Categories
People

The Intelligentsia

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.

Categories
People

Good-bye Goto Man

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.

Categories
People Weblogging

The debate continues?

Recovered from the Wayback Machine

Continuing the discussion I started in yesterday’s posts (herehere, and here) in response to postings by Eric OlsenMartin Devon, and indirectly by Glenn Reynolds, Jonathon Delacour answered my plea for clarification about Eric’s statements regarding Japan in what promises to be an excellent multi-part posting. In addition, Alan Cooke also responded with a succinct take of the assertions presented by Eric.

(Not to mention this at Salon, link sent to me by a friend.)

I am especially pleased that all participants in this debate have not resorted to name-calling, addressing each other’s comments rather than resorting to personal attacks. I won’t speak for my own arguments, but I do believe that Jonathon’s and Alan’s are quite well formed. Don’t you agree?

Now I am sitting, quietly, but filled with eager anticipation for additional entries in this debate by Eric, Martin, or Glenn (or new participants who may be interested in joining). Gentlemen (and ladies if any join), the ball is now in your court.

Categories
People Weblogging

Dorothea revealed

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Dorothea takes a moment and tells the world about herself, her husband, and her goth kitties in a new Frank Paynter interview, a blogging piece well worth the read.

Among the broad range of subjects covered in the interview was Dorothea’s experience with gaming and role playing, as well as her academic and musical experiences (hint – MP3 – hint). She also discusses an interesting time she’s had with a non-compete clause (the bane of technical/creative people everywhere), and her passion for text “artistry” – giving me an entirely different viewpoint of, and appreciation for, markup.

One item that surprised me was Dorothea stating that I remind her of herself. On further reflection, I would tend to agree. Neither of us is inherently maternal, and we both can be opinionated – at times. Additionally, I have this feeling that neither of us suffers fools gladly, which can cause trouble in the jobspace.

And we both like Ursula LeGuin and hate shopping for clothes.

In the interview, Dorothea also talks about her hubbie and his participation with the Tolkien movie, but I’ll leave her to tell this story.

From my reading, Dorothea struck me as being tenaciously strong, ultra-smart, as well as being artistically inclined and talented. And knowing Dorothea’s self-deprecating attitude (which we’re working on curing, BTW), I bet she hated that last sentence.

Categories
People Political

Two angry people

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Mike Golby is a man in his 40’s, Catholic, married with kids, who lives in South Africa. I’m a woman in my 40’s, non-religious, divorced, with no kids, living in the US. Outside of our age and the fact that we weblog, we two also share one other thing in common: we’re angry people.

Mike continues the discussion about anger from this weekend, and in particular, the responses to it:

Why did people automatically equate anger, i.e. ‘intense dissatisfaction’ with rage, i.e. ‘violent anger’, as defined by the OED? Why are so many people who seek a fuller, more productive life so brittle, thin-skinned, and reactionary?

Good question, Mike. It does seem that the more we as a society seek to eliminate anger, the more acts of unreasoning rage occur. In the last few decades, where once anger was considered an emotion not unlike any other, now it’s considered taboo. And in that same time frame, where once a worker killing a boss would be front page news for weeks, now it’s becoming commonplace.

And like you, Mike, I puzzle at the extreme reaction to the Hesham Mohamed Hadayet shooting. An entire airport security infrastructure is changing based on one person’s actions; we see terrorist plots and government cover-up all based on a shooting that, from all indications, is nothing more than an example of a person going beserk.

In fact, Hadayet doesn’t seem that different from Benjamin Smith a white supremacist who went on a racist killing spree in Illinois and Indiana. Yet Smith wasn’t called “terrorist”, and we haven’t added to the police that exist on every corner in the country. Nor is Indiana University an armed camp – I know, my brother teaches there.

Making Hadayet into a terrorist solely because it suits certain agendas makes me angry. I am angry.

What the hell has happened to my country in that anger, in any form, is ‘bad’, but Bush and Ashcroft detaining a man without giving him due rights under law – under law – is acceptable?

What the hell has happened to my country that people support a president based solely on his ‘War on Terror’ without regard to any other of his actions and lack thereof?

What the hell has happened to my country that people get incensed because the Pledge of Allegience is declared unconstitutional based on the words ‘under God’? To make matters worse, these same people then have the audacity to say that this country was created on a platform of Christianity, and we should all accept this – my country was never based on the principles of separation of Church and State.

This really pisses me off.

How far will we go in selling our rights, our sense of decency and humanity, our membership in the world, our very souls, just to call ourselves safe?

Mike is an angry person. His anger speaks out every time he writes about injustice. Anger threads throughout his words, and forms a platform for his writing.

And we need more angry people, not less.

Update Make that three angry people.