bestkungfu weblog

Okay, here’s where I have to come clean. I’m a sarcastic bastard. I’d register sarcasticbastard.com if it weren’t already taken. You can call me a sarcastic bastard to my face, and I’ll probably still buy the next round. If you don’t like my writing style, no hard feelings. I wrote a column for a magazine for three years, during which time I was called both a “Misinformed Minion of Microsoft” and an “anti-Microsoft Linux bigot.” In consecutive issues. The point being, I know how to piss off a diverse range of people simply by saying what I’d ordinarily say. I discovered early on that my penchant for getting people’s blood boiling translated well online. Woohoo, I thought, this Internet thing is for me.

I have somewhere between zero and very few personal beefs with people I know online. With these few exceptions, just about anyone is invited to sit down to a beer (or, preferably, a brunello) with me. All are invited, if it’s on them. I don’t take things personally, nor do I intend them that way. It’s easy to say that everyone should just get along, but it’s hard to do, since many people have many interpretations of what exactly it takes to get along. I’ve found that the best approach for me is to stay the course, say what I need to, and smooth ruffled feathers as necessary.

So, recently, I’ve been involved in an increasingly multifaceted debate which sprang from another person’s blog a few days ago. (qq.v.: the first article, the second article) And the discussion has turned in at least one arena from what I said to how I said it.

Ryan Overbey takes my style to task:

The only person I can see who responded to the more substantive points was Matt May at bestkungfu. Matt’s retort actually has a few points I agree with(…). But Matt uses the word “bullshit” over and over again, and closes with a really nasty ad hominem.

Hey, shut up, you! (By which I mean, Overbey makes several good points in his reaction to the thread.) Two issues:

1. The word “bullshit” appears twice, not “over and over”. (It could be argued that its apparent sense of omnipresence is owed to proper placement by the author, but really, it’s only there because I like the word bullshit. Especially when French people say it.)
2. Accusing someone of intellectual dishonesty, particularly when backed by evidence, is not an ad hominem attack. Calling someone an idiot is an ad hominem attack. Which I didn’t do. And never do. (That’s a lie.)

So. My sarcasm is thus far well-covered, and ad hominem is debunked. (I learned both of these things in high school speech and debate, by the way.) Overbey continues:

Bloggers do this all the time. It’s really, really frustrating to read. They need to take a lesson from academics- who have a clear sense of propriety, who make effort (for the most part) to argue with substance and arguments rather than ad hominem and sarcasm. When I pick up a book by someone I disagree with, I always try to read it asking the question “Is there anything in here I can use? Anything strong? Anything correct?” Because dwelling on weak points accomplishes nothing. Lots of bloggers really need to learn this.

Okay. I am, technically, an academic. And I do, from time to time, write academic-ish papers. But outside of work, this site represents what I choose to write and how I choose to write it. Some people like it, and add my RSS feed. Others don’t, and go away. This is the marketplace of ideas, and I as idea vendor get to choose how I offer my wares.

And I agree, bloggers — people, even — should read with a view toward using the knowledge they acquire. However, in this case, I found the argument so profoundly clouded by circumstance and bereft of value that the best thing I could do was debunk it.