Some people got the impression that my blog entry the other day of “I am not my blog” was a direct response to some criticism I had received. It wasn’t.
Rather, it’s something I’ve been thinking about for a while based on reactions I saw in the comment boxes on various blogs. And the immediate trigger was a post on another blog that referred to “miserable Catholics” who find nothing good in the Church and are always complaining and must have a terrible outlook on life and aren’t happy in the Church. My point was and is that anything you see in a public forum, whether it’s a blog or in print or broadcast is just one slim aspect of the whole person and you shouldn’t assume that you’re getting the whole person. What the blogger chooses to write about isn’t necessarily all that the person believes about a subject. Rather, it what he chooses to share with you in public.
That goes for bloggers as much as it applies to actors or journalists or politicians or what have you. I’m just advising people to be more discerning.
Mmm, yeah… meaning?
Oh well, in that case, thanks for sharing.
Sure, that applies to the whole person. What I’m saying boils down to the idea that ad hominem attacks are not warranted, unless you have evidence to the contrary.
My point, once again, is that you can criticize a person for what they say. Just don’t assume what isn’t in evidence. So, for example, I can saw that Maureen Dowd is an idiot because of her obvious attempts at obfuscation and taking statements by the President out of context to make him appear to say something he isn’t. But I won’t say that she’s a bad mother (if she is indeed a mother) because that’s not in evidence in her writing. I won’t call her an evil person because I disagree with her writing.