That's the first question in a series of montages that Bloggingheads is doing to celebrate its 10th anniversary. I'm in this one:
My answer — for the record and for the impatient — is: Nothing. (But those who know me know that one of my core beliefs is: Nothing is a high standard.)
Here's the second montage in the series, with the question: "What have you been proven right about over the last 10 years?"
I'm not in that one (I don't think). What did I say? Nothing? Everything? Ah, I have the original video. I said: "As a law professor, I don't express opinions in a way that exposes me to being right or wrong. I examine issues, so I'm really not vulnerable. I preserve myself from being vulnerable to being shown to be right or wrong." So, again, I answered nothing. "I'm not the kind of person who puts myself in the position where world events prove me right or wrong."
৩ ডিসেম্বর, ২০১৫
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
৩৪টি মন্তব্য:
I don't really remember any predictions I may have made 10 years ago.
Maybe I said something in this blog way back when that was a prediction. But I have zero time this week to go back and look through old postings ;)
"I'm not the kind of person who puts myself in the position where world events prove me right or wrong."
Prepare for the deluge of "you voted for Obama" comments.
"I'm not the kind of person who puts myself in the position where world events prove me right or wrong." I'm trying to decide if that's better or worse than nothing. On the other hand, some of us are the kinds of persons who, having read Karl Popper in misspent youth, like making substantive claims that can be proven wrong by "world events." (Not having watched the video, I think you actually learned something: that the blog and its commenters were worth the effort required to moderate. Your daily actions speak louder than your self-description.)
AA and Henry Adams.
"Prepare for the deluge of "you voted for Obama" comments."
I'm over prepared, pre-prepared, and anyone who reads this blog should already know the answer and my quote above should jog your thinking of what I'm obviously going to say if confronted. I voted in 2008 based on comparing the 2 candidates, contemplating the odds of getting a better result from one than from the other. I'm not in a position of being wrong (or right) about that.
Having watched the video, may I add, apropos of nothing, that even though I disagree with them about most things, I am impressed with both Glenn Loury and John McWhorter. M's comment about what he has learned about the way "educated" Americans now view racism seems especially on target.
"Ann Althouse said...
"Prepare for the deluge of "you voted for Obama" comments."
I'm over prepared, pre-prepared, and anyone who reads this blog should already know the answer and my quote above should jog your thinking of what I'm obviously going to say if confronted. I voted in 2008 based on comparing the 2 candidates, contemplating the odds of getting a better result from one than from the other. I'm not in a position of being wrong (or right) about that."
People who voted for Hitler could say the same thing.
I'm tired of hearing about that damned vote in 2008.
I've learned to...what's the word?...curate carefully my sources of information and opinion in an increasingly fictional and hyper-opinionated online world.
I've also learned how to "bend" on the harmonica. Not well enough to go on stage, but it's difficult, and I'm proud that I can do it. Really weird technique.
I like the point that you can't make predictions for your future self.
I wish people would learn that they look foolish holding a phone in Bloggingheads ;) I like that -- is it Glen Loury -- the black guy with the van dyke? -- FINALLY stopped holding a phone while on camera. (And then there's the guy in this video *with a landline phone!* The guy who says science is dead. Idiot. More likely he's just out of tune with the latest scientific advancements)
(I have no idea who most of those people are, either -- Andrew Sullivan I recognized. And Althouse. And Glen Loury, if that's his name. And I recognized the woman who said you can't make predictions for your future self -- but I don't know her name).
So maybe BhTV should have superimposed names on the video.
the question: "What have you been proven right about over the last 10 years?"
Same answer as the first question!
(I kid ... really.)
I don't see how it is possible to not learn anything over a ten year period, nor do I see how your adage applies.
Althouse: "I voted in 2008 based on comparing the 2 candidates, contemplating the odds of getting a better result from one than from the other. I'm not in a position of being wrong (or right) about that."
I give every close acquaintance of mine who voted for the "O" in 2008 a pass. There were quite a few issues/considerations swirling about at the time and it would be rather tedious to list them all by way of explanation given how well informed most commenters on this blog have demonstrated themselves to be.
The real "tell" that Althouse had gotten inside the dems OODA loop was when she "testified" here that she did not repeat that vote in 2012.
I will offer a single caveat: when Althouse adopts a hectoring tone (my impression only) in appearing to lecture others on seeing thru The Donald. That inevitably leads to commenters throwing 2008 back at her which is not unreasonable in that context.
"I voted in 2008 based on comparing the 2 candidates, contemplating the odds of getting a better result from one than from the other. I'm not in a position of being wrong (or right) about that."
I am sincerely confused by this comment, as well as your original statement that you learned "nothing" in the past decade. This is one of those times where I wish we were having coffee so I could dig into that statement more (imagine like Seinfeld: "Really? Really? Not that crossing against the light in New York will get you yelled at? That you're ten years closer to your death? That maybe you didn't like sushi as much as you thought you did?"
How does this square with anything that you've said on this blog.
Now, I can understand "nothing" as a pedagogical tool, challenging the listener to argue their point in support of their belief. But "nothing"?
"I don't see how it is possible to not learn anything over a ten year period, nor do I see how your adage applies."
Try answering it snappily, on video, when you are first hearing the question. I started to give an answer about blogging, but thought it would take too long and be unsuitable for a montage. If I'd known others were going to give long answers, I'd have given one.
I came up with a motto a number of years ago and am ever mindful of it:
If you don't learn three new things every day and realize that three things you thought you knew were wrong then you're just not paying attention.
"hectoring tone (my impression only) in appearing to lecture others on seeing thru The Donald"
Click on ny trump tag and read a bunch of posts, then come back and explain what you mean. I don't think you can support that statement, other than to the extent that it's just how you felt.
So, again, I answered nothing. "I'm not the kind of person who puts myself in the position where world events prove me right or wrong."
The rocks in my garden are even wiser--instead of answering nothing, they answer nothing.
That reminds me of my kids and grandkids. Pretty much every day they would come home from school and I would ask them "What did you learn today?"
Invariably the answer as "Nothing"
Straight A students K-12, went on to become an MD and ChemEng so they must have learned something.
John Henry
As for a correct Althouse Bloggingheads prediction, I will always remember the Guantanamo closure bet with Emily Bazelon. http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/1961?in=00:23&out=08:45
As far as I am aware, Althouse never collected or called out Bazelon.
Hectoring:
11/26: "Some of you are getting off on Trump, which is pretty self-indulgent."
11/26: "Now, is the time to concentrate on not screwing up the GOP choice and Trumpsters don't want to focus on where we are in the decision making process. They want to leap ahead to a match-up with Hillary and argue that she's terrible. But many Americans will, if that ultimately is the decision to be made, say she's terrible but Trump is a disaster. "
11/25: "The better argument for Trumpsters is that Trump isn't dishonest. Work on that."
But what about mountain biking and skiing. Meade added Zeus and dog park visits too. Play time is good.
Your mind still expands our minds, for better or worse.
I didn't search for very long to find those quotes. It's not a chief interest of mine, and I can't stand Trump.
But Professor, own up to it: you can't stand him either, and you're hectoring Trumpsters. It's a good thing to do. Don't shy away and pretend that you're not expressing any opinions.
Althouse is never wrong. Never. There's something wrong with that.
I like the second video where everyone claimed that they were right about their particular hobbyhorse or axes to grind.
"I don't see how it is possible to not learn anything over a ten year period, nor do I see how your adage applies."
Try answering it snappily, on video, when you are first hearing the question. I started to give an answer about blogging, but thought it would take too long and be unsuitable for a montage. If I'd known others were going to give long answers, I'd have given one.
Yes, that I can understand (the adage applies to your possible responses, not to the idea that learning nothing is a high standard.)
As for a correct Althouse Bloggingheads prediction, I will always remember the Guantanamo closure bet with Emily Bazelon
Excellent memory.
I'm also curious if Althouse ever collected on the bet -- although after having listened, I note that no bet parameters were discussed. So what is there to collect?
Ann Althouse said... If I'd known others were going to give long answers, I'd have given one.
Lesson learned, then!
I gave up on Bloggingheads back around 2009. I was a commenter from early days and used to have a good time analyzing the videos, pulling out short clips (a very useful feature), and engaging with the other commenters in both a serious and fun way. I read both Kaus' and Wright's books and if I remember correctly it was Blogginheads that got me to read McArdle, Drezner, and Althouse's blogs regularly.
The forums got a lot less fun leading up to the election and Wright in particular became, to me, insufferable (I never agreed with him on much but I appreciated his stated commitment to making good arguments, discussing issues in good faith, and that certainly seemed to change).
Really going through an interesting episode thoroughly took some time (I would take notes as I watched and mark times so I could come back and make clips--shut up, I'm not a nerd!) and once the forums became less fun and the topics & guests became more pointedly biased (for lack of a better term) it just wasn't worth it for me anymore. I hope it's a good community now and am glad it's still around.
They need to move their videos to youtube. When I click on any video at their site it just spins the waiting symbol. I just got back from a pee, and it's still spinning.
Bzzzt... you lose.
I'm off to go watch the welding videos on youtube... AHRRrrrr, AHRRrrrr... Mmmm, Tooltime...
"I am sincerely confused by this comment, as well as your original statement that you learned "nothing" in the past decade. This is one of those times where I wish we were having coffee so I could dig into that statement more (imagine like Seinfeld: "Really? Really? Not that crossing against the light in New York will get you yelled at? That you're ten years closer to your death? That maybe you didn't like sushi as much as you thought you did?""
Well, mostly it was me being withholding in rebellion against the question. You know, it's just not the kind of question I like. It feels mushy and sentimental to me and that brings out my nothing response.
If I were self-motivated, writing an essay on this subject, I'd do some research into the blog archive and come up with some observations that would feel cool to me.
I'm partly impaired (as I said in part of the video that wasn't used) by taking the precise question seriously.
But I could have said that I learned you can find love through blogging and it was wrong to think it was better to be single. But I was talking with a person I didn't know (it wasn't Bob) and I didn't warm up to the point of opening up. I went in cold and stayed cold.
I'm not the kind of person who puts myself in the position where world events prove me right or wrong.
Does that apply to grammar?
"I learned you can find love through blogging and it was wrong to think it was better to be single."
Oh, so you have been wrong. I stand corrected.
Drago: "I will offer a single caveat: when Althouse adopts a hectoring tone (my impression only) in appearing to lecture others on seeing thru The Donald. That inevitably leads to commenters throwing 2008 back at her which is not unreasonable in that context."
Althouse: "Click on ny trump tag and read a bunch of posts, then come back and explain what you mean. I don't think you can support that statement, other than to the extent that it's just how you felt."
I did rummage a bit through a couple old posts and, upon reflection, must retract (humbly) the use of "hectoring". I cannot support that and you are correct to point that out.
By the way, I did click on the Trump tag, and it felt GREAT! I mean, really great. Fantastic actually. And you know me Althouse, I don't speak that way about myself often but there are others, great people really, who do speak about me in that way and I must say they are correct and I appreciate what these great Americans say about me.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন