Commenting Policy

8 comments

• Comment Link Friday, 07 October 2011 21:28 posted by Doug

  I haven't read the book and it sure isn't hard to criticize modern democracies; however, comparing Stalin or Hitler to Obama is crude in the extreme. Check out the history of these guys.
• Comment Link Friday, 07 October 2011 23:10 posted by Matt Lewis

  Do you ever read the free daily tabloid newspapers such as Metro or 24hours? It's full of writing featuring one or two sentence paragraphs. What's the difference between Baxter's piece and the writing in Metro? Nothing that I can tell. The only real difference is that the dailies avoid using run on sentences. But I'm an optimist. So because I read this on an interesting site devoted to integral thinking, I have probably been shortchanging the quality of writing to be found in the dailies.
• Comment Link Saturday, 08 October 2011 05:10 posted by Chris Dierkes

  The quotation suggests that tyrants and democratically elected officials are both....politicians. They want to keep power. Ok. Fair enough.
  
  But how does that tell us anything politically about the distinction between an actual tyrant/dictator and say a US President pushing for extending the reach and power of the Executive Branch?
  
  e.g. We know that Barack Obama will definitely step down and leave power either after the next election or in 2016 (actually early 2017 if he wins in 2012).
  
  Consider the example of the ruling Chinese Communist Party. Unelected except from within their own ranks. Run opposed, no democratic oversight. No constitution, separation of powers, or constitutional rights. Yet they somehow keep stepping down at the end of each Generation's turn.
  
  Even that is different than Stalin--much less Obama.
• Comment Link Monday, 10 October 2011 17:01 posted by Andrew Baxter

  Perhaps I will simply address each comment independently.
  
  Doug, quite agreed. Comparing Obama to Hitler is extreme and too much an over-used trope to be well-employed in this situation - good thing I didn't do that! But now, comparing him to Stalin...well, that's at least imaginative! To your point though, I am well aware of what history tells us about these men.
  
  But I'm not sure you've articulated your criticism of this comparison as clearly as you might because I'm still unsure what exactly it is that you are objecting to in it? Is it Obama's lack of moustache or something more deeply held? Who would you have preferred? Hadrian? Alfred the Great? Chiang Kai-Shek? Maybe Castro? Beyond simply denying the comparison as extreme, do you have anything else? Explain please.
  
  Chris, your points are well taken, but your question, "how does that tell us anything politically about the distinction between an actual tyrant/dictator and say a US President pushing for extending the reach and power of the Executive Branch?" is exactly what I imagine the book I was attempting simply to highlight with this post might actually explain and articulate. Clearly one cannot directly equate an American president and a Russian dictator beyond the clear fact that they are both men with vast amounts of political power. But what you're pointing to as fundamental differences Chris are (again) procedural distinctions between political systems not fundamental differences between the nature of the power held by the leaders of those system, or the leaders themselves.
  
  Matt...oh Matt. As a wise man once said, if you can't attack the ideas, you attack the man. So, well done.
  
  I do acknowledge that my second sentence was unclear and was actually missing a word(!) and for that I apologise deeply, but run-on sentences there are not. I would recommend that in the future, you criticise a man's writing on what is actually wrong with it rather than randomly picking out some grammar point you vaguely recall from elementary school. A run-on sentence, if you're interested, is a when two independent clauses (or sentences) are joined together with inappropriate conjunction or punctuation. Unclear yes...but it was one thought, one idea digested into a single sentence. So in the spirit of clarity, let me offer this slight tweeking:
  
  "What with our ‘democratic’ – that’s right, quotATION MARKS and I stand by it – political systems increasingly being called into question as legitimate institutions let alone BEING capable of addressing our short or long-term needs, it is indeed an interesting QUESTION to consider quietly over there in the corner of the room with a nice glass of wine and a rather larger cigar."
  
  Again, apologies and thanks to Matt for his quick, unambiguous, and constructive critique of my writing style. I am unclear though on one last point. You take issue with the one or two sentence paragraph and suggest that it belongs only in 'tabloid dailies'. Are you suggesting that one must always write a "proper" paragraph if one has anything of value to say? This would seem to me a highly regimented and uncreative restriction on anyone's writing and only really applicable to academic - or high school - writing.
  
  Thanks for all the thoughts.
• Comment Link Wednesday, 19 October 2011 01:33 posted by Chela Davison

  Hi Matt,
  
  While we appreciate you joining the discussion, I must bring to your attention that there is content in your comment that does not respect our commenting policy. If you're not familiar with our policy, please give it a read http://www.beamsandstruts.com/commenting-policy.
  
  (Specifically, this comment reads both as a personal attack and lacks intention to move the conversation forward constructively.)
  
  We look forward to engaging further with you within these guideline.
  
  Thanks!
• Comment Link Wednesday, 19 October 2011 19:36 posted by Lindsay Robertson

  With the exception of the 'run on sentence' comment, it seems to me that Matt is questioning the quality of this piece. No, it's not really a comment on the content of the piece it's self, but what I hear Matt saying is that this piece doesn't measure up to what he expects from this site. Whether that's true or not is open to discussion obviously, but isn't it a valid comment?
  
  It could have been a bit kinder in the wording, but it didn't seem that harsh to me. Then again, I wasn't the recipient of it.
• Comment Link Wednesday, 19 October 2011 21:26 posted by Matt Lewis

  First of all, if I have violated the commenting guidelines, this is unfortunate. I am prone to shoot from the hip online and this leads to results that I don't intend. I appreciate balanced and informative criticism. In particular, I comment regularly on another site where this type of comment would seem really obvious to me. It's funny that given the context, I can see what I am doing and saying clearly and less so in other contexts. This is a reaction I am going to bring my attention to.It is reactive; it is not thoughtful nor well intentioned.
  
  Ok, for an explanation of what I posted, it was an attempt to parody Baxter's post. I felt that the piece made a simple comparison that was not interesting or useful. My reaction was to make my own comparison and attempt to make light of the writing. Clearly this is mean spirited in a public forum, but might be taken as chiding if delivered with humor and grace in a more personal setting. This is not that setting.
  
  @ Baxter, I apologize for my words. Not only did I not attempt to read the links in your post, but the reply wasn't funny and wasn't well crafted.
• Comment Link Friday, 21 October 2011 00:21 posted by Trevor Malkinson

  Thanks Lindsay for your question, and Matt for your gracious reply. As I was the one who opened the motion with the admin to suggest that this comment broke policy, let me just say a few words about why I thought so. It's not because Matt was criticizing the post, it's because it was devoid of any substantive content, and that coupled with a drive by slag, was in my view not conducive to the kind of commenting community we're trying to form here.
  
  As the commenting policy says, "sharp criticism" is welcomed. But at no point did Matt make clear why he thought this was a limited post, or that the point being made/suggested in the post was a specious one (as Chris did in a substantive way). And I'd still like to have that conversation, I'd love to hear what was on Matt's mind!
  
  All I'm/we're asking is that we actually have that discussion when criticism is being offered. This isn't the first time Matt has reacted to a post by Andrew, which is understandable as Andrew likes to stir the pot :), but I hope we can move through the reaction stage and get into the meat of this particular topic, or any other controversial ones raised by Andrew or other writers.
  
  The commenting policy we have is tough for all us writing here too. It's a personal challenge for me. I have to get my wife to read every comment before I post, just to check in with where I might be reacting or coming from lesser parts of myself. I sometimes write a long comment, then walk away for awhile, and then come back and cull big chunks of nonsense. It's a challenge. But I think it's a worthwhile one, and I'm already very heartened by how civil many critical conversations have been on the site so far, and the type of commenting community that's forming.
  
  So Lindsay, hopefully that clarified some things, and Matt- don't let Andrew off the hook so easily!, dig into these topics, I bet you we'd probably end up some (interesting) place we weren't in the beginning. I look forward to it. cheers, Trevor.