From: finlay_j@spcvxb.spc.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: What goes around comes around
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:11:06 GMT
Organization: St. Peter's College, US

In article <92105.163648RBYAML@ROHVM1.BITNET>, 
RBYAML@ROHVM1.BITNET (Aengus Lawlor) writes:

> Indeed, the original poster made the distinction between discussion (which
> he would engage in) and bitter arguement, (which he wouldn't). I asked him
> to clarify that (so I could argue with him about it! :-) The epithet that
> it brings to my mind is not "misty eyed" but "logical". We will have to
> agree to disagree about whether being of a logical frame of mind disqualifies
> me as a Celt.

I guess I would decline to make any distinctions between "discussion" and
"bitter argument," other than to say that an argument generally seems to 
become bitter when one party gives up listening to the other and 
concentrates on trying to "win," frequently by making personal comments
about his "opponent's" ineptitude or ignorance.
 
I think I would say that I'm somewhat distrustful of "arguments" and
"discussions," inasmuch as they're mostly practised in academic and legal
discourses, and carry overtones of authority which can prevent people from
having friendly exchanges, or communicating with each other without assuming
the role of "experts."

I appreciate expertise at times, but I think you'll agree that it's not easy
to carry on a conversation with someone who passes himself off, either
by the coherence of his opinions or by antagonism, as an expert. The thing
I have against a lot of the "discussion" and "argument" carried on in
this network is that it often bespeaks a discourse of certainty--the
professor lecturing to his class--whereas I think I would like to find
is a discourse of possibilities and exploration. 

In sum, if the posters whose opinions are so strong could manage to present
themselves as tentative, rather than insistent, I think I (and possibly
others) would get less negative impressions from the postings. And might feel
more welcome to contribute.

> I corrected a poster who said "All you guys talk about is NI". Both the tone
> and content of the message indicated that the poster was new to both the
> net and scc. When you are have more experience in netnews, you too will
> be dismissive of net.neophytes who wish to state the obvious, but happen
> to get it wrong. And you'll get your chance, because there's one born every
> minute!

I really would not mind talking about NI every day of the year, but as long
as the postings are framed in terms of one side being right and the other
wrong, it is of very limited interest to me. I actually have been reading
soc.culture.celtic for the last six months, have been excited by its being
there, a forum for views about my own part of the world  comprising people
who are not newspaper editors or media people (or not all, anyway--some may
be). It just seems like a great place to start up a conversation--a kind of
electronic pub-with-no-beer, if you like.

But I don't think it's unreasonable to say that it's very difficult to butt
into a conversation in which two people are going at it hard and fast. If you
have any other kind of thing you care to talk about but don't have any
confidence that people will be bothered listening to you, then why 
say anything? My feeling is that ALL the issues, NI and everything else,
are written about in a way that eventually becomes antagonistic, and I
question the need for this to be inevitable. I eventually began to post
messages because I felt I was in danger of missing an opportunity to
talk with the people who, it seemed, must be out there but like myself
were saying nothing.

> It is possible to offer reflections on a subject without having to
> anticipate a counter attack, but it helps if your reflections aren't
> inherently critical of somebody. You would like to offer an opinion on
> the type of traffic in this newsgroup, but your opinion is inherently
> critical of my recent actions in posting to a thread that you dislike.
> If you complained about the spate of postings about Scotland, or Altan
> drinking Corona, I wouldn't respond, because you wouldn't have criticised
> me.

I think there's a difference between going for someone's balls and wanting
to get their attention. 

I am sorry if my comments made you feel under attack. Please feel free
to respond to any thread you prefer, but if you could refrain from
lecturing me (I felt you did lay it on a bit thick), it wouldn't hurt.

>>(I mean, if we're going to talk about Northern Ireland could we hear less
>>about the dogmas of politicians and ideologists, who are after all people
>>who make a living holding stereotypes in place, and more about the differing
>>experiences of people living in the conflict. I would like to hear some
>>Northern Protestants talk for a change, perhaps.
> Well, they probably don't have net.access. Remember, the volume of traffic
> in this group is not an inherent problem. It may pose practical problems
> for a smaller number of readers, but nobody is being denied access because
> somebody else is using too much bandwidth.

Well, ok, but even if Northern Protestants don't have net.access (why not?--
8-)), I think we could hear many more underrepresented views here than we
do. All too often, posters rely on the salient features of accepted 
poltical wisdom as a basis for their views. They never question
whether their assumptions might be faulty, nor the extent to which
their ideas are themselves an artefact of culture and personal
experience. A little less certainty, and a little more acknowledgement
of fallibility, might go a long way towards making the network more
tolerant and inclusive of others.

>>>If they're not worth defending, they're not worth posting.
>>
>>        One is inclined to simply shrug in response and say, "well, Pop,
>>        it's a point of view, and of course you're entitled to it."

> And if we all simply shrugged, there'd be no traffic at all!

Which would be too bad.

So: am I now in for another round in an argument which you didn't feel 
you won properly the last time (as I'd say to a raging
drunk, "just hit me and get it over with"), or are you willing to
moderate the terms of your discussion a little? How about it, Pop?


				Jeff Finlay
				St Peter's College
				Jersey City, USA


PS Re: "Celtic" --I wasn't actually making a connection with mysticism,
   but rather psychology, or perhaps psychoanalysis. It seems that people
   would like being "Celtic" to supply a wholeness which contemporary
   culture seems unable to comprehend. So the myth of the "Celts" becomes
   a kind of wished-for true self standing pure and inviolate above the
   mess of everyday living. Along that path lies Romantic Nationalism,
   and various other forms of purism.

   I'm not sure now how (or why) I was imputing that you saw Celticism
   in this way. Maybe I confused the terms of your discourse with those of
   more extreme ("Long distance partiots") posters in this network. On
   reflection, I think I would dissociate you from the latter.

   But you DO still seem very much a West Brit to me. Maybe you don't
   realize it.