A recent commenter on a post here on Worldview claimed that I had “woefully mischaracterized” the ongoing debate over warrantless wiretapping at A Host of Contributing Factors, going so far as to claim his disappointment over that supposed mischaracterization.
While I grant that my original statement in question did not say exactly what I intended to say–yes, that is a mischaracterization, after a fashion–the inaccuracy was neither woeful nor malicious.
What is interesting to me, however, is that the mischaracterization of my own positions, both by the claim of facts where opinion reigns and by the selective editorial presentation of my own words, is ignored. A troubling aspect of this mischaracterization is that those mischaracterizing make high claims to objectivity on Contributing Factor that I think are defeated by their editorial choices here.
Specific to this aspect of mischaracterization is a flaw that I think has undermined the entire Contributing Factor debate and the comments made here, which I am just as guilty of as anyone is. Reasoned debate consists, by necessity, of statements made, questions asked, and responses delivered. What has happened here and at Contributing Factor is that the “debate” has taken the form of reaction to points of disagreement, real and perceived, that rarely seek information or clarification.
Therein lies the real woe and disappointment. I do now and have always sought agreement by reasoned debate and logical consensus. My characterization of the debate at Contributing Factors was inaccurate and unintentional, especially given the greater point of the post in question. I did not say what I meant to say in the way I meant to say it. My statement was not meant to cast aspersion, but to once again state that I seek what I have always sought.
Yet, no one bothered to ask what I meant when they believed I was mischaracterizing the debate at Contributing Factor. No one gave me the chance to clarify or correct. Instead, someone assumed what I meant and then mischaracterized my own positions and statements in a way they I never intended or stated them.
Worse, in my own opinion, is how my own response to defend my own positions against mischaracterization was itself assaulted, again by misrepresenting my own words. The result of this entire process is the failure of debate and the impossibility of the very consensus I seek to pursue.
Even with all of these things being true, two things remain: I take none of this personally and I intend to press forward. I also refuse to allow my statements to be misrepresented anywhere I write or to allow anyone to represent as fact their own opinions. Perhaps these last two things also serve to derail reasoned debate, but they are my conceits and I will not abandon them.
What remains, then, is for highly intelligent, informed people capable of deep reason to restrain themselves from reaction and constrain themselves to debate. This can only be done if two things become true: First, the confusion between opinion (conclusion) and fact has to end. Second, disagreement must take the form of debate not indictment. Without these changes, debate is not possible and woeful mischaracterization will go on.
