Have you ever been in a position where you were doing your best to... not be you?
I've mentioned that I just returned to university, this Fall. Considering that I'm 1) older and probably rustier than most students, 2) likely to openly object to insult and incorrect information from the instructor, and 3) sickly and "grown" enough to probably need more excused absences and exceptions, I thought it best to keep a low-profile.
Personally, I believe that the classroom is no place to hide one's ignorance - strange though that may sound. If a student doesn't understand something or mistakenly believes that s/he has the correct answer, that student should feel encouraged to express him- or herself. I'm so rusty on the prerequisites, though, that I feel my rustiness may be a bit too conspicuous for public consumption.
So, I tried to keep my mouth shut.
I've been in too many situations where instructors come to class 15-20 minutes late, then expect the entire class to stay 15-20 minutes after class to make up for lost time... and I was the only one to openly object. I've been in classes where instructors assume that any objection from a student must, by definition, equate to bullshit. On one level, I can't blame'em, but really, we should judge an idea or an objection on its own merits, not the age or position of its originator. Still, speaking up too loudly or too often could leave a bad taste in the instructors' (or the students') mouths.
So, I tried to keep my mouth shut.
Finally, I've got enough chronic illnesses and outside responsibilities that rubbing instructors and administrators the wrong way is likely to result in most cost than profit. I anticipate needing more legitimate excused absences than the average student, so I need to remember that old saying about shitting where you eat.
So, I tried to keep my mouth shut.
Between all of that and my accumulated life experiences, I really and truly tried not to say anything when my instructors would clearly imply that we're a class of liars and bullshit artists. I really tried not to speak up when I kept hearing how "easy" this or that is... from someone with multiple advanced degrees and more professional experience than we have life experience.
But recently...
I just couldn't keep my mouth shut.
I'd just about bitten my tongue bloody by the time a certain instructor mentioned the fact that someone in the class (me, although he didn't point me out or name me) had e-mailed him, saying that the university computers were malfunctioning, making it difficult-to-impossible to complete the upcoming assignment. This instructor went on about how I (the anonymous student) could've Googled the program or we could've gotten a copy from him or not waited until the last minute.
Like I said, he never called me out, but I couldn't take anymore, so I called myself out. Instead of sitting there, quietly, like on so many other days, this time I objected to his objectionable points.
"I did NOT lie about the computers malfunctioning; in fact, I provided the names and numbers of university employees who could confirm this fact."
"I DID Google the program, but the search results lacked all the necessary parts to form a complete, working program."
"You had copies in your office? I didn't know that. Did you mention that in class? No? Okay."
It was a little uncomfortable for a while, but I eventually shut up and let it lie until the end of class. I continued to participate in class discussions/activities and waited until I had a private audience with him.
We went back and forth, in his office, for a while, and he pointed out some very valid reasons why he might doubt the word of some students, including me. In the end, though, either the strength of my points, the sincerity in my voice, or the soft spot in his heart, he agreed to allow me a little more time to complete the assignment.
This isn't some monstrous instructor I'm talking about here. He's just an intelligent, flawed, sometimes reasonable, sometimes less-reasonable human-being trying to really discern shit from shinola.
So far, I'm not sure which he thinks I am, but I'm quite pleased that "being me" didn't hurt me in the short-term and that I'll have more opportunities to prove to him and to myself that I'm capable of not just passing this course, but mastering the concepts and applications it encompasses.
I guess we'll see.
Showing posts with label arguments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label arguments. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Debate vs Discussion
I received some criticism recently that has me thinking about the difference between debate and discussion.
I can understand how not every discussion is a debate and how not every debate is a discussion. I can also imagine how it might be frustrating when one person's trying to have a discussion and someone else is trying to have a debate - or vice-versa. Generally speaking, I consider a discussion to be an act of sharing - ideas, thoughts, and even opinions. I more or less consider a debate to be an act of unveiling - of the strengths and weaknesses of different opinions... and, hopefully, of the truth.
I believe there are times when the two intersect. When a discussion results in a difference-of-opinion or a disagreement about the facts, the participants are likely to attempt to resolve that disagreement. This offshoot of the discussion, which may merge back into the main topic, is a debate. Sometimes it's best to leave certain disagreements unresolved or to make a modest effort to find common ground, but there are times when the topic is so weighty or the participants are so invested that the debate continues.
This is perfectly reasonable, in my opinion. And it seems Webster's Dictionary agrees:
It's not that we disagree, but how we disagree. Well, that's how I see it, anyway.
In the blogosphere, there are places where it's perceived as inappropriate to comment on other people's comments. I guess the idea is that the post is the topic of discussion, so all commentary should be relative to only that post.
I tend to think that those of us within this sphere make up a broad community of-sorts and that those of us who comment on a particular blog topic are an even tighter community. As such, I find it natural for us to interact with each other the way communities do - through agreement and disagreement.
Maybe my perspective is too different from the prevailing opinion, though - whatever that may be. I've already seen how things like removing people from a blogroll is interpreted as the online equivalent of a slap in the face. *shrugs*
Personally, I frequent blogs because I enjoy the content and it suits my lifestyle. If a blog's content ceases to stimulate me or the posts are too infrequent or too long or I find that I'm not mature enough to keep my emotions (and, maybe language, in-check), then I scoot.
My blog roll isn't like those MySpace "friends" lists. I actually read the blogs I list. In fact, I use the blog roll like internet browser "bookmarks." That's how I check those blogs and websites out. When I stop checking them out, they usually come off the list.
If I see that my blog has come off of someone else's list, that doesn't stop me from frequenting their site. Obviously, there are a number of folks who feel differently (and, once again, this is not about the recent falling-out I mentioned). Hell, I recently realized that I don't know who's still got me on their blog roll.
That's largely irrelevant, to me. What is relevant, though, is whether they bother to respond when I and others comment. If not, I tend to lose interest because it feels like we're talking at each other instead of to each other. That's not very fun. (And I need to be careful of doing this, myself.)
There are some blogs I still enjoy, but don't bother to comment on for the above reasons, but those are the exceptions.
Anyway, I guess I'll stop here before I end up talking about every tangential subject under the sun. I'll keep welcoming and questioning and challenging opinions, though, until or unless I'm no longer welcome elsewhere and until no one feels welcome here.
Feel free to comment, whether you agree or disagree. Criticize my opinions or behavior, if you like, or just speak generally on the subjects.
I can understand how not every discussion is a debate and how not every debate is a discussion. I can also imagine how it might be frustrating when one person's trying to have a discussion and someone else is trying to have a debate - or vice-versa. Generally speaking, I consider a discussion to be an act of sharing - ideas, thoughts, and even opinions. I more or less consider a debate to be an act of unveiling - of the strengths and weaknesses of different opinions... and, hopefully, of the truth.
I believe there are times when the two intersect. When a discussion results in a difference-of-opinion or a disagreement about the facts, the participants are likely to attempt to resolve that disagreement. This offshoot of the discussion, which may merge back into the main topic, is a debate. Sometimes it's best to leave certain disagreements unresolved or to make a modest effort to find common ground, but there are times when the topic is so weighty or the participants are so invested that the debate continues.
This is perfectly reasonable, in my opinion. And it seems Webster's Dictionary agrees:
dis·cus·sionIt's clear that some people (and I'm not just talking about the source of that recent criticism) see focused disagreement as verbal conflict. Maybe that's true, but I don't believe there's anything wrong with conflict, in and of itself. What matters is how we go about it, how we conduct ourselves. Basically, it's about how we treat each other, but not about whether we agree with each other.
-noun
an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., esp. to explore solutions; informal debate.
It's not that we disagree, but how we disagree. Well, that's how I see it, anyway.
In the blogosphere, there are places where it's perceived as inappropriate to comment on other people's comments. I guess the idea is that the post is the topic of discussion, so all commentary should be relative to only that post.
I tend to think that those of us within this sphere make up a broad community of-sorts and that those of us who comment on a particular blog topic are an even tighter community. As such, I find it natural for us to interact with each other the way communities do - through agreement and disagreement.
Maybe my perspective is too different from the prevailing opinion, though - whatever that may be. I've already seen how things like removing people from a blogroll is interpreted as the online equivalent of a slap in the face. *shrugs*
Personally, I frequent blogs because I enjoy the content and it suits my lifestyle. If a blog's content ceases to stimulate me or the posts are too infrequent or too long or I find that I'm not mature enough to keep my emotions (and, maybe language, in-check), then I scoot.
My blog roll isn't like those MySpace "friends" lists. I actually read the blogs I list. In fact, I use the blog roll like internet browser "bookmarks." That's how I check those blogs and websites out. When I stop checking them out, they usually come off the list.
If I see that my blog has come off of someone else's list, that doesn't stop me from frequenting their site. Obviously, there are a number of folks who feel differently (and, once again, this is not about the recent falling-out I mentioned). Hell, I recently realized that I don't know who's still got me on their blog roll.
That's largely irrelevant, to me. What is relevant, though, is whether they bother to respond when I and others comment. If not, I tend to lose interest because it feels like we're talking at each other instead of to each other. That's not very fun. (And I need to be careful of doing this, myself.)
There are some blogs I still enjoy, but don't bother to comment on for the above reasons, but those are the exceptions.
Anyway, I guess I'll stop here before I end up talking about every tangential subject under the sun. I'll keep welcoming and questioning and challenging opinions, though, until or unless I'm no longer welcome elsewhere and until no one feels welcome here.
Feel free to comment, whether you agree or disagree. Criticize my opinions or behavior, if you like, or just speak generally on the subjects.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
An Apology and An Explanation
DJ Black Adam and I had something of a falling out, recently. If you're interested, here's the post that broke the camel's back.
I got so pissed at his statements (on and off his blog) so much that I did some cursing in the comments section. For that I apologized via e-mail (as of this posting I am currently banned):
I got so pissed at his statements (on and off his blog) so much that I did some cursing in the comments section. For that I apologized via e-mail (as of this posting I am currently banned):
"Recently, Someone told me about Misty Knight's comment, so...You may be right about the profanity thing, Mrs. BA.I'm torn between apologizing (because I feel bad about that) and saying nothing because I am equally offended by DJBA's comments about Black parents and communities. Seriously.We don't have to agree or ever speak, again, and you certainly don't have to change your opinions about me, but I hope you will accept my apology. I am sorry about the profanity.This apology is freely given and I recognize that you have every right to refuse it.Good evening."
My apology is for both DJBA and Mrs. DJBA because my conscience says there's too great a chance that I did a bad thing, but I continue to feel offense with respect to both DJBA's statements about Blacks, in general, and his misrepresentations of my opinions. Hopefully, that doesn't venture too far into the realm of "semanticizing," but I think it's a fair hair to split. I'm sorry for the delivery (i.e. by way of profanity) but not the content.
And, for the record, it is not dissenting opinions that bother me so much as their foundations. Misrepresentation is also quite bothersome. It was those things, not the act of disagreeing, which set me off.
This is not an attempt to do anything other than to publicly apologize (since I showed my tail publicly) and clear up a thing or two.
And, for the record, it is not dissenting opinions that bother me so much as their foundations. Misrepresentation is also quite bothersome. It was those things, not the act of disagreeing, which set me off.
This is not an attempt to do anything other than to publicly apologize (since I showed my tail publicly) and clear up a thing or two.
Friday, November 11, 2005
The Origin...
Being a comic book fan, I'm surprised it took this long for me to realize I left out the "origin" story - at least of the name of this blog. I may change it, at some point, so I'll mention that it's now called "Damned Anti-Semantics." The second pseudo-word came about after I'd been accused of being uninterested in discussion topics and would rather bicker over semantics. That ain't me, but I *do* think that more truths are revealed after consulting a dictionary than one might suspect. It's always related to uncovering truths or exchanging ideas, but I doubt I'll ever be anything more than an argumentative ass to those Damned Anti-Semantics.
The irony is that those who are most likely to call me argumentative are usually the ones who are just pissed that I don't agree with them because they said so. I give reasons for feeling and believing this or that. I listen to yours, comment on them, present mine, and so on. They call that discussion. Anyone who thinks they're going to tell me what to think or feel and I'm supposed to accept this without question or comment... Well, that person's in for a surprise.
It's surprising just how many people consider themselves to be civil, reasonable souls, but, when faced with someone who simply disagrees with them, become uncivil and completely unreasonable. I don't think that's usually due to something CHANGING them, so I misphrased that. I think it's more like the curtain was pulled back, revealing the Wizard's true appearance. Everything else was an illusion.
S'kinda funny that the times I'm most likely to drop a dictionary on yo' ass are the times when we disagree about the nature of something. For instance, a smart guy I know recently objected when someone else referred to a murderer as "religious." Smart Guy's point was actually a little different than I first suspected, but I think this will illustrate my point well, anyway.
I don't think that someone doing a bad thing means that person's not religious. I don't think the two things are mutually exclusive. BUT, maybe I've misunderstood the meaning of the word "religious." So, I took a look at the dictionary. I concluded that religious people do very bad things, but don't forfeit that religious label, as a result. Now, Smart Guy didn't flip out or anything, like some people do. What often happens is that we (meaning me and some other folks) spend time discussing what "religious" is, they get frustrated, and then they accuse me of only being interested in semantics.
It's simple. If you say it's a duck and I say it's not, we oughta consult a reference source about ducks. If that's too hard to understand, I'm sorry. If you ever change your mind, hit me up. Until then, you'll remain one of those Damned Anti-Semantics I complain about.
I still love you, though.
The irony is that those who are most likely to call me argumentative are usually the ones who are just pissed that I don't agree with them because they said so. I give reasons for feeling and believing this or that. I listen to yours, comment on them, present mine, and so on. They call that discussion. Anyone who thinks they're going to tell me what to think or feel and I'm supposed to accept this without question or comment... Well, that person's in for a surprise.
It's surprising just how many people consider themselves to be civil, reasonable souls, but, when faced with someone who simply disagrees with them, become uncivil and completely unreasonable. I don't think that's usually due to something CHANGING them, so I misphrased that. I think it's more like the curtain was pulled back, revealing the Wizard's true appearance. Everything else was an illusion.
S'kinda funny that the times I'm most likely to drop a dictionary on yo' ass are the times when we disagree about the nature of something. For instance, a smart guy I know recently objected when someone else referred to a murderer as "religious." Smart Guy's point was actually a little different than I first suspected, but I think this will illustrate my point well, anyway.
I don't think that someone doing a bad thing means that person's not religious. I don't think the two things are mutually exclusive. BUT, maybe I've misunderstood the meaning of the word "religious." So, I took a look at the dictionary. I concluded that religious people do very bad things, but don't forfeit that religious label, as a result. Now, Smart Guy didn't flip out or anything, like some people do. What often happens is that we (meaning me and some other folks) spend time discussing what "religious" is, they get frustrated, and then they accuse me of only being interested in semantics.
It's simple. If you say it's a duck and I say it's not, we oughta consult a reference source about ducks. If that's too hard to understand, I'm sorry. If you ever change your mind, hit me up. Until then, you'll remain one of those Damned Anti-Semantics I complain about.
I still love you, though.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
So, let's get right to it.
This blog is likely to have quite a bit of bitching, as people are quite likely to give me things to bitch ABOUT. If this is a problem for you, then take it in doses or skip it altogether. Otherwise, welcome!
What this blog will ultimately become, I don't know. What it'll be today is a forum for me to complain about the lack of depth in this world. Too many of Kramer's laws are absolutely correct. There are a LOT of stupid people in the world and those that aren't stupid act like it waaay too often.
Topic: Self-defense.
I remember being in elementary and high school and being told that anyone who gets into a fight will be suspended - regardless of who actually STARTED* it. I didn't like that (especially when it happened to me) but I kinda understood it. Administrators aren't always around to see who did what, so they came up with a blanket policy. Oh well.
Online forums, despite the tendency for some to act like it, are NOT grade-school rumbles. If you want to know who started a fight, as long as the online administrators/moderators don't modIFY the text, you can "go back in time" and experience the moment like it was happening for the first time. You know who started kicking up dust. You can see what escalated the situation. You can see how by-standers sat back and enjoyed other people's misery. You can see it all.
So, why the hell do people STILL see fit to judge assholes AND the people they shit on the same damned way?! Laziness. If you defend yourself, particularly if you do so without calling people names or accusing them of anything, good on ya. Here's a cookie. You're not OWED a cookie, but you're doing what many are incapable of doing or unwilling to do. Don't expect those around you to recognize this, though.
I got into an online brawl, last night, that was just RIDICULOUS. Among other things, one person made a general "grow the fuck up" comment to others. I responded to this unnecessary insult and quoted it repeatedly in doing so. When I woke up the next morning, someone claimed I'd come in with guns blazing and got things all heated unnecessarily. His evidence? He told me to do a search and see how many times the words "shit" and "fuck" had been said in that thread and how many times they were said by ME... and to be sure to note how many of the others who said those words were quoting ME.
I did just that.
What I found was that "shit," "fuck," and "fucking" had been said about 40 times and the vast majority of those times it was by people who were simply quoting me... as I quoted the person who'd originally said it. Did you catch that? They quoted MY post, which had quoted the original statement... and counted that against me.
. . .
That was his evidence. Apparently, the many people who quoted me weren't doing anything wrong, but by quoting someone else's profanity, *I* was causing problems. In fact, someone else implied that actually considering and researching his claims was a bad thing. By looking up these details and posting them, I'd apparently spent quite a bit of time and I guess that means I'm a nut. Lessee. If I DON'T consider his points, I'm being argumentative. If I DO consider his points and then counter them with actual facts, I'm a nut.
Lazy thinking.
Don't get me wrong, I'll curse up a storm, as you'll soon see. However, my "shit" doesn't smell any worse than the next man's. Recognize this.
Everybody forgets this, sometimes, but it's either stupidity or assholery that causes one to miss this fact consistently.
That reminds me. There are too many assholes in this world, too.
* Note: Just because something's in all-caps, that doesn't mean I'm yelling at you. Sometimes a person just wants to get the words out as quickly as possible; stopping to click a couple formatting buttons isn't always desirable at those times.
What this blog will ultimately become, I don't know. What it'll be today is a forum for me to complain about the lack of depth in this world. Too many of Kramer's laws are absolutely correct. There are a LOT of stupid people in the world and those that aren't stupid act like it waaay too often.
Topic: Self-defense.
I remember being in elementary and high school and being told that anyone who gets into a fight will be suspended - regardless of who actually STARTED* it. I didn't like that (especially when it happened to me) but I kinda understood it. Administrators aren't always around to see who did what, so they came up with a blanket policy. Oh well.
Online forums, despite the tendency for some to act like it, are NOT grade-school rumbles. If you want to know who started a fight, as long as the online administrators/moderators don't modIFY the text, you can "go back in time" and experience the moment like it was happening for the first time. You know who started kicking up dust. You can see what escalated the situation. You can see how by-standers sat back and enjoyed other people's misery. You can see it all.
So, why the hell do people STILL see fit to judge assholes AND the people they shit on the same damned way?! Laziness. If you defend yourself, particularly if you do so without calling people names or accusing them of anything, good on ya. Here's a cookie. You're not OWED a cookie, but you're doing what many are incapable of doing or unwilling to do. Don't expect those around you to recognize this, though.
I got into an online brawl, last night, that was just RIDICULOUS. Among other things, one person made a general "grow the fuck up" comment to others. I responded to this unnecessary insult and quoted it repeatedly in doing so. When I woke up the next morning, someone claimed I'd come in with guns blazing and got things all heated unnecessarily. His evidence? He told me to do a search and see how many times the words "shit" and "fuck" had been said in that thread and how many times they were said by ME... and to be sure to note how many of the others who said those words were quoting ME.
I did just that.
What I found was that "shit," "fuck," and "fucking" had been said about 40 times and the vast majority of those times it was by people who were simply quoting me... as I quoted the person who'd originally said it. Did you catch that? They quoted MY post, which had quoted the original statement... and counted that against me.
. . .
That was his evidence. Apparently, the many people who quoted me weren't doing anything wrong, but by quoting someone else's profanity, *I* was causing problems. In fact, someone else implied that actually considering and researching his claims was a bad thing. By looking up these details and posting them, I'd apparently spent quite a bit of time and I guess that means I'm a nut. Lessee. If I DON'T consider his points, I'm being argumentative. If I DO consider his points and then counter them with actual facts, I'm a nut.
Lazy thinking.
Don't get me wrong, I'll curse up a storm, as you'll soon see. However, my "shit" doesn't smell any worse than the next man's. Recognize this.
Everybody forgets this, sometimes, but it's either stupidity or assholery that causes one to miss this fact consistently.
That reminds me. There are too many assholes in this world, too.
* Note: Just because something's in all-caps, that doesn't mean I'm yelling at you. Sometimes a person just wants to get the words out as quickly as possible; stopping to click a couple formatting buttons isn't always desirable at those times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)