Mark Whittington seems to suffer from an almost autistic inability to properly gauge the emotions of others — the same malady as many self-described liberals seem to suffer, when they describe as “hate speech” or “racist” words with which they simply disagree. He often irrationally refers to my posts as “rants,” or “seething,” or “filled with rage,” though in each and every case I was perfectly calm when composing them, and no one else ever sees the supposed anger. And when called on it, he can never justify it, or point to the exact words that he finds so rage filled (and indeed, ignores requests to do so, usually simply repeating the slander).
Here’s an example (not of me, this time, fortunately):
Some interesting words of wisdom from Mike Griffin along with, sadly, words of hate in the comments section.
Well, I read those comments (only two of them at the time of this posting — I can’t speak for what might appear there in the future), and I saw nothing “hateful” about them. They simply pointed out inconsistencies in the former administrator’s words, and between words and deeds. One need not “hate” someone to point out flaws in their arguments. I wonder why Mark views the world in such emotional extremes?
[Thursday morning update]
Amazing. He’s still at it.
Mind, there are a few things about which one can criticize Dr. Griffin’s tenure at NASA, mainly by using 20 20 hindsight. But really, some of the posts I have read makes one wonder if he drinks the blood of virgins and eats the flesh of the young, so filled with rage they are.
Note that (as always) he can’t point to any particular “rage-filled” post or comment, and show us the “hateful” words. Just like his imaginary friends at the “Internet Rocketeers Club,” we are simply supposed to accept that such things exist in reality, and not just in Mark’s mind.
And of course, there, as he did here, he says that I accused him of being a liberal, once again indicating his apparent inability to comprehend written English. And no, Mark, there is nothing “hateful” about pointing out either that, or your apparent inability to properly gauge others’ emotional states. It is purely an unemotional, clinical observation.
[Bumped]
Mark practices the 2 Minute Hate regularly, but he projects it.
Actually, Brock, I don’t hate anyone. (OK, maybe someone like Osama bin Laden, but after all he is a mass murderer who has blighted this decade.) But with that slight exception, the strongest emotion I’ve experienced has been disgust with maybe a bit of bemusement.
By the way, calling me a liberal and “almost autistic” certainly is not inspired by love I would imagine.
“He often irrationally refers to my posts as “rants,” or “seething,” or “filled with rage,” though in each and every case I was perfectly calm when composing them, and no one else ever sees the supposed anger.”
I could remind you about what some people are capable of when they are “perfectly calm”, but I’ll restrain myself.
By the way, calling me a liberal and “almost autistic” certainly is not inspired by love I would imagine.
I didn’t call you a liberal. And I’m simply being descriptive, and clinical. No emotion, love or hate, is involved.
I could remind you about what some people are capable of when they are “perfectly calm”, but I’ll restrain myself.
Well, since you didn’t restrain yourself, why not elaborate? Not that it will have anything to do with the topic at hand.
Also, I note that (once again) you don’t actually attempt to defend your characterization by pointing out any particular “hateful” words.
So Mark, what you’re saying is that when Rand is “perfectly calm” he is by definition “seething” and “filled with rage”…?
Seems to me I could therefore, with equal authority, point to you saying something utterly intelligent and rational and say this is you being a stupid, raving lunatic.
Except of course that the occasion described for you hasn’t ever actually been seen…
It’s hard to see how any conservative could get behind the current implementation of Project Constellation. The architecture was cooked up with no regard for the projected budget. And when Mike Griffin didn’t get the money he requested, his predictable reaction was to blame it all on George Bush.
…the strongest emotion I’ve experienced has been disgust with maybe a bit of bemusement.
It’s a shame that you’re incapable of granting the same emotions to people with whom you disagree about your god, Mike Griffin.
I find it difficult to assess other’s emotions from their writing. Humor and sarcasm are particularly vexing. Maybe I’m autistic, too. You do come across as angry, Rand. Maybe it’s the hyperbole. Using hyperbole to create vivid rhetorical contrast is a wonderful writing technique, but it doesn’t sound calm.
Yours,
Tom
P.S. I had the same reaction to Kim du Toit, who, I am assured by those who have met him, is very calm.
Using hyperbole to create vivid rhetorical contrast is a wonderful writing technique, but it doesn’t sound calm.
Rise above Whittington (not a high bar), and provide an actual example…
“Mark Whittington seems to suffer from an almost autistic inability to properly gauge the emotions of others”
Almost austic?
“It’s a shame that you’re incapable of granting the same emotions to people with whom you disagree about your god, Mike Griffin.”
Incapable? God?
I’ll go with hyperbole. And, no, those sentences don’t sound calm. Caustic, sure. Calm, no.
Yours,
Tom
…autistic…
“He will no longer be endimmening us with his ignorance and stupidity, at least with that IP address.”
Endimmening? Ignorance? Stupidity?
I know he was the last guy you banned, but when I consider typical internet endimmening, ignorance and stupidity, he was enlightening, knowledgable and smart. You are priviledged to not have any of the very stupid trolls on your blog. He could mostly spell and mostly write, rather than being unintelligible. And he avioded annoying tag lines. Well, that’s a personal pet peeve you probably don’t share. An accurate assessment would be mediocre and annoying. But “mediocre and annoying” doesn’t have that wonderful hyperbolic frission you get with “endimmening, ignorance and stupidity”. He did like to play devil’s advocate. That can get tiresome.
Yours,
Tom
I’ve never claimed not to be hyperbolic, or caustic. But those are more nuanced adjectives that Mark seems incapable of recognizing. So he resorts, inappropriately, to “hate” and “rage.”
He did like to play devil’s advocate.
He went far beyond that.
Yes, Mark has a real problem with wildly over the top rhetoric. He does have a point that “almost autistic inability” is pretty hateful, Rand. And, yes, jack lee took devil’s advocate all the way to what looks like deliberate antagonism. Deliberate antagonism? Hmmm. Sounds like your mutual relationship with Mark.
I love your space posts and your political posts, Rand, but if you never mentioned Mark Whittington again it would be fine with me. It’s like an explosion in a fireworks factory. Lot’s of heat. Lots of light. And a complete waste of money.
Yours,
Tom
I wonder why Mark views the world in such emotional extremes?
I wonder why you wonder. After all, his best friend and worst enemy is Robert Oler. That ought to explain a lot.
Sort of like Maxwell Smart and Konrad Seigfried. 🙂
(rolls eyes)
Tom, your description of “deliberate antagonism” pretty much hits the mark. jack lee went out of his way to antagonize. Either that, or he was a dogmatic idiot. Your call. 😉
What’s with the “hmmm, projecting your interpretation on Rand’s statements” foolishness? Rand has repeatedly asked for substantiative examples, yet you have provided none.
Don’t see how the “almost inautistic” remark is “hateful,” in that it describes an objectively accurate analysis of Whittington’s “inability to properly gauge the emotions of others.” That is, he’s greatly unperceptive. This is “hateful?” How?
Now, if you wanted to take issue with Rand’s analysis, you would be obliged to present counter-evidence which would support Mr. Whittington’s alleged sympathy or perceptive ability. You have yet to provide said evidence.
What Mr. DeGisi has, in fact, presented is a series of personal impressions and opinions unsupported by either logic or statements of fact. Let us review:
-I find it difficult to assess other’s emotions…
-I had the same reaction to Kim du Toit
-I’ll go with hyperbole. And, no, those sentences don’t sound calm. (emphasis added)
-but when I consider typical internet endimmening
-Deliberate antagonism? Hmmm. Sounds like…
All of these are highly subjective statements, none of which are supported by other, factual, statements. In other words, Mr. DeGisi keeps referring to how he “feels” about things, without making any reference to objectively persuasive evidence aside from his own feelings (or reactions).
…Which brings us back to Mr. Simberg’s original challenge to Mr. Whittington, that he should provide examples of “hateful” words.
Rand, I used to think you sounded hateful and angry but you kept insisting you shouldn’t be interpreted that way, so I tried reading you that way, and your words still made sense. Also, you told me to stop taking you so seriously, which was helpful advice. Humor can be hard to detect in text, particularly when the literal meaning of the text is diametrically opposed to one’s own beliefs.
Next time you post something that I think would be easily misunderstood as sounding hateful or full of rage, I’d be glad to point it out, particularly if you’ll see it as an interesting service and not as uninvited personal criticism. I don’t feel like re-reading your old posts looking only for possible misinterpretations, but: for a few times anyway, I’d be happy to do it going forward, so that I can do it in parallel with enjoying the content of your future postings.
Oh, and because of the observer effect, I might wait a few months, until Obama does something really interesting.
I might wait a few months, until Obama does something really interesting.
Obama does “really interesting” things every day, Bob.
Carl,
Call me, Tom, please. My points were substantive.
Austism is a form of mental illness which can be very servere. Calling someone almost mentally ill is not just an ‘objectively accurate analysis’. It’s easily construed to be a pretty hateful way to describe what can you say calmly and non-judgementally thus, “It is difficult to detect someone’s actual emotions from their writing. It can be particularly difficult if they prefer a sarcastic and hyperbolic style. I think Mark has this problem with my writing.”
The phrases “almost retarted”, “almost sociopathic” or “almost mentally crippled” can be clinical, sure. They can also be extremely insulting and hateful. We cannot detect Rand’s tone of voice from the written word.
Do you actually mean to express the idea that Rand likes Mark Whittington? Would you say that Rand repeatedly complements Mark Whittington? It’s pretty obvious that Rand thoroughly dislikes Mark. It’s pretty obvious that Rand repeatedly insults Mark. That’s OK. Rand is allowed to dislike Mark. Rand is allowed to repeatedly insult Mark. But a hyperbolic way to describe Rands feelings and behavior would be “ranting hate speech”. Which is what Mark has done.
Of course Rand can say I’m wrong. He can say he does not dislike Mark. Well, it sure is easy for Mark to get under Rand’s skin then. He can even say he doesn’t repeatedly insult Mark. Ha!
What Mr. DeGisi has, in fact, presented is a series of personal impressions and opinions unsupported by either logic or statements of fact.
Duh. Every single comment in this thread and all linked posts are filled to the brim with personal impressions and opinions unsupported by either logic or statements of fact. There is no objective standard for hate, Carl. Hate is pure emotion.
I’d say that Mark has a pretty good read on Rand – except that he has exaggerated that read – from thorough dislike to hate.
I’m not ‘feeling the love’, dude.
Yours,
Tom
Oh, and BTW, I dislike Mark too. Why? He uses annoying phrases, like “Internet Rocketeers Club”. He is blindly loyal to a bad space architecture and a bad space architect. He doesn’t make substantive, interesting points about space architecture. But mostly he spends alot of time insulting someone I enjoy reading every day.
Now if I could just get Rand to ignore Mark, I would never be reminded of him. Well, except when Jon Goff mentions him. But that is much less frequently.
Yours,
Tom
Autism is a form of mental illness which can be very severe.
It can also be quite mild. For instance, Aspergers’ is a form of it, and many with this problem are not only highly functional, but often geniuses (it has been theorized from contemporary accounts by others that Isaac Newton suffered from it). So to say that someone is “almost” so is simply to say that they are seemingly displaying one of the symptoms of it, and again, it is not a sign of “hate.”
It’s pretty obvious that Rand thoroughly dislikes Mark.
Actually, I don’t dislike Mark all that much. He’s not worth that much emotion (let alone “hate,” which can really wear a person out).
I simply find his blogging habits (the hyperbole, the misspellings, the imaginary friends in the imaginary IRC, and “rage-filled” comments that he can never manage to actually cite and explain) annoying. But I also find them perversely entertaining, so I continue to read, and occasionally comment about them.
Rand,
it is not a sign of “hate.” In your case, sure. Yet I can easily imagine someone who likes caustic, urbane put downs using such a characterization for someone he hates. I bet Bill O’Reilly would use it on Kevin Olberman, for example, if it applied. Come to think of it, it could.
Actually, I don’t dislike Mark all that much.
So Mark and I do get the sign correct on the love / hate meter. We just exaggerrate the magnitude, he more than I.
But I also find them perversely entertaining, so I continue to read, and occasionally comment about them.
I do find hyperbolic rants perversely entertaining. I also find more understated commentary entertaining. I’m glad you post as often as you do. And Goff’s less frequent but much longer posts are also great. Care to
place your posts and John Goff’s on the hyperbolic rants / understated commentary scale?
Yours,
Tom
Actually, Rand, I find your inability to understand why Mark might think you hate him, given the way you write about him, to be an “almost autistic” lack of self awareness about how your perfectly calm comments might come across. I know a bit about Aspergers myself.
Yours,
Tom
So Mark and I do get the sign correct on the love / hate meter.
I don’t see “hate” as an extreme dislike. I view it as a different quality of emotion entirely, connoting irrationality.
Anyway, actually, Mark has never said that I hate him (AFAIK). What he says instead is that I “seethe” and “leap the length of my chain” (as though I were some sort of rabid dog) and am “full of rage.” All of which is utter nonsense, and few other people, if any, have ever made such claims. In my experience, the few that do use such language are (unlike Mark) left of center, as noted in the original posting.
Hmmm. I actually leapt the length of my chain in this comment thread, even to the point where I flipped around at the end. (By which I mean I edited my comments to reduce their severity.) I do keep myself on a short chain. Can you tell where I did so?
Yours,
Tom
You’re just not hip to Hivespeak. “Hate” is anything opposed to the agenda of the Hive. Opposing the Hive’s basic philosophy of statism is especially “hateful,” as is criticism of the Hive’s leading standard-bearer (and Statist-in-Chief), The World’s Greatest Community Organizer, “Il Dufe.” The subext is: Statism=Love. So when the Hive wants to use the power of the State to force you to live, conduct your business and spend your money the way they want you to, don’t protest with “hate.” Submit to the Love.
http://xkcd.com/386/
Heh.
I love that people continue to display their inability to comprehend written english, mostly in dropping the last word of the phrase “almost autistic inability”, and interpreting that as Rand calling Mark “almost autistic.”
“Almost autistic” is a descriptor for the word “inability”, not for the word “Mark”. Diagram the sentence and see for yourself.
The sentence, taken as a whole, makes the point that Mark’s inability to properly gauge the emotions of others borders on what some might clinically diagnose as autism. However, it never claims that Mark himself is almost autistic.
It’s akin to saying that someone possesses “cat-like reflexes”. Nobody is comparing a person to a cat, they are simply pointing out that there exists an animal whose reflexes closely mirror those of the person they are describing, and allows one to put the idea of the reflexes into context.
Without descriptive adjectives, how could we ever effectively communicate in written form? Heck, without descriptive adjectives, I can’t imagine that any of Tom Clancy’s books would be more than 100 pages long…
The sentence, taken as a whole, makes the point that Mark’s inability to properly gauge the emotions of others borders on what some might clinically diagnose as autism. However, it never claims that Mark himself is almost autistic.
Yes, that was the intent, and why I worded it that way. Of course, if Mark is so reading-challenged as believe that I called him a liberal (a belief that seems to persist, based on his blog update), there’s no way to persuade him that I didn’t call him almost autistic.
Well, John, there is a bit of a difference between “cat-like reflexes”, which is a very cool complement, and an “almost autistic inability”, which is a very caustic insult. So, sure, they are akin, in exactly the way that opposites are akin.
Yours,
Tom
Sometimes the truth can be considered insulting to people who find it inconvenient. And it had nothing to do with hate.
Hmmm. An “inconvenient truth.”
Watch your back, Rand; AlGore may be firing off a “cease & desist” order Real Soon Now…
{/snerk}
And contrary to Mr. DeGisi’s indirect reply to part of my comment, I at least based my post on logic and analysis, and would dearly love to see him prove differently. Considering he has yet to provide a single solid data point as counter-evidence, this should be entertaining.
…And who the frack is “Carl?” 🙂
Sorry, Casey. My mind seems to index names on first sounds, and, ever so often return the wrong result. Carl is Carl Pham.
It would be entertaining for you to provide your definition of a solid data point for an uninstrumented, unmeasurable quantities like the hate and rage content of blog posts.
So go ahead, entertain us.
Oh, and BTW, I believe you can detect the logic and analysis in this very comment, and in my other comments. Those who cannot will find our discussion frustrating rather than entertaining.
Yours,
Tom