BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Bennett vs. the world

21 comments on Bennett vs. the world

Bennett vs. the world
: And I’m siding with Bennett.

Joi Ito gets surprisingly pissy about Bennett just because he doesn’t happen to think that Ito’s Emergent Democracy essay is brilliant. A [former] denizen of the Well defends Ito against Bennett. And Ito “turns on the Bennett filter.”

Hey, opinions are exactly what make democracy great. Opinions are precisely what emerge from a democracy.

And Bennett has strong opinions, strongly stated. That’s why I like him. Don’t always agree. Don’t have to. Still like him. Like I like French cheese.

Like I said, he has very strong opinions. Take today’s on the death of Mister Rogers:

Thank God. Now we can raise a generation of children who don’t believe each and every one is “special” even if they never do anything special. Fred Rogers’ legacy is narcissism, nothing more and nothing less.

Harsh, yes. But wrong?

I also like Bennett because he takes on The Well for being a bunch of Marin-geek-snots. I never liked The Well or their cooler-than-thou attitude. The Well isn’t community. It’s gated community. And Bennett and I are not alone in this opinion. Read the almost-as-testy Textism on The Well — on the real reason that Salon deserves to die:

If there

21 responses to “Bennett vs. the world”

  1. Anil Avatar
    Anil

    I don’t think Ito’s afraid of opinions. Indeed, his embrace of unpopular, even radical, opinions is more striking in the context of japanese culture than it is in America where iconoclasm is a tradition.
    What I’m hearing is that it’s important to treat legitimately-held opinions with respect, even if one disagrees. Indeed, that’s an important part of being in favor of true democracy, as well. I like Bennett sometimes, too, for saying annoying and interesting things loudly. But I think he does a disservice to the importance of his ideas by frequently being profoundly disrespectful to people who hold contrary ideas in good faith.
    A sure way to discourage people from participating is to belittle or berate them when they speak up, and I think those who shout down at others reveal a far greater insecurity and fear of opinions than those who refrain from discourse with the coarse.
    Responding to the death of a minister with "Thank God" within a few hours of his death? It’s a strongly-held opinion, sure. But it’s tacky, immature, and ultimately boring. I’ve been far more politically incorrect than Bennett’s ever been, but I strive to not be completely lacking in class.
    And I think it’s far braver to be honest enough to recognize that every child *is* special, regardless of what they do or don’t do. I don’t like the Mr. Rogers show, never did, even as a kid. But that man did a lot more to help children grow up happy and healthy than a million posts like Richard’s that you linked to.

  2. Anil Avatar
    Anil

    (The above are the hard lessons I learned when I reacted to the then-recent deaths of Princess Diana and Mother Theresa with my true feelings, which were “well, that’s one less glamorous welfare recipient and one less starvation advocate, sounds like good news to me.”
    I realize now, that had Diana only lived to see Charles ascend to the throne, she could have been the first actual example of one of Reagan’s mythical “welfare queens”.)

  3. Richard Bennett Avatar
    Richard Bennett

    Yes, Anil, your political incorrectness is my model, and I readily admit I don’t pull it off nearly as well as you, but you’re heroically on the edge while I’m just a follower not worthy to touch your lotus feet.
    I will study and learn, as best as I can manage.

  4. Steve Lim Avatar
    Steve Lim

    Mr. Bennett, as a conservative of conscience I must say I am ashamed to share anything with you, even a political stripe.
    You have embarrassed yourself quite enough already. If I were in your shoes, I very well might consider shutting up.

  5. Kathy Avatar
    Kathy

    I do think Bennett is wrong about Mr. Rogers. I’m as elitist and anti-‘self-esteem’ as the next person, and agree that there are far too many untalented, aspiring ‘divas’ out there, not to mention narcissistic psychos.
    However, those kinds of people didn’t watch Mr Rogers when they were kids, and never would have. His audience consisted mostly of geeks like me, and I’m glad he was there. Yes, Mr. Rogers said a lot about ‘being special’, but Bennett and many others misunderstand his meaning: Rogers didn’t mean gifted, but loved, in the sense that we are all loved by God. Rogers was after all an ordained minister.

  6. Matt McIrvin Avatar
    Matt McIrvin

    Rogers also had all sorts of talented people on his show– artists, musicians, astronauts; people of simpler talents, such as a boy who could ride a unicycle– and when he talked to them, he was always careful to emphasize the long hours of hard work they did to get where they were.
    He never said that life was easy, that his viewers were entitled to effortless success, or that problems would go away without people to fix them. Two of his Neighborhood of Make-Believe puppets, King Friday XIII and Lady Elaine Fairchilde, often behaved like spoiled children (in different ways) and always ended up paying the price one way or another. (They never seemed to retain their lessons for long, but Rogers couldn’t have kept teaching them otherwise.)
    Mr. Rogers told kids that having bad feelings was OK, but that acting on bad feelings could hurt people. He gave out affection unconditionally, but in the world of actions he always stressed responsibility and diligence. That distinction between fantasy and reality, between thoughts and actions, was a major point of the show that he stressed in almost every episode; he even had a song called “You’ve Got To Do It” about how just pretending never gets anything done.
    So I think the claim that he was promoting narcissism and shaping irresponsible people, just by telling kids that somebody liked them, is incorrect on the facts.

  7. matt pfeffer Avatar
    matt pfeffer

    Bennett’s a smart guy, and what he has to say can be interesting. But how you say a thing is part of what you’re saying when you say it — and in that respect, Bennett gets unfortunately repetitious, and off-putting.
    In any case it seems reasonable for Ito to respond to Bennett’s rudeness; it’s not like Bennett couldn’t have chosen to present his (otherwise worthwhile) contributions in an even minutely collaborative spirit.

  8. Oliver Avatar
    Oliver

    There’s one thing with having a controversial opinion and being forthright about it, and another thing to just be a trollish dick.

  9. Jeff Jarvis Avatar
    Jeff Jarvis

    I reread every one of Bennett’s posts on Ito’s site. Bennett put considerable thought and effort into those posts. The response from his opponents was personal. He then reacted in kind. I would say that Ito escalated it to an extreme by sticking headline on his site about banishing Bennett. That is what I object to: If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the idea kitchen. If you’re trying to argue the benefits of emergent democracy, then take the give-and-take that comes with it! To be afraid of that discussion — of an honest and, yes, even heated discussion — while arguing about the benefits is pure democracy is hypocritical. Ito made it personal. And that offended me. That is what I reacted to. Of course, Bennett is curmudgeonly for effect; that’s his shtick. Bit deal. We’re all smart enough to figure that out. But go read the posts: He was not ruder to Ito than Ito and company were to him and he was not afraid to continue the dialogue; Ito was. That is undemocratic, damnit. And I call him on it. I like Ito. I respect him. I think he is a tremendous asset to the Web. But when I saw him take down Bennett in that fashion, I was, again, offended. I’ll defend even Bennett against that kind of haughty exclusionary behavior. And it’s not just Ito but it’s the other humorless haughtiness I’ve seen here and elsewhere that is driving me nuts right now. I am a liberal. But I don’t like hanging out with them. They’re too damned self-righteous. I can’t stand people who think they are beyond reproach.

  10. Richard Bennett Avatar
    Richard Bennett

    It really should be common sense that ideas with the potential to change the world are going to generate some controversy. Most of the people who read Ito’s ramblings on democracy dismissed them out of hand as too naive, or too ill-formed, or too idealistic for comment. In a sense, I paid him the highest compliment by taking him seriously enough to engage him in debate. It certainly would have been a lot easier to do what Oliver Willis just did – call names and run away. But I considered that there was enough weight in Ito’s project to subject it to scrutiny, and for some reason, that’s one thing Emergent Democracy advocates aren’t willing to tolerate.
    Jeff’s right, their attitude is anti-democratic, and actions speak louder than words.

  11. Frank Boosman Avatar
    Frank Boosman

    Richard, it’s hard for me to comprehend that, after all that has been written, you either don’t understand or refuse to acknowledge the problem that people on Joi’s blog have with you.
    You state that “Emergent Democracy advocates aren’t willing to tolerate” scrutiny. Without offering an opinion on emergent democracy myself, its core idea of direct democracy through decentralized, collaborative, Internet-based structures itself gives the lie to this statement. What its advocates cannot tolerate — and unfortunately, to which they eventually responded in kind in some cases — is argumentation based on red herrings and personal attacks.
    As I pointed out in my own entry on this topic, your first words to Joi were, “I was impressed by your total lack of any awareness of how legislative bodies function, about how governments function, or about political theory generally.” What sort of reaction did you expect? No rational person genuinely interested in the intelligent exchange of ideas begins a debate by personally insulting his or her opponent.
    To my mind, had you been interested in such an exchange of ideas, you could have written, “Based on what I’ve read of it, I disagree with fundamental aspects of your thesis on emergent democracy. I’d like to understand your ideas better and engage you in a discussion about them.” But that’s not what you did.
    Did you — do you generally — take argumentative positions on issues while insulting people out of choice, or do you do so out of habit? Either way, I respectfully suggest it to be a counterproductive strategy, unless your overriding goal is simply to be known. Certainly there is no shortage of depressing examples of people following this strategy becoming famous… but is that what you want your life to stand for?
    You don’t know Joi personally. I do. He’s not a coward — far from it. He’s intimately familiar with political processes, at least in Japan. Your criticisms and insults of him are inappropriate and uncalled-for.
    I don’t think it’s too late for you to salvage this situation. Although I don’t seriously believe you would be willing to follow this course of action, I offer it anyway:
    Make a statement, either on your blog or on Joi’s, in which you stand by your critique of the emergent democracy document, but in which you withdraw any insults or personal attacks you may have made in writing and defending your critique, and in which you apologize for anything you may have said that was inappropriate. Let Joi and the other people on his blog know that you genuinely wish to exchange ideas with them. I’m sure the reaction would be that Joi and others would apologize in turn. Who knows? You might actually learn something from them, and they from you. But as things stand, there’s no chance of that. And if — if — your goal is fame through controversy, then certainly you won’t want to follow my advice. Better, in such case, to be known as the guy who called Joi Ito a coward. For whatever that’s worth.

  12. Poot Rootbeer Avatar
    Poot Rootbeer

    Wow, Matt McIrvin reads Jeff Jarvis.
    It’s a small ‘net after all.

  13. Richard Bennett Avatar
    Richard Bennett

    Frank, are you seriously suggesting that I owe an apology to Ito’s man, Adam Greenfield, after he threatend to “break my jaw” if he ever saw me in person?
    It is apparent to me that the document reflects a lack of awareness of the legislative processes that I’m familiar with; if Ito is indeed an insider in Japanese politics, I can only conclude that he left his knowledge at the door, or that the Japanese system is very different from the American one, and I say this as one who really does have insider experience in our system.
    Joi Ito banned me from leaving comments and trackbacks on his blog, and then continued to criticize me; that’s the act of an intellectual coward, and it precudes me from apologizing to Ito’s followers for making them threaten me, not that I’m inclined to do so. For the record, I haven’t banned him from my blog.
    What are you smoking, dude?

  14. Frank Boosman Avatar
    Frank Boosman

    It is apparent to me that the document reflects a lack of awareness of the legislative processes that I’m familiar with…
    In your opinion. But does that mean you should kick off a discussion of the topic by saying that your would-be opponent has a “total lack of any awareness of how legislative bodies function, about how governments function, or about political theory generally?” You could have allowed that Joi’s experience is very different from yours. You could have given him the benefit of the doubt. You could have started the debate without insulting him.
    Are you seriously suggesting that I owe an apology to Ito’s man, Adam Greenfield, after he threatend to “break my jaw” if he ever saw me in person?
    I’m suggesting that many people owe apologies to many people. Does it matter who apologizes first? If it does, then I offer that not only did you start the debate by insulting Joi’s knowledge and experience, you then threw the first red herring into the fracas, linking advocacy of emergent democracy with support of Saddam Hussein. I’m sure you know as well as any of us the grade your collegiate forensics teacher would have given you for trying that in a class debate. It’s not only wrong, but irrelevant. So, while I believe far too many people spend far too much time worrying about who should apologize to whom first, if this is a concern for you, I offer not only the reasons already put forward here, but an even better one: to be the first to rise above the fray, the first to attempt a return to civil discourse.
    Joi Ito banned me from leaving comments and trackbacks on his blog, and then continued to criticize me; that’s the act of an intellectual coward, and it precudes me from apologizing to Ito’s followers for making them threaten me, not that I’m inclined to do so.
    Joi has only threatened to ban you from his blog, at least when last I checked — and if you read the item, you’ll see that he is engaged in public soul-searching about whether or not to do so.
    As for whether this makes Joi an intellectual coward, I submit that it does not. I can assure you that he is not afraid of your ideas, but rather frustrated with how you choose to express them, especially when you choose to do so in his blog.
    When Joi refuted your assertions about his lack of knowledge of political systems by listing his involvement in Japanese politics over the last 10 years, instead of acknowledging this, you ignored it. Joi remained engaged and attempted to ask you serious questions; your response was to claim that “he believes that electronic communication over the web or some successor to it will someday advance the human race to a state of hyperconsciousness, where our god-like wisdom will make all problems trivial,” a purely conjectural (and insulting in its implications) statement supported by neither Joi nor no one who knows him. Joi still didn’t take the bait, responding by saying, “I apologize if you find our nerdy utopian view offensive, but I would suggest you come back and attack us after we’ve assmiliated the constructive feedback and integrated it into our thoughts. My paper is still weak in many ways and we have a long way to go to build a rigorous position.”
    At no point in the original string of comments did Joi insult you personally. The most insulting thing I could find was in his post on a potential IP ban, in which he said you were “a good example of ‘noise’ when we talk about the ‘signal to noise ratio.’” Given everything you had said about him to that point, that seems a pretty tame response… and your response was to label him a “coward,” an epithet which you surely know to be an extremely serious one.
    What are you smoking, dude?
    I’m not smoking anything. I’m simply trying to help people to find common ground and engage in productive, intelligent discourse.
    Note, by the way, that I have tried scrupulously to avoid insulting you in any way, both in my original post on my blog and in my comments here. Yet you respond by implying that I am impaired in some way. Again, I ask you: is this what you want your life to stand for — for insulting people? It would be a shame to see you go down such a path.

  15. Richard Bennett Avatar
    Richard Bennett

    Well, Frank, you’re right about one thing – Emperor Ito hasn’t banned me from leaving comments yet, as I just confirmed by testing. I had assumed he had since his blog rejects my trackbacks, but that could be some administrative screwup.
    I’m not going to get involved in a lengthy discussion of who was mean to whom first because Jeff’s already covered that; your standards for rudeness are clearly not aligned with mine, and we aren’t going to agree. I see nothing wrong with making observations about Ito’s general level of political knowledge, while you see that as a vicious personal attack. People actually engaged in politics don’t go around bowing and scraping unctuous platitudes such as your proposed: “Based on what I’ve read of it, I disagree with fundamental aspects of your thesis on emergent democracy. I’d like to understand your ideas better and engage you in a discussion about them.” There aren’t enough hours in the day for that kind of crap – watch C-Span sometime, or better yet, Prime Minister’s Questions from the UK. Politics is Rough and Tumble, not a rarefied exercise in sissyhood. You believe passionately in your position, and you advocate for it, you don’t appease and you don’t conciliate.
    Your pal Ito and his followers are actually in favor of leaving Saddam Hussein in power, and I’m not making that up; they have lots of reasons for supporting that status quo having to do with pacifism and unilateralism, but the end result is to leave him in power. This seriously undermines their commitment to democracy, in my book, and that’s the only one I’m writing.
    So no, I’m not apologizing to anybody about anything, and I stand by my position, my phrasing, and my commitment to real democracies for real people. If you think I’m wrong, then make an argument on substance, because your stylistic attack is boring me to death.

  16. Frank Boosman Avatar
    Frank Boosman

    I was going to post a response to this, but it’s clearly hopeless. I’m done here.

  17. Oliver Avatar
    Oliver

    I could care about Emergent Democratic Whatevers. I’m the last person to be “self-righteous” and “beyond reproach”. There are many conservatives out there who make cogent arguments and though I would never agree with them in a million years, they make their point without appearing to be a spoiled little troll. The person in question is not one of these people.

  18. matt pfeffer Avatar
    matt pfeffer

    To be afraid of that discussion — of an honest and, yes, even heated discussion — while arguing about the benefits is pure democracy is hypocritical. Ito made it personal.
    To my ear, Bennett made it personal from the very start, concluding his first comment by saying, “While I tried to be nice, it’s hard to take any of this seriously.” That sounds gratuitously dismissive and disrespectful, all the more so for its appearance on Joi Ito’s own site, and before any discussion had actually begun.
    I don’t imagine the difference here is that anyone actually thinks Bennett was being respectful and polite. Is it that the elders in this mix don’t feel that respectfulness is necessary for open, productive discussion?
    That would be news to me, and perhaps to some other webloggers. I invariably read disrespectfulness as offensive, and possibly insulting (even if I don’t really think it’s worth acknowledging), and accordingly I can sympathize with Greenfield and Ito’s reactions far more easily than with Bennett’s initial (seemingly piss-in-the-well) remark.
    Jeff, is what you’re saying that it just doesn’t matter if you’re ‘curmudgeonly’ or disrespectful in a political discussion? That Bennett’s disrespectfulness is nothing more than a stylistic device that you simply read past and ignore, and are surprised others don’t do likewise?
    Richard, is that how it’s intended?
    That would be interesting to hear.

  19. Richard Bennett Avatar
    Richard Bennett

    When I first read the “Emerging Democracy” paper I wasn’t sure whether it was serious, or an attempt to have fun with tech bloggers by mocking their style of thinking. The paper appears to string together the most popular topics from Blogdex over the last couple of months as if ordering them sequentially constitutes a logical argument, and ends in a conclusion that’s not been foreshadowed in any way by the string of topics.
    My initial set of remarks reflected that uncertainty: “it’s hard to take any of this seriously.”

  20. matt pfeffer Avatar
    matt pfeffer

    I wasn’t sure whether it was serious, or an attempt to have fun with tech bloggers by mocking their style of thinking.
    You wrote in your first comment to Ito, “Reading your paper ‘Emergent Democracy’ I was impressed by your total lack of any awareness of how legislative bodies function, about how governments function, or about political theory generally.”
    That doesn’t sound to me like someone responding to what he suspects is satire. You’re also a good enough writer that I doubt you didn’t realize how it would come across.
    And it doesn’t actually matter what you intended with that remark, anyway; it’s gratuitious and rude either way. What might be interesting is why two obviously qualified people here might think that shouldn’t matter. (Absent that, how is this anything more than a pissing match?)

  21. Richard Bennett Avatar
    Richard Bennett

    It’s long been my opinion that utterly ridiculous things are generally written by two and only two kinds of people: satirists and the terminally stupid. Ruling out satire only leaves one interpretation for “Emergent Democracy: From the Anthill to the Internet”.
    But I forgot that victims of fashion can also write nonsense, and that was an error. Apparently.
    But there’s a fourth class, namely those who wish to snare the terminally stupid or the fashion victim in a subtle trap in order to exploit them in some way. Given that Judge Ito is also a venture capitalist, I should have given this option some weight as well. Perhaps he’s looking for some ideas for a government-oriented software startup to fund, and what better way to do that than to promise utopia to some gullible geeks. But that might be reaching.
    It’s also possible that Ito is a Venusian.