We Don't Know Each Other

I started thinking about this when Ymar and I got into a bit of a tiff. He made some incorrect assumptions about me that were irritating. After going back and forth a few times, it occurred to me that there's no particular reason his assumptions about me should have been right: We don't really know each other.

It isn't just that we've never met. Most of us post anonymously here because we don't want to be known. At the least, there is some group of people, co-workers or family or potential future employers, that we don't want to know our thoughts.

I don't know about anyone else here, but in addition to using a pseudonym, I also do a few things when I write or comment that I hope help to obscure my analog identity. For example, there are subjects I don't comment about because I'm known in professional circles for expertise in them. I avoid using examples from my life or talking about jobs I've had. I also don't post photos of named places geographically close to where I live.

So, it only makes sense that we don't know each other because we don't want to be known by random strangers, or by people who may be looking into our analog lives. And yet, I think we do want the regulars here to know us, and we want to know them. We may even think we do know them. Many of us have been commenting here for 10 or 15 years. I consider all of the regulars here friends, although it's a strange sort of friendship.

I also believe that this has contributed to some of the intractable disagreements we've had over the years. In analog life, I would probably know a lot more about a friend, where they grew up, what work they'd done, something about their family, etc., before I got into serious political or philosophical discussions with them. Knowing things like these doesn't often change what I say to friends, but it does change the way I say them. And, of course, the whole dimension of non-verbal communication is cut out.

There have been some significant disagreements in the comments over the years, and at those times I have regretted that we weren't at the pub or in the park hashing them out where we could more easily make ourselves understood, and where we could have a good idea of where things stood between us when the discussion was over. There have been some arguments, especially I think with Cass and Tex, where, at the end, we all just abandoned the thread, and I wondered if I had offended someone.

Analog discussions provide immediate feedback that can quickly be used to adjust our expectations for what comes next. If I unwittingly say something that's going to cause trouble, there's usually a facial reaction that warns me we might have a disagreement or misunderstanding. Then I can act accordingly, maybe explaining more or quickly analyzing what I said to look for problems, and I will know to take my interlocutor's next comment with the understanding that we may have a problem. Not so in blog comments, when I may unknowingly post something that's going to cause trouble and not have any warning of that fact until reading the reply. Blog discussions leave so much out that we normally depend on.

In the last few years I've tried to adjust the way I comment to account for these things, but especially when I'm tired, I still forget and comment as if everyone here knew me and I knew them.

I have often wished we could have a Hall gathering somewhere, a day or a weekend of getting to know each other. Unlikely, given the distances I think lie between us and the problem of coordinating our varying schedules. We can't even seem to schedule a book-club-style discussion. But maybe not impossible.

The Mississippi Squirrel Revival

A good church story for Sunday morning.

Ray Stevens

Shipping Up To Boston

I'll be out of pocket for a few days.

So Obvious It Shouldn't Need To Be Said

Nevertheless, of course, it is very much in need of saying: Politicizing the FBI is very dangerous.

Men of the West, Rangers of the North

Headline: "ISIS Calls for Random Knife Attacks in Alleys, Forests, Beaches, 'Quiet Neighborhoods.'"

Aragorn:

If Gondor, Boromir, has been a stalwart tower, we have played another part. Many evil things there are that your strong walls and bright swords do not stay. You know little of the lands beyond your bounds. Peace and freedom, do you say? The North would have known them little but for us. Fear would have destroyed them. But when dark things come from the houseless hills, or creep from sunless woods, they fly from us. What roads would any dare to tread, what safety would there be in quiet lands, or in the homes of simple men at night, if the Dúnedain were asleep, or were all gone into the grave?

'And yet less thanks have we than you. Travellers scowl at us, and countrymen give us scornful names.... Yet we would not have it otherwise. If simple folk are free from care and fear, simple they will be, and we must be secret to keep them so. That has been the task of my kindred, while the years have lengthened and the grass has grown.

'But now the world is changing once again.'

If Kurt Schlichter Did Parody Videos of Famous Hollywood Actors Acting Influential ...

Ranger Up language warning for the next video (NSFW).

Good Piece, Colonel

A defense, not exactly of Trump the man, but of the phenomenon. It was written for a German audience, so it's got an enviable level of detachment -- what you get from trying to explain the thing to outsiders.

Probably most important is the anger at being treated like suckers by a corrupt establishment:

At the same time, rampant corruption among those connected to the liberal establishment – most shockingly with Hillary Clinton being cleared of charges of misusing classified material when the same facts would have doubtlessly led to the imprisonment of unconnected Americans – opened a path for Trump. This was especially disruptive because so many Republican politicians, while ideologically conservative, culturally identified with prosperous coastal, urban elites over the suffering citizens of “flyover” America and tried to enforce the same “political correctness.”

It makes sense that people are tired of having their government run by self-dealing liars who treat them like fools, while also subjecting them to social pressures designed to shame them into knuckling under.

Still, what caught my eye about this piece is the author's comment on the shift toward isolationism. It's partly about a failure of allied governments (and, frankly, allied nations' populations) to be willing to stand up and suffer for allegedly shared values. But it's even more about a loss of trust in our own leaders to defend our sacrifices:

The non-elite Americans who make up the military have suffered greatly in wars they see as perfectly justifiable morally, but which were fought without a commitment to victory and therefore led to an inexcusable waste of soldiers’ lives.

Furthermore, Trump has given voice to the feeling that those America has fought to free – and keep free – are ungrateful and unwilling to shoulder the burden of their own defense. His recent heresy on NATO’s Article 5 was not based upon a misunderstanding of America’s treaty obligations but upon the widespread feeling that America’s allies have had a free ride on America’s largesse, and that this must end. Having served in the U.S. Army in Germany in the Cold War, I understood my mission in case of a hot conflict would have been to kill Russians until either the reserves arrived or I died, and this was fine – I knew a large and powerful Bundeswehr would be fighting by my side. But today, Germany and Europe have allowed their militaries to wither into near uselessness. Trump embodies the question on many Americans’ minds – if the Germans don’t think defending Germany is worth German money and lives, why is it worth American money and lives?

If we can't trust either our allies or our leadership, why go off to die in foreign lands? For adventure, perhaps, or for glory; those are good things, to be sure. But more important than either adventure or glory is the sense of being engaged in a moral purpose, especially in war where you will often have to do morally difficult things, or watch good men die. It needs to be worth it, and that means you need to be able to have confidence both that there is a moral purpose, and that the sacrifices will not be in vain.

Our leaders have not taken either of those factors seriously since George W. Bush left office. The nearly complete erosion of the American position in west Asia and the northern Middle East is a consequence. I doubt it will be the only consequence.

SHARP = 'Office of Gender-Based Misconduct'

DB: "‘We’re just as good as men,’ Infantrywoman says from back of ambulance."

Quaker City Night Hawks

Listening to BRMC ever since Grim posted it and this popped up on YouTube's recommendations this evening. Good stuff.

I get pretty odd sets of YouTube recommendations. Three on the same screen tonight were BRMC, a Dwight Yoakam tune, and the Royal Navy's "Heart of Oak." I'll bet most of you get sets like that.

Gosh, I've Seen This Movie Before, Too...

Obama DOJ drops charges against weapons smuggler to avoid political embarrassment for himself or Hillary.

Yeah, I've Been Getting That Impression

While media outlets endlessly poll and probe the American people to understand why they feel so disenchanted with their government, Professor Benjamin Ginsberg and Senior Lecturer Jennifer Bachner instead looked at America's political ruling class for answers. The federal bureaucrats, think tank leaders, and congressional staff members they surveyed, Ginsberg said in an interview with VICE News, "have no idea what Americans think and they don't care. They think Americans are stupid and should do what they are told."

I have an amusing counter-proposal.

"Gender-Based Misconduct"

The biggest thing I didn't realize about this story was the fact that it happened in the "elementary" section of a rather difficult foreign language (Chinese, I assume Mandarin). This is a point at which you're lucky if you can say much of anything at all, and may be struggling to come up with any of the phrases you know under the pressure of being called upon in front of the class.

He got in trouble for doing something completely inoffensive: he referred to himself as handsome in a class.... According to Sweetwood, the incident happened in his Chinese class. He was supposed to say something in Chinese, and that's what he picked. The professor later told him she thought it was a funny remark, but one student had complained. That was just the beginning:

Later that day, my advising dean emailed me to say, "The University's Gender-Based Misconduct Office contacted us because they received a complaint about your behavior towards your Elementary Chinese II professor. It is important we meet to discuss this as soon as possible." I responded in a defiant tone, denying any wrongdoing, though I agreed to meet the next day.

Sweetwood's dean made him promise never to make any upsetting remarks. When the student refused, he was sent to the Gender-Based Misconduct Office, where an administrator attempted to persuade him to abandon his micro-aggressive ways.

If the phrase is so offensive, by the way, why was it among the first things taught to students?

UPDATE: Related.

You Should've Seen the Other Guy

And Now

The FBI is actively destroying evidence.

Eric Hines

Bitter Fury, October Edition

I find myself very angry right now, perhaps because I am still working through grief. But perhaps it is also because of stories like these, which are daily events now:

Donald Trump: Military suicides happen to servicemembers who 'can't handle it'

FBI Allowed 2 Hillary Aides To "Destroy" Their Laptops In Newly Exposed "Side Agreements"

Unfortunately, I can't just walk away. None of us can.

Lindsey Stirling

h/t My Muse Shanked Me

I'd never run into MSgt B before tonight when I wandered in on a Lindsey Stirling video link, but he's got a Nathanial Rateliff video up and a dog that eats lawnmowers, so I figure he'd fit in here.

Smaller libraries

Martin Amis on re-reading the authors whose voices you hear best:

I find another thing about getting older is that your library gets not bigger but smaller, that you return to the key writers who seem to speak to you with a special intimacy. Others you admire or are bored by, but these writers seem to awaken something in you.

For me the two, the twin peaks, like two mountains, are Saul Bellow and Nabokov. And those two I go on reading and rereading. And the great thing about the great books is that it’s like having an infinite library, because every five years you can read them again and the books haven’t changed but you have. And they seem to renew themselves, transform themselves for you.

So you can never say you’ve read a novel. Nabokov always said, funnily enough, you can’t read a novel, you can only reread a novel. If you listen to music, you don’t say, “That’s it.” If it speaks to you then you play it dozens of times, and you probably won’t like that piece of music until you get to know it. It’s the same with a novel. You have to know the kind of thing a novel is, you have to know what it’s about, and the second time you read a novel you can see how this is achieved.

When I teach literature I always tell them, these would-be writers (we don’t do workshops, we just read great books), I say, “When you read Pride and Prejudice, don’t if you’re a girl identify with Elizabeth Bennet, if you’re a boy with Darcy. Identify with the author, not with the characters.” All good readers do that automatically, but I think it’s helpful to make that clear. Your affinity is not with the characters, always with the writer.

NRO On Why Hillary Wasn't Indicted

This has been Mr. Hines' theory all along.

Is this MRAP Really Necessary?

Police go after unarmed "water protectors" in full kit.

OK, I get that the law has sided with the corporation here, and thus that these protests are a kind of trespassing that the police have a duty to stop. However....