So they had what looked to be a 'fair' rule for granting suffrage - all property holders could vote.

Interesting!
Maybe it is time we 'refreshed' democracy, in order to remind the citizenry of it's value. Maybe it's time we introduced/formalised the concept of 'second class citizens' ie those that can vote and those that can't. Perhaps if we denied the vote to the long term unemployed they might be encouraged to get a job and contribute to society instead of being a drain? We'd be helping them!

Posted at 5:52PM on 18 Dec 07. Permalink.

IO, you've changed my mind occasionally. Which is a strange way of refuting your point, I know.

Posted at 6:11PM on 18 Dec 07. Permalink.

Taste is the enemy of art

No, taste is the enemy of humour. Fear is the enemy of art.

Posted at 6:28PM on 18 Dec 07. Permalink.

So, if we set up rules of discourse in such a way that they look fair - everyone gets to be tough - but in effect a large number of people feel that they can't participate, then we have an effective exclusion of those people.

I've used this quote, Deborah, but I agree with everything you've said in that post. I had a long post all written out, but you know what? It just comes back to what I said before. Women posting more is sorely needed here. To that end, I would nominate Robyn and Heather and Anjum to have a go at being PA bloggers.

Posted at 6:29PM on 18 Dec 07. Permalink.

Oh and Danielle because she tells funny stories.

Posted at 8:36PM on 18 Dec 07. Permalink.

Thanks for your kind words, Jackie. I value your opinion, not least because even if I do disagree with you about something (a very rare occurrence), I know you have reasons behind your position. So your support means all the more to me.

Posted at 8:39PM on 18 Dec 07. Permalink.

Oh, and I second your nominations of Danielle, Robyn, Heather and Anjum. Especially Anjum - her insights make me think very, very hard.

I generally at least skim most comments on PAS, but like most of us (I suspect), there are people whose comments I pay particular attention to, sometimes just because they are plain fun to read. I always read comments from these women, and from you.

Posted at 9:45PM on 18 Dec 07. Permalink.

I should have said, which was my original intent, that I wanted you to do a blog here. Not least because your perspective is quite close to my own (being purely selfish, here).

Posted at 11:17PM on 18 Dec 07. Permalink.

Oh and Danielle because she tells funny stories.

Thank you! :)

(But my god, the pressure! What tale to tell next? Emma already broke out a 'Father Run Amok With .22 Rifle' story, so even though I have one of those myself, the originality is questionable. Oh dear. I suppose I'll be inspired when the time is right...)

Also, the mutual admiration society is in full effect over here. You know in 'As Good As It Gets' when Jack Nicholson says 'you make me want to be a better man'? I'm like that with the regular women posters. (Except, you know, not a man. And I hate Helen Hunt's scrunchy acting face, and I can't believe she won the Oscar. And the film kind of irritated me, in general. But apart from all that. OK, it's late and I will shut up now.)

Posted at 6:41PM on 19 Dec 07. Permalink.

wow, now i feel loved! thanx for all the nice comments.

would love to write, one problem is time; the other is of course fear. i've done a couple of speaker thingies on PA but that was before the comments thing was happening.

i've been thinking about the whole issue of posting a bit more. what i find most strange is that i'm quite a confident public speaker (not saying a good one!), and very rarely get nervous. i'm happy to take all kinds of questions. as i'm often asked to speak about islam/muslims, i usually tell my audience to ask any nasties they like - female circumcision; "all muslims are terrorists"; bigamy; etc etc. they sometimes do - usually they're too polite - and it doesn't bother me at all. i also happily shoot off letters to the editor and have had various opinion pieces published, some of which draw nasty published replies. doesn't bother me one bit.

but i have somehow found posting comments here often leaves me with knots in my tummy. it's so wierd and i haven't been able to understand my own reaction. it would be nice if someone could make sense of my very strange mind for me... any psychologists out there?

Posted at 7:05PM on 19 Dec 07. Permalink.

but i have somehow found posting comments here often leaves me with knots in my tummy. it's so wierd and i haven't been able to understand my own reaction. it would be nice if someone could make sense of my very strange mind for me... any psychologists out there?

Anjum, I would suspect you aren't the only one for whom that happens. In fact I know you aren't! There's a truckload of erudite, intellectual scary bastards in these parts. People who pick apart arguments for a living, if you will. I often write long responses to things here, and then just think "bugger it, I'll just look like a simpleton" so I don't end up posting anything. Pathetic, really, since like you, I'm a relatively confident public speaker, and I'm not overly concerned about what people think about me. I would suggest you feel the fear.......and do it anyway. (Apologies to Erica Jong).

Posted at 10:53PM on 19 Dec 07. Permalink.

There's a truckload of erudite, intellectual scary bastards in these parts. People who pick apart arguments for a living, if you will.

Ummm... well... guilty.

But, that doesn't make me any less scared about posting comments.! I have done a lot of public speaking too, very successfully, and it really doesn't worry me at all. But somehow, posting here is different, I think because I am not representing a view, or explaining other people's ideas, but putting part of myself out there.