This is what comes of not reading the comments.
Earlier today, I criticized Dave Winer for using a photo of a naked woman as attention-bait for his nifty new Convention-Blog-Image-Aggregator thingummybob. Dave wrote me to say that he had meant his pointer as a warning against clicking-through (for those who would be offended). I try to be fair-minded and responsive, and especially to apologize when I’ve gotten something wrong, so I edited my post to reflect what Dave told me about his intent. I err often enough that it behooves me to make amends as quickly as possible — particularly to do so publicly, lest people think I was reluctant ever to admit I was wrong, or that I was trying to rationalize and excuse my mistakes rather than coming out and admitting them.
Having gone back, now, to look at what’s on Dave’s site, and having gotten around to reading the comments he left here, I’m perplexed about his emailed protest to me. If I wanted to steer delicate sensibilities away from potentially offensive material, I wouldn’t make an link pointing directly to it, describing exactly what potentially offensive material to expect there.
“Meaning” and “intending” are elusive things, and (as I’ve argued here before) they always escape our control. Dave says he intended only to warn people away from material that might scandalize them, but in his comments he fixes attention on “nipples,” whereas my critique rests on his using sexual images to attract attention. If that wasn’t what he was doing, there’s no need for him to advise me to “loosen up.” I’m not fretful about the naked beauty of creation. I am concerned that as long as people want breezily to use the power of sexually-charged images of women to claim attention, but then to minimize the effects of that move, they perpetuate a dominant double-talking discourse and arrogate to themselves the authority to let themselves off the hook for insensitivity.
I have no interest in picking a fight with Dave; if I had, I wouldn’t have apologized right away, without even checking to make sure his explanations held up. But if he’s concerned to protect people from offense, he certainly has communicated that in a way that tends, I think, to confirm my original suggestion that his gender politics are somewhat tone-deaf. Whether that’s what he intends, or not.
Posted by AKMA at July 24, 2004 05:34 PM | TrackBackFor some reason, you are expecting consistency and logic from Mr. Winer.
This has not been his modus operandi in the past and it might be best not to expect that from him.
Posted by: Michael at July 24, 2004 06:19 PMDear AKMA:
You're absolutely correct about Winer's double-talk and presumed authority to determine what is appropriate or not. This is the classic argument of the relativist regarding God, truth, and morality, just to mention a few items. I appreciate your comments and I do not believe that they were off the mark at all.
Posted by: Daniel at July 24, 2004 10:16 PMDaniel, what's wrong with relativism? It's a perfectly legitimate philosophical position when employed rigorously, but then that's true of many positions that collapse when employed loosely or, as I suspect is the case with your remark, in a cheap attempt to take a swipe at something you don't really understand. And please tell me what relativism has got to do with sexism? You seem to be suggesting that relativism is linked in some way to sexism, but you fail to make the linkage clear.
Posted by: joseph duemer at July 25, 2004 10:05 AMDear Joseph,
I appreciate your comments very much. However, you seem to assume that I implied an existing correlation between relativism and sexism. I believe that AKMA's comments dealt with "tone-deaf gender politics." My personal opinion is that gender politics incorporates dealing with sexism, but it is certainly not limited just to sexism. Heterosexism and transgenderism are two other dimensions of gender politics. However, I am quite aware that in the context that AKMA suggested, it was related to sexism. I contend that Winer does not care whether or not women are exploited for the sake of acquiring, as his own words betray him, "Click on the image to get to the post. It's a little incentive system to encourage the convention bloggers to include more pics." I would not say that Winer took to "a cheap attempt", instead his was a crass and misogynist attempt to get attention for his own interests. As for relativism, you're right in describing my use of the term. Relativism is fine if employed appropriately, not for the sake of defending the indefensible under the context of personal liberty, rights or interests. To that end, no philosophical approach is. Thank you for taking interest in my comments. You honor me.
Posted by: Daniel at July 25, 2004 12:48 PMWhether one intends to pick a fight with Dave Winer or not, it's always a toss-up as to whether or not he'll interpret one's comments as an attempt to pick a fight. And thereafter immediately launch a counter-offensive (emphasis on the offensive).
For a guy who's VERY TOUCHY himself, he is ~ to use what I think is your entirely apt phrase ~ remarkably tone-deaf to the way his remarks are likely to be received by others.
Posted by: Pascale Soleil at July 25, 2004 03:56 PMPoint taken. Regarding relativism, the word itself has become a token in the culture wars & it gets tossed around mostly in that context.
Posted by: joseph duemer at July 26, 2004 06:21 AMBe it noted that I hereby intend all references to Bondage at Wealth Bondage to be understood in the Biblical sense of Bondage to Sin. Any images of depravity are cited not used. Let this be an end of the matter.
Posted by: Tutor at July 26, 2004 08:59 PM