The Mistakes In My Writing

I've been a bit self-reflective lately about the kind of writing that I do, and I think I should go over the work I've done. While I can be sardonic in an argument (as someone like @LordsFire would know by now), I do want to talk here about the mistakes in my works.

The number one mistake I believe I've been making is clarity. One of the most common complaints I've gotten are I just assert statements without arguing for them. While it is true I take a strident tone, this is a mistake I find difficult to catch in my writing. I haven't seen a paper I've written where I didn't try to argue for my points. For instance, in my recent remarks on Rush Limbaugh, I tried arguing that the right needs original thinkers since it suffers from cliches, and Rush Limbaugh doesn't produce or even talk about original ideas. LordsFire did not make his case well, as he essentially told me "you have to watch all twenty-odd years of Rush's content to understand the nuances and originally of his thought." I took this to mean that "I don't have any argument against you, so I'm going to make you do the work yourself."

However much at fault LordsFire was in this exchange, I cannot help but see that I was also at fault here. That LordsFire could not see the argument in my work is a failure on my part as a writer. I could not convey the argument to him in a way he could understand and productively respond to. This is a shameful blot on my record.

Similarly, I've been having trouble with people misunderstanding my work. For instance, LordsFire believed that (somehow) I as a Christian don't believe normal people can have a personal relationship with God. While I was able to correct him, I do think that this is a travesty. LordsFire isn't an idiot; he's at least as smart as I am. Yet he couldn't understand my argument. What does that say about my writing? Am I too obscurantist? Have I not mastered plain English?

Even if LordsFire was an idiot, I should not have basically said "you stupid person, I meant X!" That's not a constructive way of dealing with the idiot's critique. Rather, I should ask myself "how can I fix the paper so that even this idiot can understand me," and then warmly thank the idiot for their critique. Again, I want to stress that I don't think LordsFire is a moron, in spite of what I might have implied in the past. I just wanted to say that my language would be unacceptable, even if my critique was a moron.

Lastly, I'd like to apologize to LordsFire and anyone else for my attitude. I will warn you in the future that I strongly dislike having my ideas misrepresented, and that will affect my writing. I kindly ask that he and everyone else who discusses with me will join me in endeavoring to be better.

The faux-humility really is astonishing. You open the post with self-deprecation, and close by yet again complaining about being "misrepresented" and saying that we're the ones who should be endeavouring to be better. But I'll bite anyway.

The Name of Love said:

I've been a bit self-reflective lately about the kind of writing that I do, and I think I should go over the work I've done. While I can be sardonic in an argument (as someone like @LordsFire would know by now), I do want to talk here about the mistakes in my works.

The number one mistake I believe I've been making is clarity. One of the most common complaints I've gotten are I just assert statements without arguing for them. While it is true I take a strident tone, this is a mistake I find difficult to catch in my writing. I haven't seen a paper I've written where I didn't try to argue for my points.

Click to expand...

It is not just assertion, it is the repetition of assertion as if it contributes anything genuinely new to the conversation.

That LordsFire could not see the argument in my work is a failure on my part as a writer. I could not convey the argument to him in a way he could understand and productively respond to. This is a shameful blot on my record.

Click to expand...

Argue. Respond to the points people make. Don't act as if the Muses are popping by from Mount Parnassus to whisper the words you should say into your ears, because they aren't.

Yet he couldn't understand my argument. What does that say about my writing? Am I too obscurantist? Have I not mastered plain English?

Click to expand...

The problem is that you seem to dance a lot around what you really mean, which you've demonstrated most notably in the debates you've engaged in about copyright and the morality of the American Revolutionary War. If you went out in the latter thread and said "I think sovereigns are owed an unlimited degree of subservience by their subjects by virtue of Divine Right, and literally no level of arbitrary or tyrannical government can justify their deposition or an act of secession from their rule" we could have debated that. The fact that your argument was also founded in gaping historical inaccuracies (the French posed no threat to the colonists in 1776, not even being able to defend their remaining mainland North American territories; and the Colonies at that time were legally a part of England so much as Kent or East Anglia) which you refused to acknowledge only compounded that.

In the "individualism" thread, we saw another example. You literally called the end of medieval feudalism "an usurpation" resulting from a continent-wide conspiracy between kings and burghers, blamed it for all modern ills, going so far as to assert the supposed moral truth that "peasants shouldn't live like lords" (an odd complaint to be making, given that class disparities still exist and always will) - then when we assumed you wanted to bring feudalism back, you said rather unconvincingly that wasn't what you wanted.

Even if LordsFire was an idiot, I should not have basically said "you stupid person, I meant X!" That's not a constructive way of dealing with the idiot's critique. Rather, I should ask myself "how can I fix the paper so that even this idiot can understand me," and then warmly thank the idiot for their critique.

Click to expand...

Look, if you said "no, I don't believe X, this what I actually mean" and were honest about it, we would approve of that. But that's not what you do. You make some absurd statement, based on the claims of a single authority, and then when challenged on it restate your thesis while simultaneously asserting that you're not really saying that said ridiculous statement is what you mean, while also giving no clue as to what alternative interpretation of your words you actually mean.

Lastly, I'd like to apologize to LordsFire and anyone else for my attitude. I will warn you in the future that I strongly dislike having my ideas misrepresented, and that will affect my writing. I kindly ask that he and everyone else who discusses with me will join me in endeavoring to be better.

Click to expand...

If you don't want people to be getting the wrong impression of your ideas, state them plainly, openly and honestly. The apology and talk of cooperation in being better also rings false considering in the previous threads where you complained about "misrepresentation", you stated that your opponents were sophists deliberately strawmanning you.

@Navarro, don't throw stones through glass houses.

I'm happy to give you a fair shake but you've got to got to got to got to got to (No not a typo) make better arguments, and you've got to accept the fact that sometimes not everyone is going to agree with your principles, without insulting them. That or at some point you're just going to have to go your separate ways. Otherwise people will just dismiss you and your going to give yourself and everyone around you a headache. I know this because I've been on both sides at different points sadly.

One of the most common fallacies you use is the no true scottsman" fallacy when someone criticizes your principle or points out a flaw, you tend to curl up into a ball and go "That's not how it really works," or "That's not how it'd work in an ideal society" or "Well you just don't understand how it really works." and when no one really buys that you resort to whataboutisms you have to either explain how said criticisms don't really work, or come up with a solution for said criticism. Yes no system is perfect, but if people are going to face mistakes and problems they rather face new ones not dig up old ones.

It'd be easier if you could just spell out what exactly you want. I get that you don't know exactly what the solution is to society's problems, but you will go on to critique individualism, liberalism, etc. It is clear that you want something. I think you could benefit from putting down what you want in a short, concise paragraph. For example:

"I want a society that is structured around the stability of the nuclear family wherein individual freedom is encouraged, but morality is no longer ignored. It just shouldn't be the state's job to enforce it, but rather, it should acknowledge it. This has issues to work out, but I think it can be accomplished by propagating a belief in freedom paired with self-responsibility. Luckily, we have the history of this nation to point to as an example."

Hastur of Carcosa said:

I'm happy to give you a fair shake but you've got to got to got to got to got to (No not a typo) make better arguments, and you've got to accept the fact that sometimes not everyone is going to agree with your principles, without insulting them. That or at some point you're just going to have to go your separate ways. Otherwise people will just dismiss you and your going to give yourself and everyone around you a headache. I know this because I've been on both sides at different points sadly.

One of the most common fallacies you use is the no true scottsman" fallacy when someone criticizes your principle or points out a flaw, you tend to curl up into a ball and go "That's not how it really works," or "That's not how it'd work in an ideal society" or "Well you just don't understand how it really works." and when no one really buys that you resort to whataboutisms you have to either explain how said criticisms don't really work, or come up with a solution for said criticism. Yes no system is perfect, but if people are going to face mistakes and problems they rather face new ones not dig up old ones.

Click to expand...

I do owe it to people to address their honest concerns. I'm used to people saying wild things about me and then shutting down their brain when I try to correct them that I just sort of interpret any criticism as this.

almostinsane said:

It'd be easier if you could just spell out what exactly you want. I get that you don't know exactly what the solution is to society's problems, but you will go on to critique individualism, liberalism, etc. It is clear that you want something. I think you could benefit from putting down what you want in a short, concise paragraph. For example:

"I want a society that is structured around the stability of the nuclear family wherein individual freedom is encouraged, but morality is no longer ignored. It just shouldn't be the state's job to enforce it, but rather, it should acknowledge it. This has issues to work out, but I think it can be accomplished by propagating a belief in freedom paired with self-responsibility. Luckily, we have the history of this nation to point to as an example."

Click to expand...

This is a good point, yes. Perhaps I could share what I want on my "What the Right Wing Should Be" thread.

You need to relearn everything you forgot about math. That is where most people learn how to actually prove things. You also need to be able to state your ideas using first order logic. Once you comprehend the process to doing that as well as how to construct a formal proof, then you will be able to make proper arguments.