Comments on: Your Assignment: Turd in the Punchbowl

By: Joey Headset

Joey Headset — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:24:01 +0000

First of all, I don’t write blog entries about other people’s blog entries. Ever. So I need not worry about divining the original context of blog entries that have been quoted on other blogs by other bloggers. However, if I were a blogger who blogged about other bloggers’ blogs, I would have have an implicit trust for prevailing blog-o-sphere opinions.

If other bloggers are already outraged about something, then I see no reason why I shouldn’t be outraged about it too. It’s called “piling on” and it’s a fine tradition that works just as well on the internet as it does on the football field. Playing football, if I see that 3 of my teammates have jumped on top of somebody, I’m not going to stand there, saying “Oh gee… I don’t think I should join in until I can establish the original intent of the guy at the bottom of the pile.” HELL NO. I’m going to rush to be the fourth one on that pile, and I don’t give a damn if the referee has already blown the whistle or not.

By: Endie

Endie — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 08:50:46 +0000

Nicole said:
>> However, I have been told by others that philosophers are rude

Well, that’s what most Athenians said about Socrates (not to even mention Diogenes), so it should probably be taken as a compliment.

Joey: It is important, in blogging, to read at least two sentences of a post, even if only those that have already been posted, out of context and preferably with many ellipses, in a chain of other, outraged blogs. This allows an authoratitive quote and link, which can then be used to recreate what one thinks the OP must have meant by the rest of their post. For examples, see Belle from Crooked Timber in any discussion of Christopher Hitchens, Nick Cohen or Oliver Kamm.

And re the post, I was extremely lucky to choose law as my first degree, a subject so spectacularly easy that I was able, in my second year for instance, to spend more time at lectures in other faculties than in my own. A few years’ of taking all of knowledge to be your province is rather fun.

By: Joey Headset

Joey Headset — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 02:09:02 +0000

Wait… you shouldn’t make fun of other people’s papers unless they’ve actually read the papers or attended the conferences where they were presented? That’s a little harsh. Uninformed opinions are the hi-octane fuel that powers the Blog-O-Sphere. Bloggers are busy people: they’ve got blogs to update, blogs to comment on, blogs to… blog. Blogging may not actually be a job, but if it were a job, it would be a full time job. As such, any prospective blogger has to choose between actually experiencing the world and being able to generate a constant stream of provocative opinions about the world.

Furthermore, I’ve found that the interestingness of my opinions is inversely proportional to the extent to which I “know what I’m talking about.” On my own website, I ONLY review movies I haven’t seen yet. Not only does this allow me to get my reviews online before the competition, but it also helps me to keep an open mind about the film in question. By going to see the movie, I would only be biasing myself for or against it… and that’s the sort of bias all of us bloggers should strive to eliminate from the Blog-O-Sphere.

By: Nicole

Nicole — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 21:37:43 +0000

As a philosopher I am always perplexed when attending talks in other disciplines precisely because there seems to be so little engagement with what was said. However, I have been told by others that philosophers are rude, and that they can’t believe how mean we are to one another. I agree with your final statement, but I suspect that my disciplinary standards for being professional and generous in intent are liable to conflict substantively with those of other disciplines.