Defining disingenuousness: Am I beating a dead horse? Or am I staring down a headless high-horseman?

by Cathleen Collins

Realtor, Staging Consultant

Author website

This is a comment I just posted to Dustin Luther’s weblog. I’m putting it up here, too, so that people can see it (without the typos I found after I posted my 4Realz comment) and so that I can include links without getting shunted into moderation.

To be honest, I hate this kind of ugliness. But one of the reasons I am married to Greg is because I learned the hard way, a long time before I met Greg, that if you are not willing to stand up for what’s right, you are surrendering to evil.

This is my comment:

 
Dustin,

Disingenuous? From Dictionary.com: “lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere.” You believe that anything here is descriptive of me?

And let’s look at your entire concluding paragraph:

“And finally, Cathleen, I’ve been avoiding responding to comments on this thread because there is a small group of people (dare I call it a “pack”) who seem to be searching for any opportunity to defend Greg by criticizing people who were offended by Greg’s comments (seeing as how we’re in the midst of a political season, it seems appropriate to call it “negative campaigning”). I don’t assume you, or anyone else, was offended by Greg’s post, but it certainly seems disingenuous for you to insinuate that those of us who were offended must have an ulterior motive.”

How is that not a personal attack? You are smearing the integrity of people who have disagreed with you as a means of undermining their arguments without addressing them. How is this not an ad hominum attack? Or, do you claim to be righteous in offending Teri, Mike, Brian, Russell, Geno and me (the only six from, excluding Greg, twenty-two BHB contributors who have commented on this thread) because you’re Dustin Luther? And, by the way, isn’t your blanket statement that the BHB contributor’s comments “search for any opportunity to defend Greg by criticizing people…” a straw man argument? I certainly didn’t read the kind of defense you describe into either Teri’s or Geno’s comments. So that leaves Russell, Brian, Mike and me. Have you ever seen any evidence that any of us is disingenuous? Do you deny that this entire thread is strewn with personal attacks on Greg, Teri, Russ, Mike, Brian and now me? Is it your opinion that personal attacks are bad only if someone who doesn’t agree with you is making them?

By the way, thank you for taking the time to clarify the difference in timing, from the time Greg wrote the post you disagree with till you opened this “debate.” And perhaps, like Jay Thompson, you didn’t intend for this to get so personal. But are you surprised that the likes of Joseph Ferrara and Keith Brand of Housing Panic would jump at the chance to slam Greg under the blanket of your authority? And why didn’t you comment that they are disingenuous? Or do you believe they are candid and sincere?

Now, just how about your personal attack on Greg — when you imply that he is somehow “negative campaigning”. Greg hates any sort of collective action. He “jumped on the grenade” Sunday night because he thought Teri Lussier and Mike Farmer were taking pot shots that should have been directed at him. I know from living with the man that he thinks it is very noble when people stand up for what he calls rectitude, but he doesn’t want for other people to get hurt in his battles.

This is quoted from a comment Greg made to a post by Russell Shaw:

[Russell Shaw] > As to the specific statements regarding was Greg making personal attacks?

And with this I respectfully disagree — and I’m only even addressing the issue out of respect for you, Russell. I have every right to take satirical jabs at vendors — this is an ancient tradition in art. Glenn Kelman has had by far the worst of it from me, but most readers here are delighted when I take him on. I would expect his wife and mother are not, but, nevertheless, I have the moral right and the intellectual responsibility to express my views as compellingly as I possibly can.

I agree with Russell completely about the mob behavior, but I care only this far: This quote from Dustin Luther

I’m going to leave my opinions out of the discussion in order to leave more space for these people to see the error of their ways, apologize profusely, and re-enter our community in a constructive manner.

could have been cribbed directly from a Stalinist show trial.

Inlookers: If you laugh when I pick on your enemies — as Dustin Luther did when I was tormenting Matt Heaton and Jonathan Washburn of ActiveRain — and cry when I pick on your buddies, that just means you don’t think consistently. What matters to you is neither the argument nor the satire, but simply whose ox is gored. One could wish this were rare. Tune in or tune out — no one cares. Our traffic is off the charts, if that matters to you — and none of that is due to this controversy.

But if you cede your power over your own free expression to the rule of the mob, you will not have fallen victim to evil — you will have volunteered to make yourself a victim of that evil.

And you had better believe that everything turns on philosophical principles at BloodhoundBlog.

My opinion, stated as an opinion, is that Greg understands this episode far better than you do.

In any case, you haven’t answered my question: Why, when you have sent Greg hundreds of emails – and when he had gone well out of his way to get you into the L.A. Times article that is the actual subject of BloodhoundBlog post number 2592 – why didn’t you email or pick up the phone before attacking BloodhoundBlog in a huge public display? And if your attack was not aimed at BloodhoundBlog Unchained, why did you post a one-word attack starting with the letters “UN”?

I don’t know whether or not you care, but I really would like to hear a rational defense from you — one that doesn’t just obscure my question with yet another personal attack. But so far this just doesn’t pass the smell test with me. I’m speaking only for myself, but I’m very disappointed in you, Dustin. I’ve always thought better of you.

 
Follow ups:

Dustin’s reply to me:

Cathleen:

You really are serious about trying to turn this into something about me instead of examining Greg’s actions… It’s fascinating to read, but I won’t go there.

Dustin

 
My response:

Dustin,

But I genuinely think it is about you. At worst, Greg was being very, very rude. But how is that new? He lampoons people and ideas that he thinks are fair game. This includes vendors. And I believe that you must have known this even before. So what has changed? I’ve got to go back to this:

I’m going to leave my opinions out of the discussion in order to leave more space for these people to see the error of their ways, apologize profusely, and re-enter our community in a constructive manner.

No, Greg hasn’t changed, but here you are trying to intimidate him into changing. He cannot “re-enter (your) community” until he falls on his knees and begs your forgiveness. Greg might be rude, but you are coercive. Which is why I think it is about you.

Technorati Tags: real estate