Category: People

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I discovered the weblog wKenShow when he blogged about one of my posts, and I’ve since run into him at other weblogs. I read his weblog off and on, usually when I see it updated in weblogs.com.

I may joke about more sex in weblogging, but I’m a bit of a prude, really. I focus more on sensuality rather than explicit sexuality, though the two are closely connected for me. wken, however, discusses sexuality quite frequently, usually explicitly.

Dammit! Don’t go there yet! Read the rest of my post first.

Today wken asked a question of the women in his audience:

I do have a question for the women out there, though. If you started dating someone and were attracted to them, then found that they had a blog like mine, would you be bothered by it? I’m not talking about any posts that might detail your dates or talk about you. I just mean, if he had a blog with the types of sexually explicit entries and the OrgasmaChron and such things as I have here, would it scare you off?

An honest question, and from the comments, some good answers. And in a later post, he writes:

What I’m concerned about is what type of impression I give through this site to a woman that might be romantically interested in me. Do I come across as “only interested in one thing” or “weirdly promiscuous”? Does my online flirting make me look like someone constantly “on the make”?

Again, good question. wken is opening a dialog with his readers about discussing sex in a weblog, and the possible impacts this could have on his real-life relationships.

Issues about the sexuality in wken’s posts aside, I find that for myself, personally, I would rather go out with a weblogger than not. With a weblog, I’ve been allowed to peek into the person’s thoughts and feelings and views; I’ve looked into their naked soul, well at least as much of their soul as they’ve exposed. I think I would feel ‘blind’, in the metaphorical sense, dating somebody without a weblog.

This adds a whole new dimension to the term ‘blind’ date, doesn’t it?

You can take a year and not find out as much about a person as you can with three months of weblog postings. (Of course, this all presupposes that the weblogger isn’t writing pure bullshit.)

Back to the questions that wken is posing though: what would a woman think about dating wken after reading his weblog. For myself, other than the fact that wken is too young, I wouldn’t necessarily be uncomfortable dating him because he’s open about sexuality, as long as I felt secure that he wouldn’t post about our relationship. And as for his weblog, I would more likely focus on the non-sex related postings to get a better feel for wken (pun not intended) as a person. From these I can see that wken is a intelligent, with a decent grasp of politics and a strong sense of perspective. All good traits. And yeah, he likes sex a lot, but that’s not a bad thing.

That’s a lot about wken there for a perspective date to read–what will they talk about in the first hour? The posting of July 22nd?

All of you that weblog and are already in a relationship have had to wrestle with the dilemma of how much about your relationship and your lover you should put online. For those of us who are single, though, we’re now faced with the fact that our weblogs have become a curricula vitae for prospective dating partners.

Oh. No.

There is little I dislike and despise more than the intelligentsia–people who consider themselves the intellectual elite of whatever society they’re currently occupying.

Rather than disagree with a statement, they disparage the speaker. Rather than countering an opinion, they trivialize it. And to ensure that all recognize their elevated position they wield the putdown with masterful skill.

Want an example? One of the best, or should I say worst I’ve seen recently was the following:

The problem, essentially, is that Dave came into this debate late, and he’s not up to speed. He’s a smart guy, God knows, and as entitled to an opinion as anyone, but a lot of people have been wrestling with these things in somewhat more depth. Vague, general statements about playgrounds and bullies are merely inapt analogies, not arguments.

While I may agree with Glenn Reynolds–the owner of this statement–that Dave should not have resorted to name calling, such a coldly deliberate and condescending putdown could only have been designed to permanently undermine any opinion that Dave might have on this issue. In ivy-covered school terms since Glenn is a Yalie, Bad Form.

Dave’s use of name-calling may have been inappropriate, but surely Dave at least deserves respect as a participant in a debate about an issue that impacts him.

Of course, this begs the question: do we have to respect one another? The intelligentsia would answer with a resounding “No!” However, I have found that the respect we give to those who disagree with us is largely proportional to the confidence we feel in our own arguments, and our ability to argue. And this translates into the language we use. For instance, saying “I can’t reason with you on this issue”, is an honest expression of frustration and implies no underlying disdain of the opponent; saying, “you’re incapable of reason” is a putdown, pure and simple.

Contrary to first impression, the intelligentsia has nothing to do with being intelligent or educated or well-read. For instance, Loren from In a Dark Time is all three, and freely shares his love of poetry and books and other forms of writing in his weblog. Loren has the potential to be intimidating, yet when I leave his weblog I don’t leave feeling less than what I am because I’m not as well read or as educated as Loren.

The reason why I am not intimidated by Loren’s writing is that he has an ability to share greater knowledge without condescending to the reader. This ability not only takes writing skill, but also an empathy with the reader, something Loren has, but the intelligentsia can never have.

Empathy. Empathy is the true delimiter between the intelligent and the intelligentsia. If we’re empathetic with others, it becomes extremely difficult to disdain, to trivialize, to putdown.

I wanted to take a brief break in my foray into warblogging debate by joining with Dave Winer in a sad farewell to Edsger Dijkstra.

There isn’t a computer scientist in the world who hasn’t read, with appreciation, the classic ACM paper Go To Statement Considered Harmful. Dijkstra applied the cleanliness of mathematical principle to the clutter and ad hoc nature of programming languages, a marriage that has born fruit with improvements in programming language design, as well as increased use of good programming practices. He, more than any other person, helped make applications maintainable.

I specialized in programming language and language design with my own computer degree, and I’ve worked with over 20 programming languages in the last several years. And in each and every one, Dijkstra’s influence was felt.

Thanks, professor. You done good.