I've been commenting on and about Lindsay's blog recently. She's responded here.
I don't agree with Lindsay's approach to social policy, in fact I pretty much completely disagree with it, however I have no desire to offend her.
I hope Lindsay is not implying that by disagreeing with her libertarian politics I am somehow inured to violence against children. I am not.
5 years ago
10 comments:
I contributed to the debate by pointing out that there is not a strong causal tie-in between welfarism and violence against children. In fact, I would argue that social democracy has over the past 100 years contributed greatly to the overall welfare of children. I personally think all this focus on one dimension risks a truly honest appraisal about how society creates monsters that do this kind of thing (kill innocent babies).
Agreed. I think Lindsay's approach is unlikely to succeed in addressing the root problems which are complex and dynamic; as I understand it, there's no one indicator nor solution.
I'm inclined to just stop discussing these matters with or with reference to Lindsay. She seems uninterested in a discussion, perhaps because she believes she has "the" answer.
It's not unusual for "true believers" of a particular philosophy to get so wound up in their own argument that they loose all sense of perspective. I fear our ACT friend may be suffering from just that problem...
You think it's that? I pretty much do too but am wary of saying so given her personal comment - something tells me criticism is not well recieved?
cheers.
It seems to me that most people who engage in ad hominem argument are the least tolerant of receiving it back!
My problem with Lindsay is that she seems to think she has a monopoly on solutions and does not want to debate at all. I question the motives of such people; I wonder if they're capable of contributing to solutions.
A very good friend and mentor once advised me that he'd had much more success in his career than might have been the case because he was always happy for others to claim credit for his ideas. It's not something I'm great at but am aware of.
Mitchell is a dangerous fascist masquerading as a Libertarian - and needs to be engaged - and loudly - for her hateful opinions.
United Future picked up on my causation/correlation post, and I think it did her some damage. You cannot change these people's minds - but you can change the way they are perceived by others -- and hopefully destroy their credibility as serious political pundits.
She certainly needs to be challenged on some of her comments. Their's a veneer of reasonableness but it is often clear what her real meaning is.
The causation/correlation argument is critical I agree. I also agree that she might find her credibility diminished by some of her posts should she stand again - although what currency blogs have is another matter.
Thanks for your post - great blog too. Will add to my bloglines.
Thanks - I have added you too.
I don't think blogs have all that much currency in NZ - but Mitchell has appeared on breakfast TV recently as a serious pundit re Kahui. A journalist in one of our Sunday papers quoted one of my comments a few weeks ago, so although I can't really be bothered with her delusions I think it can pay off in the long run.
One of my favorites, Glenn Greenwald, says this about ignoring extremists:
The same thing was said two decades ago about Rush Limbaugh and, all that time, he has been pumping his hate-mongering into the heads of 20 million listeners on a daily basis.
Ignoring extremists is the worst possible thing one could do, and it is the biggest favor that could be done for them.... To ignore them and to fail to respond to what they say -- to fail to expose their dishonesty and radicalism -- is to allow them to speak without challenge. The only result that will produce is to enhance their credibility and allow them to conceal their deceit. What possible rationale exists for that course of action?
Thanks Ruth - I agree with your approach and like the quote. I don't want to waste alot of time, but neither do I want to see the debate defined by zealots.
Post a Comment