This was great, Corgi, and I totally understand the urge which drove you to this. :) I actually couldn't even bring myself to read this article all the way through when you first linked it, but I read everything now with your notes and just... You know, in the entry I did about Card, I said that what I'd read of his personal articles would not influence my desire to read his books. It was true then. But now... this is almost too much. I don't know if I'll actually be able to distance myself well enough to appreciate what I'm reading. I'll still try, because I can appreciate that he's a good writer. But intelligence doesn't mean compassion, much as might doesn't make right, no matter what people like Card would say.
This, in particular, jumped out at me too: 'We support our troops' is not a blanket approval of any war activity. Because it's pretty much in direct contradiction to what he was talking about in his other article about Good or Bad War. This pliable nature of his arguments as a device to place himself in the position of moral-high-ground no matter what he's arguing is very typical of this type of ideological aggressiveness. I find it immensely ironic that he consistently refers to the "Left" as fanatical. Perhaps he ought to invest in some mirrors. Heheh.
I recently read over the response I made to his previous article, and after reading yours (and very smart and effective it was, too) here now, I'm starting to think that this is actually a very effective way of posing arguments to the Neo-Con rhetoric. Maybe we need to take more of Mr. Card's compassionate op/ed pieces and annotate them like this? Might be fun. Aggravating and depressing, but also perversely fun. ;)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-02-27 10:33 am (UTC)This, in particular, jumped out at me too: 'We support our troops' is not a blanket approval of any war activity. Because it's pretty much in direct contradiction to what he was talking about in his other article about Good or Bad War. This pliable nature of his arguments as a device to place himself in the position of moral-high-ground no matter what he's arguing is very typical of this type of ideological aggressiveness. I find it immensely ironic that he consistently refers to the "Left" as fanatical. Perhaps he ought to invest in some mirrors. Heheh.
I recently read over the response I made to his previous article, and after reading yours (and very smart and effective it was, too) here now, I'm starting to think that this is actually a very effective way of posing arguments to the Neo-Con rhetoric. Maybe we need to take more of Mr. Card's compassionate op/ed pieces and annotate them like this? Might be fun. Aggravating and depressing, but also perversely fun. ;)