Comments on: From diatribe to dialogue http://www.alexandrasamuel.com/general/from-diatribe-to-dialogue with Alexandra Samuel Tue, 15 May 2012 14:18:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Armen http://www.alexandrasamuel.com/general/from-diatribe-to-dialogue#comment-257 Armen Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:54:12 +0000 http://alexandrasamuel.com/blog/?p=34#comment-257 I don't know about the rest of you, but I've been burning Swift's writings ever since I found out he advocated cannibalism and contributed to the cultural divide between the English and the Irish. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’ve been burning Swift’s writings ever since I found out he advocated cannibalism and contributed to the cultural divide between the English and the Irish.

]]> By: Armen http://www.alexandrasamuel.com/general/from-diatribe-to-dialogue#comment-198330 Armen Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:54:00 +0000 http://alexandrasamuel.com/blog/?p=34#comment-198330 I don't know about the rest of you, but I've been burning Swift's writings ever since I found out he advocated cannibalism and contributed to the cultural divide between the English and the Irish. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’ve been burning Swift’s writings ever since I found out he advocated cannibalism and contributed to the cultural divide between the English and the Irish.

]]> By: patrick.thomas http://www.alexandrasamuel.com/general/from-diatribe-to-dialogue#comment-252 patrick.thomas Sun, 16 Jan 2005 19:27:37 +0000 http://alexandrasamuel.com/blog/?p=34#comment-252 I pity any future students of our closed-minded blogress, should they be so rash as to present classroom arguments or term papers which take issue with her hopefully-never-tenured GroupThink... ...er, "consensus". I pity any future students of our closed-minded blogress, should they be so rash as to present
classroom arguments or term papers which take issue with her hopefully-never-tenured GroupThink…

…er, “consensus”.

]]> By: patrick.thomas http://www.alexandrasamuel.com/general/from-diatribe-to-dialogue#comment-198329 patrick.thomas Sun, 16 Jan 2005 19:27:00 +0000 http://alexandrasamuel.com/blog/?p=34#comment-198329 I pity any future students of our closed-minded blogress, should they be so rash as to present classroom arguments or term papers which take issue with her hopefully-never-tenured GroupThink... ...er, "consensus". I pity any future students of our closed-minded blogress, should they be so rash as to present
classroom arguments or term papers which take issue with her hopefully-never-tenured GroupThink…

…er, “consensus”.

]]> By: As the Top of the World Turns http://www.alexandrasamuel.com/general/from-diatribe-to-dialogue#comment-249 As the Top of the World Turns Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:59:53 +0000 http://alexandrasamuel.com/blog/?p=34#comment-249 <strong>Defrocking Condi?</strong> One could write off Dr. Samuel's brainstorm as an outlier (perhaps a miner's canary), the result of a confluence of frostback political correctness, Harvard arrogance, and youthful excess. Or, as I believe, it typifies the post-Stalinist impulses to ... Defrocking Condi?
One could write off Dr. Samuel’s brainstorm as an outlier (perhaps a miner’s canary), the result of a confluence of frostback political correctness, Harvard arrogance, and youthful excess. Or, as I believe, it typifies the post-Stalinist impulses to …

]]> By: sbw http://www.alexandrasamuel.com/general/from-diatribe-to-dialogue#comment-247 sbw Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:28:39 +0000 http://alexandrasamuel.com/blog/?p=34#comment-247 Censure always. Censor never. The only response to a bad idea is to correct it. In other words, help inoculate people to judge for themselves. Any other response is simply too dangerous. Community depends understanding both that a good idea can come from anywhere and that a bad idea can come from anywhere. Your job is two-fold: teach people the process to deal with both and, secondly, model it yourself. Now pick your bad idea up off the floor, put it in the dustbin of history, laugh about it because we're all human, and get on with it. Regards/sbw Censure always. Censor never. The only response to a bad idea is to correct it. In other words, help inoculate people to judge for themselves. Any other response is simply too dangerous.

Community depends understanding both that a good idea can come from anywhere and that a bad idea can come from anywhere. Your job is two-fold: teach people the process to deal with both and, secondly, model it yourself. Now pick your bad idea up off the floor, put it in the dustbin of history, laugh about it because we’re all human, and get on with it.

Regards/sbw

]]> By: sbw http://www.alexandrasamuel.com/general/from-diatribe-to-dialogue#comment-198328 sbw Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:28:00 +0000 http://alexandrasamuel.com/blog/?p=34#comment-198328 Censure always. Censor never. The only response to a bad idea is to correct it. In other words, help inoculate people to judge for themselves. Any other response is simply too dangerous. Community depends understanding both that a good idea can come from anywhere and that a bad idea can come from anywhere. Your job is two-fold: teach people the process to deal with both and, secondly, model it yourself. Now pick your bad idea up off the floor, put it in the dustbin of history, laugh about it because we're all human, and get on with it. Regards/sbw Censure always. Censor never. The only response to a bad idea is to correct it. In other words, help inoculate people to judge for themselves. Any other response is simply too dangerous.

Community depends understanding both that a good idea can come from anywhere and that a bad idea can come from anywhere. Your job is two-fold: teach people the process to deal with both and, secondly, model it yourself. Now pick your bad idea up off the floor, put it in the dustbin of history, laugh about it because we’re all human, and get on with it.

Regards/sbw

]]> By: boris http://www.alexandrasamuel.com/general/from-diatribe-to-dialogue#comment-237 boris Sun, 16 Jan 2005 03:45:06 +0000 http://alexandrasamuel.com/blog/?p=34#comment-237 Even in jest it discredits the jester. For a music theorist to jest that the Beatles were talentless hacks would be less dissonant because music is not the art of respectful discourse. One might argue that neither is political science. Pity. Even in jest it discredits the jester.

For a music theorist to jest that the Beatles were talentless hacks would be less dissonant because music is not the art of respectful discourse. One might argue that neither is political science. Pity.

]]> By: boris http://www.alexandrasamuel.com/general/from-diatribe-to-dialogue#comment-198327 boris Sun, 16 Jan 2005 03:45:00 +0000 http://alexandrasamuel.com/blog/?p=34#comment-198327 Even in jest it discredits the jester. For a music theorist to jest that the Beatles were talentless hacks would be less dissonant because music is not the art of respectful discourse. One might argue that neither is political science. Pity. Even in jest it discredits the jester.

For a music theorist to jest that the Beatles were talentless hacks would be less dissonant because music is not the art of respectful discourse. One might argue that neither is political science. Pity.

]]> By: Matt Rustler http://www.alexandrasamuel.com/general/from-diatribe-to-dialogue#comment-233 Matt Rustler Sun, 16 Jan 2005 00:13:05 +0000 http://alexandrasamuel.com/blog/?p=34#comment-233 John, Like you, I'm not very persuaded by Ms. Samuel's explanation that her original comment was tongue-in-cheek. But I think you seriously misunderstood her reference to the First Amendment. First, she does not appear to be "trying to wrap [her]self in the 1st Amendment." That would imply that she's resorting to the First Amendment <i>to defend herself</i> from calls for her dismissal, etc. But her post says nothing of the sort. Second, she did not say that Condi <i>cannot</i> be sanctioned because of the protections of the First Amendment. (That would have seriously misstated the reach of the First Amendment -- but it's not what Ms. Samuels said.) Rather, she expressed a normative proposition: Academic speech that is protected by the First Amendment (which, as you, Ms. Samuels and I all know, implicitly means, "protected from government sanction") <i>should</i> not, as a matter of principle, be subjected to private, academic sanction. Or at least that's my reading of her statement -- a more plausible reading than yours, I think. John,

Like you, I’m not very persuaded by Ms. Samuel’s explanation that her original comment was tongue-in-cheek. But I think you seriously misunderstood her reference to the First Amendment. First, she does not appear to be “trying to wrap [her]self in the 1st Amendment.” That would imply that she’s resorting to the First Amendment to defend herself from calls for her dismissal, etc. But her post says nothing of the sort.

Second, she did not say that Condi cannot be sanctioned because of the protections of the First Amendment. (That would have seriously misstated the reach of the First Amendment — but it’s not what Ms. Samuels said.) Rather, she expressed a normative proposition: Academic speech that is protected by the First Amendment (which, as you, Ms. Samuels and I all know, implicitly means, “protected from government sanction”) should not, as a matter of principle, be subjected to private, academic sanction. Or at least that’s my reading of her statement — a more plausible reading than yours, I think.

]]> By: Matt Rustler http://www.alexandrasamuel.com/general/from-diatribe-to-dialogue#comment-198326 Matt Rustler Sun, 16 Jan 2005 00:13:00 +0000 http://alexandrasamuel.com/blog/?p=34#comment-198326 John, Like you, I'm not very persuaded by Ms. Samuel's explanation that her original comment was tongue-in-cheek. But I think you seriously misunderstood her reference to the First Amendment. First, she does not appear to be "trying to wrap [her]self in the 1st Amendment." That would imply that she's resorting to the First Amendment <i>to defend herself</i> from calls for her dismissal, etc. But her post says nothing of the sort. Second, she did not say that Condi <i>cannot</i> be sanctioned because of the protections of the First Amendment. (That would have seriously misstated the reach of the First Amendment -- but it's not what Ms. Samuels said.) Rather, she expressed a normative proposition: Academic speech that is protected by the First Amendment (which, as you, Ms. Samuels and I all know, implicitly means, "protected from government sanction") <i>should</i> not, as a matter of principle, be subjected to private, academic sanction. Or at least that's my reading of her statement -- a more plausible reading than yours, I think. John,

Like you, I’m not very persuaded by Ms. Samuel’s explanation that her original comment was tongue-in-cheek. But I think you seriously misunderstood her reference to the First Amendment. First, she does not appear to be “trying to wrap [her]self in the 1st Amendment.” That would imply that she’s resorting to the First Amendment to defend herself from calls for her dismissal, etc. But her post says nothing of the sort.

Second, she did not say that Condi cannot be sanctioned because of the protections of the First Amendment. (That would have seriously misstated the reach of the First Amendment — but it’s not what Ms. Samuels said.) Rather, she expressed a normative proposition: Academic speech that is protected by the First Amendment (which, as you, Ms. Samuels and I all know, implicitly means, “protected from government sanction”) should not, as a matter of principle, be subjected to private, academic sanction. Or at least that’s my reading of her statement — a more plausible reading than yours, I think.

]]> By: John Stuart http://www.alexandrasamuel.com/general/from-diatribe-to-dialogue#comment-231 John Stuart Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:03:38 +0000 http://alexandrasamuel.com/blog/?p=34#comment-231 Throwing up the 1st Amendment is a smoke screen and you know it. The 1st Amendment prohibits GOVERNMENT action. Your proposal was to purge Rice and others who you disagree through the academic associations (APSA, etc.). So trying to wrap yourself in the 1st Amendment is a non starter. As Kalblog and others noted: your “It was a joke, honest” defense is paper thin and easily seen through. In fact MANY of the points I made in my post (which you now refuse to post, even after you know my name & email) were made by Kalblog. Esp. the point that lawyers & doctors are licensed by the state whereas political scientists are NOT. Again, more than welcome to ignore this post and prove how much of a purger you really are. Throwing up the 1st Amendment is a smoke screen and you know it. The 1st Amendment prohibits GOVERNMENT action. Your proposal was to purge Rice and others who you disagree through the academic associations (APSA, etc.). So trying to wrap yourself in the 1st Amendment is a non starter.

As Kalblog and others noted: your “It was a joke, honest” defense is paper thin and easily seen through.

In fact MANY of the points I made in my post (which you now refuse to post, even after you know my name & email) were made by Kalblog. Esp. the point that lawyers & doctors are licensed by the state whereas political scientists are NOT.

Again, more than welcome to ignore this post and prove how much of a purger you really are.

]]> By: John Stuart http://www.alexandrasamuel.com/general/from-diatribe-to-dialogue#comment-198325 John Stuart Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:03:00 +0000 http://alexandrasamuel.com/blog/?p=34#comment-198325 Throwing up the 1st Amendment is a smoke screen and you know it. The 1st Amendment prohibits GOVERNMENT action. Your proposal was to purge Rice and others who you disagree through the academic associations (APSA, etc.). So trying to wrap yourself in the 1st Amendment is a non starter. As Kalblog and others noted: your “It was a joke, honest” defense is paper thin and easily seen through. In fact MANY of the points I made in my post (which you now refuse to post, even after you know my name & email) were made by Kalblog. Esp. the point that lawyers & doctors are licensed by the state whereas political scientists are NOT. Again, more than welcome to ignore this post and prove how much of a purger you really are. Throwing up the 1st Amendment is a smoke screen and you know it. The 1st Amendment prohibits GOVERNMENT action. Your proposal was to purge Rice and others who you disagree through the academic associations (APSA, etc.). So trying to wrap yourself in the 1st Amendment is a non starter.

As Kalblog and others noted: your “It was a joke, honest” defense is paper thin and easily seen through.

In fact MANY of the points I made in my post (which you now refuse to post, even after you know my name & email) were made by Kalblog. Esp. the point that lawyers & doctors are licensed by the state whereas political scientists are NOT.

Again, more than welcome to ignore this post and prove how much of a purger you really are.

]]>