The art of critique and the rant (Warning Flame - serious post)

Warning! Serious and inflammatory post. Read at own Risk.

Ok. I was going to leave this in the comments but I think there is something for all of us to learn here. I was somewhat disturbed to find this comment after Hippolytas (Hipp) post A day in the life.
Alex
Seriously - you have some of the nastiest things to say about people and books...what kind of Christian are you? Have you read either of those books - or are you just taken shots at some of the books your arch-nemesis has read and randomly made fun of them as well? It takes a broad, open mind to accept and respectfully disagree and a closed, narrow mind to rip something apart - while thinking you are funny. Why so pissy? I know Harriet may seem sad - but are you offering?

Ok Alex. Lets talk about this. Why? Well because I'm tired of a couple of things I see a lot of lately.
Oh do tell us Mr. Lumpy, what are these things?
Do you really want to know?
Yes. Yes we do.
Well ok then.

First and fore most I am tired of people trying to stifle free thought and free speech by demanding that everyone sugar coat things. The act of expressing opposing ideas demands that one person prove another wrong and it is often shown in less than glowing terms. This by the way is true even of Church leaders. One can easily find areas where Catholic popes cursed each other to everlasting damnation and hell fire. There is a time of Papal rule that the Catholic church refers to as the Rule of the Basterds. And Martin Luther constantly referred to Popes as the Anti-Christ and Satan incarnate so lets not try and push PC values on Christianity and decide that because you are a Christian you are not aloud to exercise critical thinking in such a way that you call a spade a spade.

Second. Why is it impossible for people to operate on logical rational thought in our society today? Rather than address the issue that is being raised people instead attack the person speaking. Are we so afraid that we might lose an argument that we won’t come to the plate? Or do we not have a leg to stand on to begin with? Now I have no problem with a person questioning the opponents integrity or even being nasty on a personal level (which Alex and Hipp both were and I will be in this post by way of response) IF the person doing this backs up their point with facts.

With this in mind I'm going to address Alex’s comments and lets show how a real person who has taken the time to READ what was said is able to argue. Namely Point by Point dealing with what the person SAID and what the obvious meanings of the ideas expressed are.

Are we ready? Then lets go.

"Seriously - you have some of the nastiest things to say about people and books..." Is Alex serious? I find it hard to believe that a serious person would make such a statement after having READ the post. Not only is Alex not debating what was said with this statement Alex has not remained accurate with her comments.

Lesson 1 boys and girls. If you are going to argue stay accurate.

Hipp was not talking about people and books. She was talking about a very specific person (say it with me boys and girls... Harriet Klausner) and Hipp was not talking about a whole bunch of books. In fact she was not talking about books at all. She was talking about (say it with me... Harriet Klausners) book reviews. Specifically her book reviews for the following three books:
Conversations with The Fat Girl, Almost Perfect, The Great Pretender. Well lets see here. Alex claims that Hipp has "the nastiest things to say about... books" because she asserts that (say it with me one more time Harriet Klausner) has not written a good critique when she says that Conversations with The Fat Girl is a deep character study, Almost Perfect is a "fun story", and The Great Pretender is "a fabulous insightful family drama with no one unscathed or perfect, which is why the tale is so good". First I fail to see what is so nasty that she is saying about the books as SHE IS NOT TALKING ABOUT THE BOOKS. This is painfully obvious as she DOES NOT QOUTE THE BOOKS. She quotes Harriet Klausner. Therefore she is talking about Klausners critiques. Did you really have trouble picking up on this fact Alex? I will give Alex more credit than she deserves; however, and lets assume Alex meant Hipp has nasty things to say about Klausners reviews. This is a country where people are aloud to speak there minds and engage in debate (You know where two people take opposing views. I'm sure you ran into this in school) which is what we are attempting to do here. Hipps point is that Klausner has not taken adequate time to give a decent review of the book. Open up any magazine or newspaper and look at the amount of space given on reviewing a restaurant. Whole columns. In the light of this I find a review as short as the ones listed above to be shamefully short given that a book has so much more information than oh… say a restaurant. This is Hipps point.

Point 2 – Don’t attack the person without substantiating your claims with facts. "what kind of Christian are you?" The kind that uses her head and is not afraid to stand up for the things she believes even when they are ambiguous as far as Christianity is concerned. This question is indicative of the cancer eating at the intellectual fabric of America. The belief that you can win an argument by attacking the person instead of the idea that the person is positing when widely accepted by a culture can only lead to intellectual stagnation, the dumbing down of the populace, and creation of an intellectually elite which Alex is doing a good job of showing she will not be a part of.

"Have you read either of those books - or are you just taken shots at some of the books your arch-nemesis has read and randomly made fun of them as well?" - Once again Alex is not arguing but attacking the person speaking. Note how Alex does not defend Klausners reviews which is what is being held up for scrutiny. I happen to know that Hipp has read the books in question. I also know that Hipp is not in the running for making tons of book reviews and therefore is not a major competitor of Klausner. What Hipp is doing is demanding, as a consumer, reliable critiques on which to base her purchases. Klausner is hardly reliable when she does not give negative reviews and the reviews that are given seldom (notice I did not say always. Point 3 - be precise with your language and your reading) make use of more than the most general glowing terms. Given these facts Hipp has written, as a warning, about Klausner to those who are reading this site and also challenged Klausner to a higher standard which is frankly desperately needed and obviously lacking in her reviews. Granted Hipp has gotten a bit personal with her suggestions but that is because Hipp feels strongly about the subject. If you don’t like it welcome to FREEDOM OF SPEECH 101. I am the Lumpy and I will be your teacher. Since Hipp has not defamed Klausner she has this right as do you and as do I. If you don’t like the way it was said you are welcome to speak up as am I. See how that works. Everyone gets to speak. And you get to show your lack of ability to argue a point and I get to show how ridiculous you are and how your mindset is a scourge on society and an insult to intellectual thinking. Isn’t freedom of speech wonderful.

Point 4 - get your facts right "It takes a broad, open mind to accept and respectfully disagree and a closed, narrow mind to rip something apart - while thinking you are funny. " - It takes no broader a mind to respectfully disagree than it does to rip something apart. It simply requires a different style and is often easiest when a counter point has been put in front of you. I could be respectful of Alex’s comments but I am choosing not to. Is this because I am narrow minded? No. I am broad minded enough to understand a dissenting viewpoint about what constitutes a decent critique. It is because I have no respect for opinions given without evidence that I’m not showing respect. Lets also note the hypocrisy of this statement. Alex is saying Hipp is narrow minded because she has ripped apart Klausners reviews yet Alex is disrespectfully ripping apart Hipps review of Klausner. Does this make Alex a narrow minded bigot? Then why should we accept Alex’s position that it makes Hipp a narrow minded bigot? As for Hipp thinking Hipp is funny. Humor is like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder. You don't find it funny. That is your right.

Point 5 - be realistic. "Why so pissy? I know Harriet may seem sad - but are you offering?" Why so pissy? Because Hipp feels like a poor job has been done when a very good job could have been done. You see when you READ what a person says you can gain an idea of what they mean. Hipp is not saying that Klausner is INCAPABLE of doing a good job but she is saying that Klausner is DOING a poor job. The general idea is for Klausner to take a little more time and produce something of quality which she is capable of doing. I could give examples here but if you are still reading then chances are you don't need them. Feel free to ask for them in the comments though if you feel they are necessary and I will post them upon request. As for Offering to do what Klausner is doing in order to fix the problem lets get serious (something Alex claimed to be at the beginning). When you return something to the supermarket do you offer to become a farmer? When you go to Walmart and return an item do you offer to take up manufacturing? Get a bad meal at a restaurant and open your own chain? Get a bad taxi ride and become a taxi driver? I appreciate what Alex is saying; that, people who gripe about something have the option to make it better. However, the point that a person is making is NOT made invalid or valid based upon a person’s decision to apply their energies in that particular field. Otherwise you have a lot of different careers in front of you Alex.

And so Alex; given that you have so many careers you need to pursue we will let you go. I trust I've shown the problem with your style of argumentation but if you would like to give it another try I will be waiting for you to take up the torch. I will not; however, be holding my breath.

Class dismissed. We now return you to the usual humorous nature of this blog.