Comments on: Reflecting on Politics: Partisanship as Anti-Intellectualism http://thegoodthebadthespin.com/2008/08/30/reflecting-on-politics-partisanship-as-anti-intellectualism/ Crises, Public Relations and the News Media Wed, 07 Jan 2009 07:00:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: bconrad http://thegoodthebadthespin.com/2008/08/30/reflecting-on-politics-partisanship-as-anti-intellectualism/comment-page-1/#comment-219 bconrad Tue, 02 Sep 2008 02:57:09 +0000 http://thegoodthebadthespin.com/?p=178#comment-219 "I propose we call all online-only political writers 'obscure political hacks.' Where 'obscure” often means 'full of shit.'” Demagogues don't listen to reason. Actually, they don't listen at all. “I propose we call all online-only political writers ‘obscure political hacks.’ Where ‘obscure” often means ‘full of shit.’”

Demagogues don’t listen to reason. Actually, they don’t listen at all.

]]> By: Ryan Jerz http://thegoodthebadthespin.com/2008/08/30/reflecting-on-politics-partisanship-as-anti-intellectualism/comment-page-1/#comment-218 Ryan Jerz Tue, 02 Sep 2008 01:50:17 +0000 http://thegoodthebadthespin.com/?p=178#comment-218 I don't think this is, nor should it be, a treatise on the pros and cons of sarcasm. It definitely has its place. If you don't get sarcasm, it's your problem; not the problem of the person writing it. Assuming sarcasm until you know better is the safe route for the interpreter. That generally requires you to read at a time when you're thinking clearly and not hot-headed. If you still don't get it, then I guess the joke is on you. This is a very good post, Bob. It's a major part of the reason I don't care for political commentary on blogs anymore. I tried to get into it, but I was often the guy who everyone disliked because I was: 1) Not a diehard Republican 2) Not a diehard Democrat 3) Against anonymous posting 4) Sarcastic, but very real (I'd say anything on my blog to your face, and have) 5) Outspoken about all of the above You know that I am in agreement about so much of this stuff that we sometimes try to out-agree with each other. It's also another reason that referring to online commentators - people who write about their kids, people who write about sports, boors who write about politics, and people who do real investigative work or whatever, as bloggers, needs to die a fast death yesterday. Lumping them all together is a disservice to all of the others, who all have their niche. Can't we just assume that if you're an online-only political writer that you're a partisan hack, only less-known than the partisan hacks on TV? I propose we call all online-only political writers "obscure political hacks." Where "obscure" often means "full of shit." I don’t think this is, nor should it be, a treatise on the pros and cons of sarcasm. It definitely has its place. If you don’t get sarcasm, it’s your problem; not the problem of the person writing it. Assuming sarcasm until you know better is the safe route for the interpreter. That generally requires you to read at a time when you’re thinking clearly and not hot-headed. If you still don’t get it, then I guess the joke is on you.

This is a very good post, Bob. It’s a major part of the reason I don’t care for political commentary on blogs anymore. I tried to get into it, but I was often the guy who everyone disliked because I was:

1) Not a diehard Republican
2) Not a diehard Democrat
3) Against anonymous posting
4) Sarcastic, but very real (I’d say anything on my blog to your face, and have)
5) Outspoken about all of the above

You know that I am in agreement about so much of this stuff that we sometimes try to out-agree with each other. It’s also another reason that referring to online commentators - people who write about their kids, people who write about sports, boors who write about politics, and people who do real investigative work or whatever, as bloggers, needs to die a fast death yesterday. Lumping them all together is a disservice to all of the others, who all have their niche. Can’t we just assume that if you’re an online-only political writer that you’re a partisan hack, only less-known than the partisan hacks on TV? I propose we call all online-only political writers “obscure political hacks.” Where “obscure” often means “full of shit.”

]]> By: Steven http://thegoodthebadthespin.com/2008/08/30/reflecting-on-politics-partisanship-as-anti-intellectualism/comment-page-1/#comment-217 Steven Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:21:24 +0000 http://thegoodthebadthespin.com/?p=178#comment-217 Sarcasm is inherently shallow because it's defensive. Often, it's unnecessarily defensive. Also, it's well known that some people do not (never will) hear and understand sarcasm, so they merely remain confused. Sarcasm sucks in written word, because there lurk no social clues to verify such lying. And it is lying. Too bad. Sarcasm is inherently shallow because it’s defensive. Often, it’s unnecessarily defensive. Also, it’s well known that some people do not (never will) hear and understand sarcasm, so they merely remain confused.

Sarcasm sucks in written word, because there lurk no social clues to verify such lying. And it is lying. Too bad.

]]>