Inspiration For Better Blogging

Tyler Cowen links to Gwern.

Upon first encountering his website, the similarities between he and I struck me immediately, but so did our many differences. Gwern appears to be an interesting fellow (unlike me), arguing for many Stationary Waves-isms (like me) such as an extended cognitive time-horizon and the use of daily blogging to categorize, build, and improve upon personal thoughts. Gwern also appears to be hopelessly lost in the “Rationalist” culture of Silicon Valley (unlike me, and about which I recently wrote here). A trip to Gwern.net is a journey inside the mind of Gwern (unlike a trip to StationaryWaves.com, which is more like a journey inside an hour or so of my daily thoughts). Gwern self-experiments with drugs, including illegal drugs; I don’t do that, and in fact I’m quite vocally opposed to the use of recreational drugs. I do, however self-experiment with nutritional supplements that have no recreational benefit (see posts here and here).

One important thing to learn from his website is Gwern’s criticism of blogs, which is that they are throw-aways meant to be read once and more or less instantly discarded. Gwern feels instead that blog posts should be written to serve the long-term future. This resonated with me right away, because Stationary Waves serves basically one main principle at this point, which is to catalog my ethical and philosophical views for the eventual benefit of my daughter, should she ever want to know who I was and what I thought.

I sometimes like to think of my blog as a sort of insurance policy. Suppose I were to die suddenly. My young daughter would spend most of her life not knowing who I was, and barely remembering what I was like as a person. She would never have the benefit of knowing anything about my adult thoughts. She would never benefit from the advice I would give to her as she grew older and encountered teenage and young-adult situations. Perhaps, like many people who lose loved ones, she would occasionally wish I were there to help. Were that to happen, my blog could provide her with some of that help. It wouldn’t be the same, but it would be better than nothing.

Beyond the mere insurance policy aspect of things, however, there is a real benefit to writing down your most philosophical and well-thought-out ideas, and that benefit is that they begin to fuse themselves into a comprehensive whole. Having a good idea is one thing, but having it, writing it down, and then referring to it later not only helps solidify the idea, but it also helps you understand the basis of your future ideas. In other words, I never realized what my comprehensive philosophy really was until I started writing it down. Had I never started blogging, I probably never could have fully articulated my moral philosophy. But I did start blogging, and eventually wrote it all out in four glorious posts here, here, here, and here.

This “body of work” concept is another thing we can learn from Gwern. More specifically as it applies to me, Gwern appears to do a much better job of cataloging prior ideas than I do. I think this Is something I could really stand to benefit from. Keep an eye on this space, then, because I’ll likely be rearranging things a little bit, to make it easier to find the most important information on the blog. I’ve done that a little bit with the links on the top bar of the page. I’ve linked to the best health and fitness information available on the site, and to my “lexicon,” and my album reviews. But I’ve dropped the ball when it comes to my philosophical ideas. I have some work to do there.

Finally, seeing how well-organized Gwern’s website is has inspired me to put more in-text links in my posts. I stopped doing that a while back, mainly because I figured that nobody clicks-through anyway. And for the most part, I believe that to be true. But in the interest of making it easier to navigate my ideas and understand where they come from, I ought to pick that habit back up again. That explains why you’re seeing so many in-text links in this particular post.

Concise And Persuasive

A few days back, I mused on the idea of putting together some sort of a podcast-type thing as a method to practice being persuasive.

Further to that initiative, I recently stumbled upon something kind of fun: a website called EdgeStudio.com offers a "script timer" that you can use, free of charge, to estimate approximately how much time it takes to speak words that you have written.

It turns out to be pretty simple arithmetic, anyway: at an average of three words-per-second, a person can expect to recite about 180 words in sixty seconds. I think this puts bounds on my initiative. I'll start at 180 words - if I can be reasonably persuasive using only sixty seconds of your time, I'll consider myself a successfully persuasive person.

Granted, this is just an exercise for me, but think about how it could be applied to your own life. We've heard a million annoying things about having an "elevator pitch." Well, three words-per-second gives you a starting point there. If an elevator ride takes fifteen seconds, then you've got forty-five words with which to make your pitch. Alternatively, you could write down your best-possible argument for something and then count how many words you've used to estimate the minimum amount of time you'll need to get your point across.

Obviously, someone like myself, who is used to writing long expositions, needs a lot of time to convey a message. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it helps to be able to communicate in more than one way.

This experiment, then, should be a good way to hone my persuasive brevity. Thanks to a little clever Googling, I now have something to aim for.

Podcast-Or-Something

This morning on Facebook, David Henderson gave us a pointer to his recent appearance in a Wall Street Journal video, discussing the draft. It's great, you can see the video here:


(I may be having trouble embedding the video, so try this link.)

His piece starts at around the 6:56 mark.

I commented that I thought he did a great job of communicating his ideas and being persuasive. That's one of the things I really love about David Henderson - I think he is a truly superb communicator. His advice for me? Practice!

I think that's great advice, so now I am mulling over the idea of putting together some sort of podcast or YouTube thing, where I try to make short, concise arguments for something. If effective, I should start to see real progress in my ability to communicate.

And besides: videos!

So here's hoping I can make that happen. Keep me honest! If you don't see one of these videos soon, please bug me about it. I want to be a better communicator.

Clarity

In which I establish a new blog post guideline for improving expositional clarity.

Recently I read a very good but lengthy article in which the thrust of the argument was made in the last half. That meant that the reader would have to be very interested in the argument's background information in order to justify reading all the way through to the end, where the main point would be found.

Honestly, I browsed the article, missed the point, and then later realized I had to re-read the article more carefully, and in its entirety in order to understand.

This made me wonder how many times I've done something similar in my blog posts. Since I often refer to my own posts later on, I realized that in some cases I might have to read all the way through to determine whether the post contained the information I wanted to convey. That's inefficient.

So as of today, I'm going make an effort to solve that problem. I'll write my blog posts as usual, then add a blurb at the top, in italics, to summarize what the post is about.

No, I Am Not Starting A New Blog

The rumors are false. And also non-existent. But that's my answer, and I'm sticking to it.

Every "successful" blogger of which I am aware has practiced a technique that is common-internet-knowledge for reaching a large readership. They start a blog, learn the ropes, then close shop and start a brand new blog with a narrower focus. I don't know why this works, but it does. Everyone does it.

I could have (should have?) done this years ago, and I'd probably be a much more successful blogger, if success is based on how many people read my blog. It's not that I'm lazy and it's not that I just never got around to doing it. It's also not because I'm not internet-savvy. (I know it's hard to believe when you look at the design and layout of the blog, but...)

I have my reasons.

One reason is because I don't really need a large readership. The way I see it, if I were writing things that were important to other people, they would read them. Occasionally "bloggers of note" have linked to my blog. Occasionally famous musicians have. Occasionally people I respect beyond all respect have done so. I'm flattered. Whenever it happens, my blog experiences a surge in traffic that eventually dies down. This suggests to me that only a very few of my blog posts are interesting to the public at large. I like writing those posts, but they're not the only kind of posts I like writing. The most important posts to me are probably irrelevant to almost everyone else.

That's okay. Stardom is not appropriate for all people. I'm happy if you like my blog, but I'm not writing to optimize my MAX(readers) function.

Another reason I don't start a newer and better blog is because I believe there is a conflict of interest between popularity and truth. The minute I decide to be a more popular person is the minute I decide to craft posts with something other than my honest, authentic thoughts in mind. To be sure, not every thought belongs out in public, and there is such a thing as being authentic to a fault. I try to do enough self-censure to avoid saying anything I wouldn't say in a room crowded with people I love and respect. It doesn't always work out that way, but I'd rather err on the side of authenticity and later own up to my mistakes than err on the side of promoting a false image of myself as an incredibly interesting and popular person. That just ain't me.

Finally, and most importantly, the reason I don't start a new blog is because it would sever the continuity between my past thoughts and my current thoughts. Ultimately, at the end of the day, this blog is a record of who I was and what I thought - and believed, and valued, and held dear - that my daughter can read and try to understand, should she ever want to. I may not always be there to explain things to her. Maybe I will be there, and I might try, but I might fail. She may reach an age when she decides she just doesn't get me, and I can say, "Well, sweetheart, start here. This is the best way I remember ever trying to say this."

I want all that information in one place. I want people (such as my daughter) to know that it all came from the same person. I want my mistakes to be easily located, and the evolution of my thoughts to be as clear as they could be. I want to maintain the conceptual continuity between disparate blog topics like running and economics and music. I have often written things that I didn't even realize were important until, in the context of a conversation two years later, I realize that I wrote something relevant, and I can say, "Hey, I wrote something about this - check it out."

In short, I want to leave a paper trail. It wouldn't be intellectually honest to interrupt my train of thought with the advent of a new blog and a new brand. I don't have the world's strongest brand, but I do have a brand that is appropriate to who I am and what I want out of blogging.

I am a nobody, and my thoughts are those of a nobody. There are millions of people out there whose thoughts are as irrelevant to you, and to "the world," as mine. Some of those people live in foreign lands about which you may have some preconceived notions. Some of those people might live next door to you, and you had no idea they thought those things. If you have something in common with me, you might have something in common with that person you hardly noticed before. Maybe it's a potential legendary romance for you, or maybe it's something that could alter your political or religious or philosophical perspectives if you actually had a long conversation with that person.

That kind of idea is interesting to me, and I think if it were more widely appreciated, the world would be a better place. We can make the world a better place by being better people. That's what it's all about. Better people, though, not different people. I'm not starting a new blog.

Alive And Kicking

Boy, oh boy, do I have a lot to blog about. I can't get to it all right now, unfortunately, but my thoughts are absolutely on fire and I think it's safe to say that my readers can expect this to be an active week for the blog.

Let's make this a great 2016, everybody.

We Can Make The World A Better Place By Being Better People

The clouds are either coming in or dispersing. Which way do you see it?

Not long ago I added a motto to a few of my social network profiles: We can make the world a better place by being better people. It's not a very eloquent way to put it, but it's the best way I could think to articulate what I see as the core purpose of human life. It's my creed.

I've now put it in the banner of the blog.

In the end, it's all up to us, win, lose, or draw. In any situation, you have a choice: do something that improves the circumstances, or do something that does not improve the circumstances. My challenge to myself - and, if I'm lucky, my readers - is to start living life that way. We really can make the world a better place by being better people.

What do I mean when I say "better?" The first question any pessimist chimes in with is "Oh yeah? Better by whose standards? Who gets to say what's better and worse?" From there, the typical outcome is a slow descent into the maelstrom of moral nihilism. It's not that those asking the question are themselves moral nihilists, it's just that their whole point in asking the question is to defeat any attempt at becoming a better person.

It's a psychological defense mechanism, and it's totally transparent. Rather than taking the time to personally assess their own potential for growth and improvement - real growth and real improvement - they quickly defeat the whole notion of improvement using that tired old canard: "It's all subjective!" Okay, then improve yourself subjectively - but improve yourself.

Please, I beg you, rather than wringing your hands over the impossibility of arriving at a unanimous standard for being a better person, use your common sense. 

If you see someone who needs help, be it someone stranded on the roadside with a flat tire or someone with their arms full trying to open the front door, you already know that you can either be helpful or not. By any reasonable standard of "being a better person," which course of action do you think makes you a better person - the helpful option, or the unhelpful option? When someone asks a favor of you, you already know that you can either grant them that favor or turn them down. Which do you think makes you a better person? When someone says or does something to you that you find offensive, you already know that you can move on with things, hold your head high, and be the kind of person who doesn't get invited into anger, or you can be the kind of person who - always and everywhere - gives as good as she gets. Which do you think makes you a better person?

You can take it easy at work and slide by, or you can accomplish something. You can get some exercise in today, or you can slack off. You can eat a healthy meal, or you can subsist on french fries. You can find something to donate to charity, or you can just forget about it. You can pay someone a kind word, or you can keep it to yourself. You can call your mother or you can play Candy Crush Saga. You can stash the empty shopping cart next to the adjacent car, or you can take the thirty seconds required to push it into the holding area. You can play an extra game of peek-a-boo with your daughter, or you can brush her aside and tell her to play by herself. 

What will you do?

You know? This doesn't take a stroke of genius. Everyone knows what it means to be a better person. Everyone knows it's easier to just not bother.

But maybe you've noticed that the world isn't getting any more pleasant these days. You don't have any control over what other people do, and you have hardly any control at all over the world's political climate and systems. What you can control is your own actions, your own ability and propensity to be a better person. 

I'd like you to join me in taking up the challenge. Will you do it? 

We can make the world a better place by being better people.

Heads Up

Library at Melk Abbey, Austria (photo courtesy Wikipedia.org)

I have no idea whether or not I'll be able to actually follow through with this initiative, but I thought I'd put it out there on my blog anyway.

I would like to write reviews for every music album and book I own, as well as reviews for every movie I've ever seen.

Realistically, it's unlikely that I'll be able to cover them all. I own hours upon hours of music, I have read more books than I even remember reading, and I watch old and new movies all the time. Still, I think adding reviews of all these things will potentially improve the content value of the blog, and of course keeping track of what I've seen, read, and heard is of great personal value to me.

But, anyway, I wanted to put a brief note out there about it so you don't wonder what the heck is going on when all these reviews of very old CDs, movies, and books pop up on the blog.

Sub-Sonic Charmer

Because it is relevant to the ancient history of Stationary Waves, I am compelled to point out that Sonic Charmer AKA The Crimson Reach AKA etc., etc. appears to have stopped blogging. I haven't been following his blog closely for at least a couple of years, but I had noticed that he was adding new posts as recently as five weeks ago. If anyone is aware of the story here, please feel free to leave a comment.

In the meantime, the search function provides a trip down memory lane...

Google Fit + Strava Update

Contrary to what I reported the other day, the coordination between Stava and Google Fit does not quite work the way I expected. The way it actually works is that if you use Strava to log your runs then the Strava app will pass that data into Google Fit. If you don't use the Strava app while running, then the push to Google Fit never occurs.

I use a Garmin Forerunner to map my runs. This data gets pushed from Garmin Connect to Strava, but Strava does not push this received data into Google Fit.

So using Strava as a middle man confers no special benefit in terms of coordinating with Google Fit. Strava does seem like a great app otherwise, but unfortunately for them, my needs in that regard are already being met by the Garmin watch and app.

I've removed the Strava widget from my blog, the Strava app from my phone, and will be shutting down my Strava account. Please don't consider this a mark against Strava; I think it's the best free run-tracker app I've come across yet. It just wasn't right for me, personally.

Garmin Connect and Google Fit

Ooo, look, it's a new blog feature! Notice: at the right-hand side of my blog there now exists a Strava widget! This new widget reports some generic running data accumulated from my recent training. Now you can keep me honest.

If you're like me, you've been searching for a way to get Garmin Connect - Garmin's personal health data interface - with Google Fit, which is Google's entry into the same world. Also, if you're like the me of yesterday, you haven't yet found a way to do that. But, lucky you, the me of today has got some great news: I figured out a way to get all these applications to communicate with each other, at least until they formally amalgamate in Google's or Apple's or Facebook's quest to own all personal data from all human beings.

Why Would You Want To Do This?

Well, you might not want to, especially if you are especially concerned about data privacy. To be honest, though, the potential benefits to people like myself, who are both data-geeks and health geeks, are enormous. Diabetes is, after all, largely a data management game. If you can manage your calories, and your macronutrient balance, and your fitness activity, and your sleeping patterns, and your stress levels, etc., etc., etc., then you can manage your blood sugar effectively. It's all a data game: adjust your bio-markers and profit.

Personally, I've found this useful in the non-health sphere as well. My Nexus phone, for example, has the ability to detect traffic jams long before I ever hit them - and automatically re-route me on the way to work, home, or wherever else I happen to be. It sends me bill reminders, weather notifications for where I'll be, and so on.

Simply put, it does a lot of menial thinking for me, that I don't necessarily need to do myself. This, in turn, frees my mind up for more complicated thoughts, such as how I might want to invest, or whatever music I happen to be writing. Or whatever.

More practically, it is exhausting to try to log every piece of health data on a hundred different health apps. Wouldn't it be great to log something once, in one place, and have that data filter through to every other application that requires it?

Problem: Garmin and Google Aren't On Speaking Terms - Yet.

I use MyFitnessPal for calorie tracking, and Garmin Connect for everything else. When I noticed the Google Fit app on my Nexus, I thought it might be a good central location for all this data activity. I cannot confirm that it is, because I haven't had a chance to really use it yet. Why not? Because, although MyFitnessPal and Garmin Connect talk to each other easily, neither one can sync with Google Fit.

So one solution would be to just grin and bear it, hoping that some day, all these apps decide to talk to each other.

Another solution is to find a work-around. I'm a business analyst by trade (well... along with a bunch of other stuff...), so finding work-arounds comes natural to me.

Solution: Another 3rd-Party App!

Okay, I didn't say it was a particularly elegant solution, did I?

The way I've managed to accomplish a "full sync" of data is by adding a new app to my arsenal: Strava. Strava works more or less the same way as RunKeeper, or MapMyRun, or indeed even Garmin Connect. It tracks your running and cycling activity (using your phone's GPS info, for example) and reports it in a handy graphical interface, along with some meaningless bells and whistles such as "award" and "achievements" and so on.

Strava's primary advantage is that it has the power to communicate with Garmin Connect, MyFitnessPal, and Google Fit. That makes it something of a "Rosetta stone" for all my fitness data. Hooray for me.

So, the steps for achieving this are as follows:

1. Add the Garmin Connect, MyFitnessPal, and Strava apps to your Android phone.
2. In the "Settings" of your Strava app, connect it to both MyFitnessPal and Google Fit (they will show up automatically in your settings menu).
3. Using a web browser, log-in to your Strava account and click on the plus sign at the top-right, on the option that says "Upload Activity."
4. On that page, you should see a link to Garmin with a box that says "Get Started." Click "Get Started" and follow the instructions. You will be taken to a Garmin pop-up that will authorize the sync to and from Strava.
5. That's it, you're done!

Conclusion

Time will see how this pans out for me. I might not like Google Fit. I might not like Strava. I might not like having all my data synced up. This is just an experiment. Ryan self-experiments so that his readers don't have to, that sort of thing. I'll keep you all (all two of you?) updated on how this goes. So far, so good...

Suspicious Activity

Overnight I received some 1000 hits from Venezuela.

I welcome my genuine Venezuelan readers, but this activity is suspicious.

Previously, I have had suspicious activity from China, Russia, Israel, and Indonesia.

When I say the activity is "suspicious," what I mean is that my blog gets a big boost in hits, but not to any post in particular. That is, lots of "people" suddenly "reading" the blog, but they do not appear to be interested in any particular post.

I assume these are either adbot/spam algorithms or some sort of hack-type-thing. But who knows?

My Gain Is Your Gain

As you may have noticed, I've been quiet lately. I've been hard at work, learning new things. As I transition myself (and therefore my blog) toward a new philosophy - the philosophy of not speaking for the sake of speaking, of only speaking when I have something useful to add - so my blog will also make this transition.

That sounds like bad news, but it's actually good news. It means I should ideally end up having better blog content.

Look for me to start sharing my new knowledge soon.

Hello, My Israeli Readers

My blog stats indicate that I received over 1,000 hits from Israel yesterday, mostly from readers running Windows operating systems and browsing via Google Chrome.

Stationary Waves does not often receive that kind of web traffic, and especially not from Israel. Occasionally, some of my album reviews get "tweeted" by the artists I review, resulting in a few hundred extra cite visits. My product reviews of my Chinese-manufactured track bike, the Windsor Clockwork, have remained popular among my Chinese audience ever since I wrote them.

But never have I received 1,000 hits all at once, over the span of an hour. And never from Israel.

Oddly enough, they do not seem to have been drawn to any one, particular blog post. It seems to have been 1,000 hits of random, curious web traffic.

Hello, Israeli readers. Please leave a comment and introduce yourselves. I'd love to get to know you better.

How To Make Stuffed Peppers

My way, anyway:

I Wrote It Down For A Reason

All that talk about "rhetorical nuke buttons" last month was unnecessary. Years earlier, I had already developed the concept. I know this because it happens to appear on that anachronistic blog feature that sticks out like a sore thumb, the Lexicon.

Before I wrote about nuke buttons, I wrote about contrapostive influence. We could call it the tendency to jump the shark in the exact moment you win the argument. It's bad.

Every so often I get the idea in my head that I will delete the Lexicon. I don't really want to add it anymore because I have moved away from the idea of the all-encompassing philosophy that I used to joke about with my friends. Paradigms are useful when you first start to learn about something, but after a certain point they become restrictive.

More on that in a future post. For now, what I want to say is that one of the things that forces me to retain the Lexicon is the fact that every time I review it, I rediscover an old name for a recent concept. As the preceding paragraph implies, this is limiting from a paradigmatic perspective, but it is useful self-meta-analysis.

Doesn't it imply something, the fact that I created two names for the same basic idea just one year apart, and didn't even realize it?

Blog-tharsis

So far, 2014 has been the year of making changes to my blog. Further to last night's post on rhetorical nukes, I am thinking it is time to make some more changes around here regarding how I choose to blog and what I choose to blog about.

As always, I'd like to ensure that this blog remains a source of exposition about running, fitness, and music. I'd like to keep providing information and perspectives on diabetes, and discussing economics as it comes up. 

What I'd like to avoid, however, is excessive opining. If you've been a long-time reader, then you can already predict with certainty that I will be giving plenty of opinions in the future, as I always have. Let's face it, I'm an opinionated guy.

But when I read through my blogroll these days, I find myself completely skipping over the blogs written by people who write some snarky opinion about current events. I have my own opinion on current events. It's nice to know what people are thinking, but after you have a good sense of what various opinions are floating around out there, it doesn't do anyone any good to keep hearing them. In the end, who cares? If there is more information to be learned, then that's always good - information can change the opinion of an honest truth-seeker. But if there isn't any new information being provided, only a new, super-witty, super-snarky way of describing a particular opinion, then why bother? I would rather apply my time doing more productive things.

And since I'm not particularly interested in reading those blogs, I should do the decent thing and prevent myself from ever becoming one of those blogs.

So, while this is by no means an end to the opining altogether, it probably is an end to deep discussions and back-and-forth on Issues X, or Y, or even Z. I'll provide an opinion when I encounter new information, or when I'd like to highlight some concept that I feel has been partially ignored.

But as for a daily send-up of my strong opinions... meh. Who wants to read that?

The Trick Is Moving

It's been said that the best way to wake up in the morning is to get some light shining on your face. It's sort of a trick of human evolution, we're hard-wired to be awake when light is shining on us, and asleep when it's dark. So they say that if you have trouble getting up, you should turn the lights on immediately.

There is an analogous trick I've noticed when it comes to getting up early for a morning workout. Sure, the lights help, so go ahead and turn on the lights. But on top of that, it's always the first batch of movement that proves the most challenging.

If you decide to get up and do some push-ups, for example, it's always the first few reps that are the most difficult. After they're over, something happens: your body switches over into active mode, and you hardly notice that you were moving sluggishly before. By the time you're finished with your first set and stand up to take a rest between sets, it's like you weren't even asleep just five minutes ago. Amazing.

You've almost certainly noticed this with anything. The most difficult part of doing something you're dreading is getting started on it. After that, it becomes a lot easier to focus on what you're doing. Even when I get occasional bouts of stage fright, they tend to disappear after the first note. Something about just moving, or just taking that initial step, does most of the motivational heavy lifting.

If you're having trouble getting up for a morning workout, or getting started on a big project, or running despite the stormy weather outside, try to overcome your initial reaction. After that, things get much easier.

Housekeeping: I'm adding a "Motivation" label, since it comes up frequently.

Contact Stationary Waves

As you may have noticed, there is now a contact widget on the right-hand side panel of this website. You can use this widget to get in touch with me for any reason:

• Maybe you'd like to leave a comment, but do not wish to do so publicly or via Google+ connectivity.
• Perhaps you'd like to initiate a more in-depth conversation the likes of which prove difficult in the typical comments-thread configuration.
• You might want to suggest a topic for a future post, or ask me how I feel about something specific.

I don't want to encourage solicitations, and I reserve the right to refuse any. But I am more than happy to discuss serious inquiries along the following lines:

• Will I write a press article, research article, or blog post for you? (Typically yes, subject to my personal integrity.)
• Will I design a workout plan for you and/or provide coaching via correspondence? (Typically yes, for free.)
• Will I provide consulting analysis or similar professional services? (Case-dependent, for a fee.)
• Am I available for music composition, recording sessions, or live performances? (Typically yes, so long as I am credited; there may be a fee, depending on the circumstance.)
• Will I give you the inside scoop on specific people I know? (Typically no.)
• Will I advertise for you? (Almost certainly not, but I'd be happy to review your book, movie, or music free of charge.)

And so forth. Please make liberal use of the new-and-fabulous contact widget.

Shamey

I think I have found a new hobby horse in complaining about the juvenile, shrill, passive-aggressive, mildly effeminate language deployed by modern "progressives" against their opponents.

The kind of language to which I refer is typically spoken as though it were a bored response to a tired trope, but it always belies a level of irritation that goes far beyond what the literal translation of it would have you believe. That is, the speaker wants to sound unfazed, bored, condescending, almost sleepy, but instead ends up sounding extremely vexed. Before I venture any further here, I should provide some examples.

Examples
In a recent comment on Stephen Williamson's blog, Noah Smith writes:

In any case, we should not be dismissive of what Prescott is saying. [Ed: Smith is quoting Williamson here.] 

I think, actually, we kind of should.

"Actually, we kind of should." This is a perfect illustration of what I'm talking about (and Williamson offers the perfect response), but I'm not content to leave it at that. Let's take a look at additional examples.

Writing in response to a passage in this book (I am not endorsing the book, please note), an email correspondent of mine says:

I don't agree with any of this and find that it somewhat feels like it's justifying behavior that is violent, mean, and rapey.

Here the offending word is "rapey." There is absolutely nothing cute about rape, but adding "eee" to the end of it makes the description vaguely insulting and highly childlike. Like "meanie."

A similar phrase - one that you'll often read on Slate or Jezebel is "That is not okay." And typically the last two words are emphasized: "...not...o-KAY!" It's the kind of thing you'd expect a mother to say to a toddler. "We do not hit people. That is not... o-KAY!" Compare this to a far more disciplinary phrase like, "If you continue to hit your playmates, I will take away your toys and make you sit in the corner."

Saying that something is "not okay" is a far more effeminate, passive-aggressive way of disciplining a child. It assumes the role of a parent is to instruct a child as to what is "okay" and what is "not okay." It's Orwellian; we can draw close parallels to "good" and "un-good." As if a child's life is governed by what is understood to be "okay!" Children respond to incentives and consequences - just like the rest of us - not social conformism. But I digress.

Anyway, speaking of Slate, Amanda Marcotte writes, "All jokes aside, Hannity's boo-boo here was the result of a larger lie..." Boo-boo; infantile language; we can contrast it to the words gaffe or mistake. Understand, there is a reason Marcotte says that Sean Hannity made a "boo-boo," and the reason is to infantilize him and dismiss his position. But if what Hannity says is erroneous to the point of being childish (and believe me, I have no reason to believe that Sean Hannity has ever said anything worth defending at Stationary Waves), why would Marcotte write in the same article that "Sean Hannity found himself getting aggressive with a woman who called into his show"? Women accuse men of being aggressive toward women when they want to shame the men in question. And, however much Hannity may deserve to be shamed for the things he says - and whatever it is you may personally believe about any related issue - shaming is not an activity reserved for people about whom we feel blase.

...unless, of course, our passive-aggressive attitude and language belies a heightened level of shrill indignation.

The Point
Through it all, it is important to keep one thing in mind at all times: Those who rely on this kind of "shamey" language (get it? I'm doing it to them now...) are not actually responding with sound arguments. Consider each of the examples above.

First, Noah Smith argues that "we kind of should" dismiss a claim by Ed Prescott, but offers no substance with his comment. Williamson rightly calls this kind of comment "blather" and advises Smith to write about what he knows. Without argumentative substance, it's all just kind of "shamey," isn't it?

Second, my email correspondent could not credibly accuse the author of a 19th century book on gender relations of the crime of rape, so instead the correspondent simply accused him of being "rapey," i.e. offering an argument that resembles rape in some unspecified way. Rape is, of course, a terrible and inexcusable crime of hatred. What is "rapey?" It is something that the correspondent wishes to attach a similar level of shame, but without any sort of fact or reasoning to merit the claim. "Rapey" is "shamey."

Third, as discussed above, attaching negative consequences to unacceptable childhood behavior is called discipline. It is concrete, specific, and enforceable. But simply declaring something to be "not okay" and frowning furtively at a child (or an adult, please note) is synonymous with the act of declaring an action to be socially frowned-upon. The point is that those children (or adults) who engage in that behavior should be ashamed of themselves. It's shamey. But there isn't any specific reason why people who say "not okay" are saying what they're saying. The best you'll ever get from them is "we don't do that." It's an act of shaming someone by attaching social unanimity to whatever the speaker has deemed to be "not okay."

(More on this in a forthcoming post about use of the word "we," by the way.)

Finally, Marcotte's shaming of Sean Hannity for being "aggressive" (toward "women") and making a "boo-boo" is one last example of an argument made without facts. We are simply told to accept that Hannity is aggressive; we are simply told that his mistake is a juvenile one (because it is a "boo-boo," not an error).

And what was Hannity's error? It was the suggestion that women who care passionately about access to birth control ought to form a private charity to supply it for the less fortunate, rather than demand a government mandate and pass the cost around to every American taxpayer, regardless of whether he or she philosophically agrees with the mandate. That's not an error, it's an opinion.

Marcotte, by the way, goes on to say that such a private charity is exactly the same thing as both health insurance and ObamaCare, a claim I have endeavored to shame a bit myself (see "Error #8 in this response to David Simon's having said something similar).

Conclusion
Being "shamey" is not the same thing as being correct; but above all, being "shamey" is actually the exact opposite of having the better argument. Each and every case of a person's being "shamey" is an example of their having no concrete defense for his or her position. Of course, not being able to offer a good argument doesn't mean that one is wrong, it just means that one cannot legitimately claim to be more right than those who one is shaming. "Shameyness" is not merely a bad way to respond to an argument, it is not a rhetorical response at all. It is nothing more than immature, effeminate passive-aggression bereft of facts or reasoning.

So, rather than attempting to shame those who disagree with you, why not respond with facts and reasoning? You'll end up looking a lot less ridiculous.

I plan on following up on this issue when I notice particularly egregious examples. Thus, I've created a new label, "Shamey," by which to track the matter on Stationary Waves. For now, I wanted to introduce the issue, especially since it provides a good set of background information for a forthcoming post about use of the word "we."