And, a bit further on, I closed with:

I print all this to articulate something that my few regular readers may have already gathered, but not really grasped or realized as yet:

I do not suffer fools gladly..

I prefer not to suffer them at all, actually.

Yes, I realize it’s anathema to pass such judgements here in 20th Century Politically Correct World. Nonetheless, I do pass such judgements, and further more, so do you. So does everyone. We all decide, in every second of every social interaction, who we think is a fool (most of us use other words, like ‘asshole’, for example) and who isn’t. And we all decide, from minute to minute in every social interaction, who we are willing to suffer, and how much, against the potential of future interactions with them. Some people we won’t voluntarily hang out with again, or pick up the phone if we see them on Caller I.D. Others we hasten to embrace at every opportunity.

I make these judgements, and I tend to act on them, not merely passively (as women do when they don’t return an unpleasant man’s calls, just for one example) but actively, as when someone asks for my opinion on something, I give it to them, even if I know it will probably offend them. Lord Corwin wrote to me, as a stranger, and said many many smart and thoughtful things, and then said something I thought was really reprehensibly stupid. I discussed the thoughtful things with him in a thoughtful, careful, cordial fashion, and then I told him I thought one of the things he’d said was absolutely and offensively idiotic.

This is one of the large reasons I have few or no friends, and I am aware of it. Paul notes that it’s stupid of me to be aware of this and unwilling to change, but… and this is the important thing here… I would like myself less if I were less honest, or acted more tolerant of offensive and obnoxious stupidity simply to gain myself popularity.

It is more important to me that I like myself, than that other people like me. This is why, when I get into an argument with someone and finally, exasperated, they burst out at me “I hate the fact that I can never win arguments with you!” Or “You’re too PICKY; not everyone imposes these ridiculously high standards on their entertainment choices!”, and then they walk away, obviously pissed off and unwilling (most likely) to hang out with me in the future… I feel sad, yes.

But I feel no urge to change. Why? Because the fact that I generally emerge victorious in various arguments is not something that is bad, or that reflects a character flaw in me. I do not use the Carol Kalish School of Arguing, which is, basically, Win At All Costs. I do not lie. I do not constantly interrupt my opponent to throw them off their chain of thought. I do not make up fictitious citations, refuse to use qualifiers on my own opinions, and insist my opponent use qualifiers on all his. If I did, that would be objectionable and I would be ashamed. That is, basically, cheating.

What I do, to win arguments, is… well… be right. My positions, as Paul has recently pointed out, are often extreme and controversial. (Not all of them. I happen to think, for example, that Katie Holmes is a hottie. Many millions would agree with me.) When they are extreme and controversial, it is because I have thought through the particular subject at hand and arrived, after much analysis, at a particular opinion. It is not a coincidence that a thoughtful, reasonable, analytical opinion on nearly any controversial topic will be seen as extreme or controversial in its own right, because most controversial topics generate a lot of emotion, and I eschew emotion as much as possible in my evaluation process.

I, to pick a random example, do not believe that incestuous relations between consenting adults using responsible birth control are anyone else’s business, or in any way morally ‘wrong’. I’m not in any way saying I’ve ever had such relations or ever would; my emotions and my intellect may well be at odds on this subject. And I’m not in any way saying anyone reading this should immediately go out and hop into bed with their cute sibling or cousin as long as condoms are employed. However, the taboo against incest comes primarily from the necessity for primitive tribes to not have resources drained by having to support defective children. These social conditions have changed drastically in the modern day; therefore, if emotionally mature close genetic relatives want to engage in harmless recreational sexual activities together, I see no reason it’s society’s business.

That’s a controversial opinion I would never advance in a social conversation unless I was asked specifically, and even if I were, I might well choose to be diplomatic… but if I did advance it (if I trusted the people I was talking to would not get me fired or simply lynch me), I would still, resignedly, understand that this opinion would make people dislike me. Why? Because incest is an emotional subject few people want to be reasonable, logical, or analytical about. I, on the other hand, want to be reasonable, logical, and analytical about many subjects, and many people find that infuriating… especially when, logically, if I were to have an argument with the average person on this topic, I would win, because inevitably they would be reduced to simply, stubbornly, stating over and over again “I don’t care, it’s just WRONG”, probably in increasingly truculent or hysterical tones.

I do not find the fact that I try to, as much as possible, achieve reasonable opinions through a process of logical analysis to be something negative about me. In fact, I like it. I think it’s a positive character trait that I have. I’m aware that it infuriates and alienates many others, but, well, I would like me less if I stopped behaving this way, and the fact that others would like me more is not adequate recompense for that.

Similarly, absolutely anyone out there in the audience would no doubt happily tell me that there was no reason for me to be as harsh with Lord Corwin as I was. I could have simply skipped over that section of his lengthy note and answered the rest, and gotten some good emails out of it, and perhaps even made a friend. I did not, under any circumstances, have to be such a dick. I was not even remotely required to tell him I thought that one particular passage was completely addleheaded and toxically intolerant, and Paul would at least note that I was rather obnoxious and completely dislikable in taking direct issue with what he wrote.

I don’t argue with that. Nonetheless, the fact that I am pretty straightforward in what I like and don’t like, and what I think is intelligent and what I think is otherwise, is, again, something I like about myself. I realize that my lack of tact offends many, and that makes me sad, but fuck it. I didn’t write to Lord Corwin and tell him that I thought people who use popular fantasy icons for their email pseuds are idiots. Nor did I pluck the notion that destroying a pristine stretch of complex wilderness is simply a matter of aesthetics and sentiment from his brain. He offered it to me during an exchange of ideas, and I told him exactly what I thought of that particular piece of tripe.

I would imagine that makes me an asshole by nearly every standard of judgement currently being imposed by you gentle and kind readers, and I understand that. But (and here’s the important part) it does not make me an asshole by my own standards.

Perhaps just as importantly, I do not apply these standards only to myself. If I were to say something in an email to someone that they found offensively idiotic, and they told me so forthrightly, and the remainder of their email was thoughtful and intelligent, I would not stop writing them. In fact, if I found what they had to say thoughtful and intelligent, I would stop and re-evaluate my own position.

I have done this many times. I do it constantly when people post viewpoints in opposition to mine on this blog. In contrary to some opinions, I am not pigheaded and I am perfectly capable of responding to a reasonable argument. Just for one example, my cousin in law Melanie has caused me to change several of my opinions on the male/female interaction. That doesn’t mean every time Mel tees off on me I end up agreeing with her, but I think about what she says. I do that with nearly anyone who doesn’t start off by insulting me personally.

Anyway. I was also going to present an email I wrote Doug Muir, another new correspondent of mine I have probably offended mortally, along with my response, but, well, it seems the response didn’t get saved and I don’t feel like retyping it from memory. Basically, Doug, who is a fine and smart fellow, said the following:

It is, of course, an entirely subjective opinion, as is my differing viewpoint that Grant Morrison would best serve the comics community by getting a job riveting sheet metal in Glasgow. Nonetheless, Doug’s statement that Morrison, when he is writing well, is unrivalled (and that’s what he said, he said no one could touch Morrison when he’s ‘on form’) is so extreme as to be capable of being considered objectively, and objectively, it’s nonsense.

There are other writers in comics that Morrison, even on form, does not write as well as. This is not simply subjective opinion; it is reflected by any objective consideration or measurement you care to use. Other writers sell better than Morrison, and if you reject commercialism as a measure of quality, fine. Other writers have also won more awards than Morrison. If you want to reject the prestigious accolades of fellow professionals and their customers, that’s fine, too, but that leaves us simply with opinion. I have studied writing as a craft for a quarter of a century now, and in my considered opinion, Grant Morrison mostly writes pretentious twaddle. Leaving that aside, he does not, at his best, approach the best writing of Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman and Steve Englehart. To state that ‘when he’s on form, no one can touch him’ is horseshit. If you’re going to make a statement like that, well, you’d better be making it about someone who is inarguably, at the very least, one of the premiere talents in the medium you are discussing, and Grant Morrison is not.

My response to Doug made all this clear, and since Doug has, in the past week, managed to respond to my emails within hours of my responses to his, but he hasn’t responded to my last email for two days, I suspect I’ve alienated him, as well. Did I have to? No. Did I choose to because he said something I found completely idiotic? Yes. Do you think that’s a personality flaw in me? You may well. Do I agree, and am I going to change? No.

Again, in my own defense… I didn’t go to Doug and say “Grant Morrison is a mediocre writer whose pretentiousness far outstrips his talent”. Doug, in fact, came to me and said, effectively, ‘I think you’re wrong about Grant Morrison. In fact, I regard Grant Morrison as being, when he’s writing well, the finest writer in comics’. Now, I disagree with that, and Doug just pushed my ‘Grant Morrison’ button, so he gets what he gets. Further, I did not simply tell him ‘you’re a fucking moron’, I provided him with details as to why I loathed Grant Morrison’s writing and why I loathed Grant Morrison as a writer.

Now, a master of diplomacy like my one time email buddy Mike Norton would simply have skipped over that paragraph, or said something mild like “Well, we disagree on Morrison but that’s why they make chocolate and vanilla” and passed on. And Mike Norton is a very popular guy who is beloved by all who know him. I, on the other hand, to the same body of folks who knows both me and Mike Norton, am actually something of a devil figure. (I’m not making this up. There is a small handful of comics fans out there who know both Mike Norton and I. They esteem Mike deeply and keep re-electing him as President of their comics fan society. They regard me, without much irony, as The Great Satan. Why? Well, when I see something I regard as stupid, I say so. Mike is diplomatic.) I don’t like Mike any less for his diplomacy, but I would like MYSELF less if I were less honest. If that makes no sense to you, well, Mike has many qualities I myself lack, so I don't want to give up one of the few things about myself I genuinely respect and esteem.

So, what I’m saying is, yes, I understand there are things about me that make people, for the most part, think I’m an asshole. To the extent that I can, I try to control these things (I never volunteer my opinion any more on any subject unless I’m asked, in any kind of polite discourse, even among people I moderately trust… I’ve learned that much over the years). But most of the things that other people dislike about me (at least, the ones I’m aware of and could, possibly, control) are things I like about myself very much, and am unwilling to discard simply in order to make myself more popular.

Elayne Riggs might well point out that this is a choice on my part, and I should live with it without bitching so much about it. That’s a valid point, although, well, everybody does a little bitching on their blogs about things that result from their own choices, I think. Beyond that, I think that when people decide I’m an asshole because I hold reasonable opinions and they do not, they are wrong. I also think that when people decide I’m an asshole because they asked me for my opinion and I gave it to them and they didn’t like it, they are also wrong. Not 'wrong' as in 'incorrect'; their opinion is subjective and cannot be incorrect. I think, however, that their opinion is 'wrong' in the sense that it is bad. It is improper and inappropriate and, well, WRONG, of them to judge me harshly and not want to hang out with me because I am more reasonable and more truthful than they are.

I realize that won’t make any difference to society in general, but it does make a difference to ME. And I believe it is a valid point to, at least occasionally, bitch about on my own blog.

RULES OF THE ROAD

In one of his many invaluable essays on life in Hollywood, Mark Evanier described his first meeting with legendary TV comic and icon Milton Berle. Upon being introduced to Uncle Miltie and shaking hands with him, Mark, who is a pretty witty guy, blurted out without even thinking about it, “Wow, I didn’t recognize you in men’s clothing”. According to Mark, this soured Uncle Miltie on him from that point forward, because Mark had broken Rule Number One When Hanging With Milton Berle, namely, Never Be Funnier Than Milton Berle.

I’m reminded of that anecdote now.

Recent experiences at Electrolite being pretty much entirely similar if not completely identical to my previous experiences at Uppity-Negro.com and TampaTantrum.com, I thought I’d take the time to extrapolate whatever wisdom there is to find in the whole mess. Here’s The Deal, as far as I can see:

If you want to make friends and influence people when you head out onto the blogging trail, at least, as regards your posting comments on other people’s blogs, you MUST NOT:

Rule E comes mostly out of my experiences with Aaron Hawkin’s Uppity-Negro blog. He gets a lot of female posters and like any of us male geeks would be in that admirable position, he is thoroughly whipped by them. If a new reader comes along and does anything whatsoever to offend the babes on Aaron’s blog, that new reader can expect a cold shoulder from Aaron roughly the size of the Greenland glacier. I don’t really blame Aaron for this; for a male geek, positive female attention is a jewel beyond price, and if I ever had any women posting to my blog who weren’t related to me by marriage, I’d most likely dance and sing like a puppet on a string when they cracked the lash, too.

I should add to this that I’ve learned, from Electrolite, that one Must Not Be Whimsical, Oblique, or Overly Geeky When Posting To A Big Important Political Marketplace of Ideas Type Blog, because those guys just have no time for Theodore Marley Brooks or Cornelus van Lunt references, regardless of how amusing or entertaining you and some others may find them.

Now, I am posting this to point out that while these may be the universal Rules of the Road on other blogs (and as far as I can see, they are, indeed, pretty much universal) you can ignore them here. I don’t care if you:

Oh, and I like geeky references and would just adore whimsical, cleverly elliptical posts to my comment threads, although I suspect I’d get annoyed if someone started posting a whole lot of Harry Potter-speak here, just for one example.

If there is a universal rule on this blog, it is quite simply, Do Not Be A Bigger Asshole Than The Blogger. In fact, if you can avoid it (and most of my small number of regular posters avoid it with style and panache) Don’t Be An Asshole At All. I am quite a big enough asshole myself to supply all the assholiness necessary for any blog, and I will continue to keep this blog well furnished with stupid remarks, doltish mistakes, whiney rationalizations, and defensive recriminations by the ton lot, there can be no doubt. You need bring none of your own asshole nature with you, I have plenty and am always willing to share.

THE INEVITABLE DISCLAIMER

By generally accepted social standards, I'm not a likable guy. I'm not saying that to get cheap reassurances. It's simply the truth. I regard many social conventions in radically different ways than most people do, I have many many controversial opinions, and I tend to state them pretty forthrightly. This is not a formula for popularity in any social continuum I've ever experienced.

In my prior blogs, I took the fairly standard attitude: if you don't like my opinions or my blog, don't read the fucking thing.

Having given that some more thought, though, I'm not going to say that this time around, because I've realized that what this is basically saying is, 'if you don't like what I have to say, tough, I don't want to hear it, don't even bother to tell me, just go away'.

And that's actually a pretty worthless attitude. It's basically saying, 'I don't want to hear anything except unconditional agreement and approval'. And that's nonsense. This is still a free country... for a little while longer, anyway... and if you really feel you just gotta send me a flame, or post one on my comment threads (assuming they actually work, which I cannot in any way guarantee) then by all means, knock yourself out.

Unless your flame is exceptionally cogent, witty, or stylish, though, I will most likely ignore it. You do have a right to say anything you want (although I'm not sure that's a right when you're doing it in my comment threads, but hey, you can certainly send all the emails you want). However, I have an equal right not to read anything I don't feel like reading... and I'm really quick with the delete key... as various angry folks have found in the past, when they decided they just had to do their absolute level best to make me as miserable as possible.

So, if you don't like my opinions, feel free to say so. However, if I find absolutely nothing worthwhile in your commentary, I will almost certainly not respond to it in any way.

Stupidity, ignorance, intolerance... these things are only worth my time and attention if they're entertaining. So unless you can be stupid, ignorant, and/or intolerant with enough wit, style, and/or panache to amuse me... try to be smart, informed, and broad minded when you write me.