Why Words Matter
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Blogging, History, The War On Terrorism, WarAnybody who isn’t reading Brendan Nyhan’s blog should do themselves a favor and check it out. But be warned, the donkey is alive and kicking over there. However, do understand that he’s the former editor of Spinsanity, a website that tried to separate the rheotric from the reason. A great site in its time and Nyhan’s new blog continues that tradition, albeit with a little more lean to the left.
This time Nyhan gets into it with left-winger Eric Alterman, the author of the book “What Liberal Media?” and author of the blog Altercation (linked to his name above).
But before I get into that, this recent spat between two liberals made me recall my recent public “word war” with the decidedly liberal folks over at Lawyers, Guns & Money.
They called me out for suggesting that the 9/11 memorial for the victims of Flight 93 called “Crescent of Embrace” is odd because the crescent is a symbol of Islam and adorns the roofs of mosques, much like the crosses on churches. Therefore, using this symbol in the title and the design of the memorial seems like a questionable choice.
Scott Lemieux didn’t agree.
His post, affectionately titled “The Shape….It’s Eeeeeeeevil!”, essentially tears me a new one and makes fun of the site. Here’s a taste.
Justin Gardner has actually been going some good work in the wake of Katrina, but then he once again proves the oddity of self-defined “centrism” by endorsing the wingnuttiest argument to come down the pike in a long time. So, apparently, we’re simply not allowed to use the shape of a crescent anymore because it’s also a symbol of Islam? (And, although I realize this distinction will be clear to most of this audience although not to a crackpot like Charles Johnson, it’s worth reiterating that it’s a symbol of Islam, not Al Qaeda or another terrorist group.) Does this mean we’re no longer allowed to refer to New Orleans as “The Crescent City?” Will Pillsbury face boycotts if it doesn’t start calling its “Crescent Rolls” “Freedom Rolls”? Good God.
Here’s my response in the comments section.
So you really think it’s out of bounds for me to simply question a design for a 9/11 memorial that’s symbolic of the terrorist’s religion? And by the way, I do say in the post that I think it should ultimately be up to the family members of the victims. No amount of trying to align me with LGF or the “Islam is a terrorist organization” crowd changes that.Digging into your post a bit more, bringing up all the other “crescents” in the world has nothing to do with my point. The crescent as a shape is beautiful and should always be thought of as such. However, in certain cases, like a 9/11 memorial, I think certain symbols should be avoided.
And by the way, I also think any type of cross design would be inappropriate too. I don’t think they did anything on purpose here, I just wish they would have used a bit more discretion.
And actually, one more reason that I’m just thinking about now is it’s best to stay away from the shape because it’ll only reinforce the broad and clumsy connection for all of those who see Islam and terrorists as the same thing. Obviously I do not. Changing the design would eliminate this.
A couple more points.
First, if you think I’m doing a good job on the Katrina stuff, then link to it Scott. Complimenting me in one breath and then slamming my “centrism” in another makes it seem like you’re only trying to find problems with me. Imagine my disappointment when the bigger liberal sites that point to Donklephant always slam us and completely ignore our other posts that are decidedly liberal friendly.
Last, if you really think our site is an oddity, then there’s nothing I can do to convince you it’s not. But before you slam us next time, maybe you should look at what you choose to highlight about us and see if you’re being fair. I’m sure I could go through this site and find a couple posts where you’re seemingly aligned with the fringe too. People’s opinions are diverse and they don’t fit into little ideological boxes all the time. If centrism is about anything it’s diversity of opinion and if that makes it an oddity, then so be it.
Defensive? Sure, but obviously I feel justified. And after that comment, the floodgates opened with comment after comment about shapes and wingnuttery, and on and on. To be fair, most of the comments weren’t very caustic. They were simply dismissive. I could highlight a few, but if you want to have some fun, go over there and read all 41 comments. More on this later.
So onto the Nyhan/Alterman spat.
In one his latest posts, Alterman said the following.
In the name of fighting “terrorism,” the administration has sent 40 percent of the National Guard to Iraq and Afghanistan in order to create more terrorists and let bin Laden get away.
This is what Nyhan said in response to his assertion.
The phrase “in order to” clearly implies that the Bush administration wanted to “create more terrorists and let bin Laden get away.” Alterman would no doubt claim that he’s just being sarcastic, but that’s an easy excuse that allows him (and people like him) to make this sort of vile suggestion.
This was Alterman’s followup post.
The sad fact is that the Bush administration has done little about preparing the nation for another terrorist attack in the past four years�just look here and here, while it does plenty to make one more likely�creating more hatred in the Arab world and more support for those who would give their lives to kill us, and less willingness to follow our leadership everywhere else. I am not saying, as a foolish young blogger named Brendan Nyhan idiotically insists, that Bush has done this because he wants more terrorism. I don’t pretend to know what Bush wants, but I would be honestly surprised if it included killing lots of brave American soldiers for no good reason. (Hmmm, Nyhan, the little language cop, professes to know what I think but have not said about what Bush thinks but has not said. Someone call George Orwell… or Alanis Morissette.) What I am saying, and have been saying all along, is that George Bush is so blinkered by his ideological obsessions, coupled with his intellectual laziness, personal pique, and professional incompetence, that he cannot see what is plainly before him and hence, has failed in his most fundamental duty as president: to provide for the security of the nation.
And then Alterman actually emailed Nyhan….twice!
You are making a jerk of yourself which is why I am doing you the favor of ignoring these baseless accusations on the blog. You have now twice accused me of imputing intentions to the administration on the basis of zero evidence. When I say something wrong, fine. When I say something that you (alone) interpret to imply what I mean–without any evidence whatsoever–it might be a good idea not to make a public accusation. I have never, ever accused Bush et al of what you say. And if I did believe it, I wouldn’t say it, having no evidence to support it save my own feelings. The idea that you do this in the context of playing language cop is, shall we say, ironic.Feel free to print this. I have nothing to hide.
And the second email is equally terse.
It occurs to me that I am being accused of accusing Bush et al of thinking something they have not said by someone who is accusing me of thinking something I did not say, This same individual purports to be policing the standard of public discourse. This is, I believe, triply ironic, and perhaps quadruply ridiculous.
Now here’s the thing about this situation: over at Lawyers, Guns & Money, I AM Alterman.
I’m the one who came over there and addressed the points they were making about my post. I fought with them about the meaning of what I said. And I wrote A LOT.
However, there’s an important distinction here and it’s that Alterman clearly misued his language and then didn’t apologize for it. In fact, he attacked Nyhan pretty viciously on a website that gets MASSIVE traffic.
In my case, I felt I used the language correctly, saying that the crescent “symbol” is linked to Islam and therefore feels inappropriate for the design of a 9/11 memorial. And do note that the LGM crowd immediately referred to the crescent as a “shape”, and pounded me by saying I was suggesting that a mere “shape” was evil.
My point has always been that sometimes shapes have meaning and we must respect that meaning. Very few would consider the cross a mere shape, but it actually is exactly that. But it’s also a symbol. Of course it didn’t start out as a symbol, but Christians adopted it, their message flourished and the shape became a symbol. And as I pointed out in that first comment, I wouldn’t think a cross shape would be appropriate for the Flight 93 memorial either.
My last comment over at LGM was this:
Listen guys, we can go around and around about this, but responding to all of these questions and assertions is eating up too much of time unfortunately.However, I will offer this. If anybody wants to possibly talk to me over the phone about this, drop me an email and we’ll set a time. Yes, I’m serious about this offer. I’ll talk to whoever emails me and I’m sure we’ll have a good discussion.
The email is justin@donklephant.com
Best. -jpg
Naive? Maybe, but we watch people debate all the time on cable. The blogosphere isn’t the only option for reasonable debate, and that’s why I think sometimes you need to actually speak with each other to understand where somebody is really coming from. Heck, it might even make a good podcast.
By the way, I am extending the same offer to anybody here on the site. If we get into a disagreement and the blogginess of Donklephant is getting in the way, I’m more than willing to take this offline and discuss it there.
PS – I haven’t heard from anybody over at LGM.
PPS – I hope I do.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 13th, 2005 and is filed under Blogging, History, The War On Terrorism, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 13th, 2005 at 7:53 pm
Without trying to trip you into an own-side goal, do you think there’s more bitterness in the political rhetoric on the left because there’s a well of frustration there? After all, there’s this character in the White House who they know, they just know is an evil buffoon demagogue, but with all their glib intelligence they can’t manage to convince a bare majority of their countrymen to see the monster for what it is.
Someone on one of the blogs I read (apologies for forgetting this) has a thesis that runs something like this: “The party in power is arrogant. The party out of power is insane.”
As an alternative (or an aggravating circumstance) my experience in reading online writers, left and right, leaves me with a clear impression that those on the left are much better as writers. They may not always think clearly in logical steps, but boy can they turn a phrase. And they’re funny, as a pack, in a way only a handful of “conservatives” can manage to be.
But there’s no real line between funny and cruel. And being a clever writer can also mean you stick the knife in so deeply and so easily that you’ve hit a vital organ on your opponent before you’ve even had time to think about it.
I think the idea of taking it outside when it gets too personal is wise and sane. Unfortunately, the Internet isn’t famous for either. I think it’s a good advice for smaller fish like us.
September 13th, 2005 at 8:19 pm
Callimachus said “I think it’s a good advice for smaller fish like us.”
Don’t sell yourselves short. You guys are unsung giants.
September 13th, 2005 at 9:03 pm
It seems the word your friends are having trouble with is not “crescent” but “centrist.” Centrist doesn’t mean you never piss anyone off. It doesn’t mean you never find yourself arriving, by a different route, at the same position an ideologue comes to by following the talking points. It doesn’t mean you take your stands by measuring the distance between fringes and planting your flag at the midway point.
September 13th, 2005 at 9:52 pm
I hate the phrase “in order to.” You never need it; it means nothing and it just clots up the sentence with nonce words. “To” is always sufficient.
That said, there’s only two possible ways to read the above-quoted passage: The writer literally meant it, or the writer didn’t literally mean it and was presuming his readers would understand it as sarcasm.
Remember the flap we had over Robert F. Kennedy doing the same thing?
Sarcasm is a very dangerous thing to try to write. You can’t give the usual verbal clues (rolling eyes, droll tone of voice) in print. When I was a reporter, I used to hate it when someone I was interviewing used a lot of sarcasm. If you just printed his words, you’d be making him say awful things you’re sure he didn’t mean. But if you made elaborate descriptions of his gestures and expressions that accompanied the quote, you’d be granting him a benefit of the doubt you might not make for other, less sarcastic people, and even then a lot of readers likely wouldn’t get it.
Basically, sarcastic quotes, however good, were all but unusable.
And as an Internet writer, unless you know your audience perfectly — and are confident it knows you so well it will recognize your sarcastic intent without fail — don’t do it. You invite tragic misunderstanding. Of course you can always retort with wounded dignity, as your buddy Alterman dies, but then you can easily look like an ass doing that, too.
September 14th, 2005 at 12:01 am
Well, respectfully, they’re not my friends. You are a friend Cal. They’re blogosphere acquaintances.
And I agree about being a centrist. Honestly, this is a centrist blog simply for the fact that both sides are aired. I don’t consider myself any true “centrist.” However, the debate has devolved, and as you’ve heard me say many, many times before, somebody has to step and say enough is enough.
As you know, Donklephant exists to bridge that ever widening gap. I don’t know if we’ll succeed, but I sure as hell am glad we’re trying.
And to the Lonely Federalist, your comments are much appreciated, although I don’t think we really deserve them.
Although I would definitely agree with that “unsung” part. ;-)
September 14th, 2005 at 10:27 am
Callimachus: “The party in power is arrogant. The party out of power is insane.â€Â? That sounds like Jane’s Law to me.
As for centrists never pissing anyone off – looks like we shot that canard in the butt. :-)
September 14th, 2005 at 1:53 pm
Paul, Thanks for getting that right. Jane it was. I knew it was one of the wise women of the center-right. But there are so many.
September 14th, 2005 at 5:46 pm
“I hate the phrase “in order to.â€Â? You never need it; it means nothing and it just clots up the sentence with nonce words. “Toâ€Â? is always sufficient.”
Beg to differ. “To” can convey intentyionality, or it can simply be the infinitive particle. “In order to” unambiguously conveys intentionality, and that’s why it exists alongside “to”. Alterman’s problem is simply that he has difficulty with our language. He should be grateful when someone points out a mistake, and take it as an opportunity to improve.
Topngue really out of cheek now.
He sounds like a cranky old toad who cannot face a challenge from someone younger, especially if the kid happens to be right on something. I know exactly how it feels.
Tongue out cheek. How long has Alterman’s family been in the country and in exactly what generation does they plan on breaking down and finally learning English?
September 14th, 2005 at 11:00 pm
Yeah but so that or something like it and a slight rewording usually works as well, and avoids the medieval legalese of “in order to,” which is nonsense unless you recall the original notion of “sequence” in order.
Alterman’s phrase might become … has sent 40 percent of the National Guard to Iraq and Afghanistan, the better to create more terrorists and let bin Laden get away. Better. Pithier. Still a damned lie, of course.
September 21st, 2005 at 6:26 am
Keep waiting, Justin.
September 21st, 2005 at 10:13 am
I am.
September 21st, 2005 at 12:54 pm
Justin, in the original thread, I tried as hard as I possibly could to explain why I found your position ludicrous. It’s all there, I don’t know how to explain it any more clearly. From your summary of the discussion here, where you characterize the sum total of our objections to your position like this:
And after that comment, the floodgates opened with comment after comment about shapes and wingnuttery, and on and on.
If that’s all you took from what we tried to make clear in those comments, then clearly I am incapable of explaining why I find your position crazy in a way you can understand. Perhaps this failing is yours, perhaps it is mine. There’s no way to know for sure. But moving the discussion to another medium isn’t likely to make the substance of our arguments any clearer.
September 21st, 2005 at 2:51 pm
djw,
Respectfully, I wasn’t about to go point by point down your assesment of my post and comments. I already did that over at your blog. However, a lot of the comments did focus on the shape and how this could only be an arugment that wingnuts would bring up. I certainly don’t think that’s a misrepresentation of your arguments. Pointed? Yes, but then again, so was the title of the original post over at LGM.
Also, I understand that your arguments about this just being a shape and therefore not having any significant meaning in the context of the memorial. I simply disagree. However, I provided links to the comments section so people could read and decide for themselves.
But I am serious about talking about this. The offer is on the table. I honestly think it would be a good step towards becoming more understanding of where each other is coming from. I appreciate that you don’t think the substance of our arguments will change much, but I think things get lost when you have to read somebody’s comments and then respond. A continuous, immediate dialogue is needed and that’s what a phone conversation can bring.
My cell phone is always open.
September 21st, 2005 at 9:02 pm
Wow.
You still don’t seem to grasp the Simpson’s reference. I suppose that this is representative of the entire conversation; we make points that you don’t seem to understand, so you ignore them.
Fascinating.
September 21st, 2005 at 9:21 pm
Do I have to watch “The Simpsons” to understand your conversations? I guess I’m out, too.
Has anyone brought up the controversy that once surrounded Maya Lin’s design for the Vietnam War memorial in Washington? That dealt with the color, the subterranean positioning, among other things.
That’s all forgotten now, in part because of the added statuary (added, in part, because John Kerry and others found the original design objectionable) because once people saw the way the veterans and the families embraced the monument, it became a beloved national icon.
But was there nothing to that but “wingnuttery?”
September 21st, 2005 at 9:22 pm
And more to the point:
“A continuous, immediate dialogue is needed and that’s what a phone conversation can bring.”
This really defeats the purpose of a blog, doesn’t it? I mean, if dialogue requires verbal communication, then why are we doing this? Why did you create this blog, rather than opening the phone book and trying to start conversations with random people? A blog is a public space in which different individuals can make compelling and not-so-compelling arguments. Readers can then evaluate those arguments, comment, link, whatever. A phone call misses the point; I am no more interested in what you, as a citizen, think about this topic than I am of any other random American. I could be mildly interested in what you bring to the public sphere, however (really I’m not, but you keep commenting at LGM and challenging us to a phone call, so I feel compelled to respond). The contribution that you and I are making is a public one; the creation of a record, a debate that is available to anyone. This is the contribution that the blogosphere makes to our political culture, and it doesn’t have anything to do with a conversation that you or I might have. Such a phone call doesn’t do anyone any good except for you and me (and really only you, as I have better things to do with my time), and is certainly a far less meaningful contribution than taking care to make the best possible argument and understand your opponents argument in the most thorough possible way.
September 21st, 2005 at 10:43 pm
I didn’t AT THE TIME. And since I was referring to comments I made in the past, I was also referring to my original response.
Well, I’m asking everybody sure, but mainly Scott. He seemed pretty interested in what I had to say.
I understand the point, but this is only ONE medium. I want to build strong intellectual bonds with people. The main way I’ll do this is through the blog, yes, but I don’t want to limit it to just that. Sometimes, like in this case, I think it should move offline. And honestly, I think it defeats the purpose of debate to only limit it to just one medium. Reasonable?
Listen Rob, I understand why you’re not interested, and it’s not like I’m demanding this or calling anybody out. I’m simply putting the option on the table. I think it could have some real value.
September 21st, 2005 at 11:07 pm
Justin,
You mentioned, three comments up, that the title of Scott’s post was “pointed”. This suggests that it still bothers you, and that you still don’t grasp the reference.
I won’t speak for Scott, but I suspect that his position on this question is quite similar to my own; he is interested in your argument not because it is YOURS, but because it is part of a public sphere conversation. To move to a private forum would be pointless.
Finally, if you want to build strong intellectual bonds with people, then drop them an e-mail. If I really wanted to talk to another blogger privately, this is what I would do. Scott, Dave, and myself all have available e-mail addresses and can be contacted in such a manner. I suspect that such an approach might have borne considerably more fruit than the one you chose, which was to announce your desire for a phone call in our comments section, then again on your blog.
September 21st, 2005 at 11:17 pm
Rob, isn’t email exactly like blogging, only slower? I think we’d just run into the same problems. However, as a sign of good faith, I’ll send all three of you an email and we can talk.
However, you did say over at LGM that you weren’t very interested in continuing this conversation, so is that your stance or would you like to talk further? Just trying to clarify.
September 21st, 2005 at 11:31 pm
Justin,
I’m not at all interested in further discussing the arc question with you, but the phone call question has spurred some thoughts on blog etiquette. I have posted on such at LGM.
September 21st, 2005 at 11:33 pm
Oh, and incidentally, “Coward of the County” is a Kenny Rogers song.
September 22nd, 2005 at 2:02 pm
So are you saying you don’t want me to send you guys an email? Sorry, this is just confusion and I want to clarify.
April 10th, 2006 at 10:54 pm
Hello everybody, I want to make friend with you. Nice to meet you.