So let's say I've got this "friend" who has a genuinely good point on a couple of issues, but she only really cares about those issues. And she's a true believer in them. She has a somewhat wide audience and makes a lot of noise about her pet issues. Admittedly, not too many people take her seriously, but she likes to think they do.
Every now and then, she makes dramatic, sweeping generalizations to support her causes, and cites her two--well, I can't decide if they're sacred cows or a pair of one-trick ponies.
Anyway, she makes sweeping generalizations that support her cause, but only ever uses her handful of causes to support those generalizations. And whenever somebody brings an example of a similar case that falls under that generalization, she uses her platform to totally shit on that similar case. I guess it's a way to not always talk about her couple of issues.
Occasionally, someone will point out a major flaw in her argument--either it's based on a false premise, or the generalization is so broad that it goes way beyond the scope--sometimes to the point that she labels innocent people as malicious villains. (As you might guess, I've been this 'someone' on more than one occasion)
When this happens, she'll sometimes issue a quiet apology, but then will erase all trace of the error--by censoring the criticism, erasing the apology, and sometimes even the original argument. A surprising feat, really, in the age of information.
Unfortunately, one of these one-trick ponies (I guess this is the third, though this one has been dead for a while--and not beaten recently. If a fourth comes up, it'll be the apocalypse) is when she goes on about how much she values honesty, integrity, and sticking to one's word. Which kind of goes against the whole 'not admitting mistakes (or not for long)', 'censoring criticism', and censoring oneself after the fact.
In my mind, he's a hypocrite and a fucking coward, but what can you do?
What can I do?
- RG>
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Hmm.. this sort of reminds me of a debate over LRT/Les Soeurs/Canadian Tire
I'm confused by the gender switch in the second last sentence.
Also I don't understand how a person can use a handful of causes to support generalizations.
But I guess if you used specific examples, you'd give away who you're talking about and you're trying to avoid that.
Anonymous - interesting.
David - Grouching is a bit like poetry. Decades from now, English classes will be forced to analyze my blog posts and wonder if the errors are intentional--and if so, what they mean. Their teacher will then correct them with theories that are at least as wrong as whatever the students come up with. And if I am still alive at the time, I will produce a vague, elusive rant disguised as a grocery list that poetry scholars will subsequently interpret to be a lament that I had never travelled to California.
- RG>
Hah, Today's SMBC comic echoes my last comment.
- RG>
Maybe you should take a couple of weeks off and go spend some time in Los Angeles or San Francisco.
And confuse future English students even further? No, that would be too cruel.
- RG>
You're a thoughtful man, RG.
Post a Comment