Saturday, August 13, 2005


Armondo at Kos, quoting a piece from James Wolcott that makes many points that I agree with (you'll hate it, don't read it) says this on dialogue:

In blogging, the dialogue fetish seems to me even sillier. I write what I write, you write what you write (whoever you may be), and let readers decide who sings most like a nightingale.

A good liberal (though others might disagree and what does that mean anyway), I believe in "dialogue" and "public discussion" (er, I called for one last night on the implications of Google technology). So what does that mean?

What it means to me is that I listen to and consider what the other side thinks. I put myself in their shoes, to the best of my ability, and let that inform my thinking. And I write with the hope and intention that they might listen and consider what I have to say.

But hey, that just happens to be how this nightingale sings. I don't find rants intellectually engaging--though I'm sure I'm occasionally entertained, and you could probably find one of my own somewhere on my blog.

So in the end I think Wolcott is right. This is the dialogue. And accusations from either side that the other isn't engaging in dialogue are just so much hot air. What do you think?


  1. A nightingale sings

    I'm guest posting over at Basil's Blog. And I just proclaimed myself a nightingale singing......

  2. And that's why, when I stumbled across your blog (looking for other bloggers in the area), I liked it. When there was a discussion, it was thought out. Now, I don't agree with many of the positions you take on many issues. But so what? If you've thought them through and reached a different conclusion, you've reached them honestly. Not everyone's going to agree on everything. But if we're honest about it, we can honestly and respectfully disagree.

    And, when we do agree on issues, so much stronger the support.


Please choose a Profile in "Comment as" or sign your name to Anonymous comments. Comment policy