Wilson Responds...sortof

What I think is that I don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys what Doug Wilson thinks about technology or the effects it has upon human interaction. It's just another example of someone who's found themselves a nitche in which they can command an audience attempting to extend their pervue beyond that nitche.

Doug Wilson probably has some useful things to say regarding education and the family. I've read with intense amusement his dismantleing of modern evangelicalism. But online culture? Gimme a break. I'm barely willing to grant him the credentials to be a commentator on his main topics: he's spent far more time on rhetoric than on seriously engaging the historical discussions of even his core issues. He does not deal seriously with the body of material required for engaging in serious discussion of any topic. I am in no way willing to admit that he has the first clue about the nature of online culture and the effects it has/doesn't have on society. He hasn't spent the time, read the material (though he probably hasn't done that on anything else either), and certainly doesn't have an interest in what happens online.

Blogging may be the "next big thing". It may be a passing fad. It may be a bunch of self-important, socially-challenged weirdos writing for their own amusement. But I'm in a far better position to say which than he'll ever be, because I've been active in online culture for the past seven years. As far as I can tell, Doug Wilson isn't active in any culture besides the one he's created for himself in Idaho, and he certainly isn't active in my culture. Why should I or anyone else listen to what he has to say about blogging?

That's one of the most interesting critiques of his statements that I've heard yet.

Ummm ... actually, thats not true. This was an entirely online debate Wilson had with an atheist back in 1999. Thus he's at least been active in some forms of online culture for the last four years.

The veracity of Ryan's arguments aside, I think an online debate doesn't constitute the type of culture that Ryan is talking about here.

Maphet, as a geek, you should know that. I think Ryan is talking about blogging, programming, forums, message boards, reading slashdot & zeldman, sci-fi, cyberpunk, and spending half your life or more "wired." (and what I mean by that is not "time online" but in terms of when you first came into contact with computers, which for me was when I was 5).

No, maphet, that isn't an example of online culture. That's an example of taking a debate structure which exists entirely independently of the Internet and simply publishing it online instead of elsewhere. Debates, especially structured debates like the one you linked to, can be had anywhere you want to. Blogging can't be done without the Internet. There's a difference in kind.

You want online culture, you need to start talking about Slashdot, Usenet, webcomics, Mindjack, emergent democracy, the merits of competing intellectual property theories, MMORPGs, and yes, blogging. These are things that cannot exist apart from the Internet. Debating with atheists is a tried and true passtime and not in any way linked to online culture.

As much as I generally dislike a lot of what Wilson has to say, I do think that he has a point. People do tend to forget everything that they've been taught to be acceptable in the real world when they go online. Just because it's online doesn't mean that you have license to be rude. When you get right down to it's essence, blogging, or e-mail, or anything else on the internet, is nothing more than a form of written communication. Yes, there are different standards for different forms of written communication, but there are still minimal standards for all forms of written communication, and those standards often get tossed out the window online. My guess, given the clarification from LucyZoe's blog, is that Wilson is reacting to the self-important bloggers who think that they are pretty hot stuff just because they have a blog and are participating in this new form of communication that not everybody else understands.

Clarification: I was responding to these two statements:
1) "I am in no way willing to admit that he has the first clue about the nature of online culture and the effects it has/doesn't have on society"
2) "[he] certainly doesn't have an interest in what happens online."

This is such a sweeping generalization, that I thought any evidence that Wilson has any historical connection to any form of online culture would disprove the statement.

I think the clarification needs to made concerning this DW conversation. There are at least two things under discussion:
1. DW's comment on blogging.
2. DW's writing in general.
Perhaps a third one could be added: DW as a pastor, but that's a little different from the first two because it doesn't have to do with his written word.
I think for the most part, people don't really give a rat's ass for what DW thinks about blogging. LucyZoe, who knows the guy, wasn't even offended as she clearly stated on her blog. Perhaps the more irascible comments are made concerning DW as writer. And I think discussions here and on LZ's blog would be greatly clarified if these issues were separated out from each other.

This is utterly out of left field, but I was watching Oprah today, well, I wasn't watching it, Faith & April were watching it outta curiosity since both their mom's like to watch it.

Turns out Oprah has her own publishing house, magazine, TV show (of course), and all sorts of seminars n' such for her fans/followers.

Then I realized: Doug Wilson is Oprah for the uber-Reformed. It's awesome!

Personally I could care less what Doug Wilson thinks about blogs. I'm not sure why so many people got their panties in a bunch. People blog for different reasons. Mr. Wilson made a blanket generalization that may be true in some cases, but not true for all cases. As was mentioned, Mr. Wilson himself has a blog-like section in Credenda. But maybe he just considers himself one of those "interesting or challenging" persons.

From my own point of view, I could care less if Doug Wilson does not see my blog as interesting or challenging. I don't blog for Doug Wilson, I blog for myself. I am a person that doesn't usually express myself, and my blog lets me do that more that I ever have before.

A quick comment on that "people are offended by the truth" quote. People are offended by lots of things. If on the way home from work today I pulled down my pants and showed the driver next to me my shiny white posterior and she gets offended, that doesn't mean my butt speaks truth. (Sorry if this argument is not philosophical enough for anyone).

Oh and on a side note. In regards to that LucyZoe chick's blog, people have a special place in hell when they disable the right mouse click function. Just needed to throw that in.

This is for LucyZoe:

I guess you blocked me (or other "visitors") from posting on your blog, and I couldn't figure out any other way to get ahold of you, but I figured you might check back here sooner or later.

Lucy I'm sorry if I offended you. I didn't mean to be a snarling dog or anything like that. I'll take the link to your site of my blog if you want. Just let me know. I'm sorry if you feal I was tearing Wilson apart or anything like that, I certainly didn't intend to, and I'm sorry if I did.

Josiah,
I just had a brilliant idea. Why don't you email Mr. Wilson and ask him to come over here and respond? Because, as some of us have admitted, the lack of personal interaction with him has tempered our own perceptions of him. It would be interesting to discuss with the man himself, rather than go on and on about what does or does not bother us about him.

Why are all of you folks so bent out of shape over this? Really, I don't get it, and I think I'm trying. Mr. Wilson made the statement that "This is occasionally interesting when an interesting or challenging person does it - but in many cases the only people who want to read the diaries are those who want to have their own diaries read." I think this is what everyone is upset over, that they might be the ones that are in the classification of "wanting to have their own diaries read". Well, what's untrue and offensive to ya'll about that? Just like talking to someone else, you talk to people that you are interested in. So Pastor Wilson isn't interested in everyone's blog...who is? Move on folks...and please, stop attacking a man that has been there and done that much longer than any of us.

I am amazed as I read through these threads concerning Wilson how much talk has been conducted over a relatively mildly controversial comment. I wish all posts had as much discussion. People seem to post stuff, and most of it just sits there. Maybe it IS the "diary" kind of stuff, but you can find worthwhile nuggets in most of everything posted. Don't people buy thousands of autobiographies each year? People's lives ARE interesting.

This is what I like about blogging. The chance to hear people's opinions, and the chance to get to know them through their words. It's something that he can't seem to relate to. Do any of us bloggers have a problem with blogging? No. It had to be an outsider who took a quick, accusatory glance who brought the ridicule. If he was part of a pompous midwestern preachers' blog tree, he might even like the technology more. Who knows? I don't even really have any contempt for him based on his statement. There is some truth to what he said. It was his dismissing arrogance that kind of turned me off. I hope he doesn't use that approach with the spiritually lost, too.

I don't expect anything great to come out of Idaho, anyway. Nothing except potatoes and Built To Spill, that is.

Jekyll and Hyde or, will the real DW please stand up?

The distinction has been made between DW in Person and DW in Print. Those who know DW in Person tend to be defenders and those who know him in Print tend to be critics.

Can one be said to be a more accurate revelation of the "real" DW?

How do y'all treat this kind of Jekyll and Hyde phenom? How are the two reconciled? Would you say those who know you in Person would not be surprised by how you come across in Print (and vice-versa)?

Bill (Crawford), since I've known DW the man for years - he's been my teacher, pastor, etc, and I'm deeply indebted to him - I sometimes find myself, at the same time, defending the man and criticizing his writing. Perhaps this is a futile exercise, but I don't think so. The two should be reconciled. But we're all sinners - even The Right Reverend Wilson.