John seems to think that not paying attention to the comments here is some kind of badge of honor. It's actually disrespectful to those who listen to or read the posts and take the time to share their thoughts.
I disagree .. he and Glenn give us the topic and discuss ..As the audience we can discuss further thru comments and I enjoy reading the comments. I doubt either of them want to get on here and explain themselves further. Who has time for that. Glenn stated he reads the comments to make sure they are civil, very rarely does he comment back. Seems to me the question and answer session they do once a month is the place they elaborate.
I don't think it's disrespectful of John not to read the comments, though I am disappointed that he doesn't. Maybe he simply doesn't have time or maybe he doesn't want to be sucked into fruitless arguments.
John has previously talked about not engaging with comments on Twitter or his NYT column either. It's nothing personal. It has everything to do with a keeping a level head, and considering how prolific he is, I don't see how he would have the time anyway.
Some accuse John of arrogance on occasion. I would rather praise him for it.
I've read a number of intimate accounts of online writers in which they describe what it's like to read online comments. All described it as being jarring, often threatening, and more of a blight on their lives than a source of illumination.
Undoubtedly, people regularly drop valuables down the drains in their sinks. But that won't make it rewarding to go prospecting in the sewers.
I think John is showing some satisfaction in his decision to avoid drinking from the toxic firehose that is called "online discussion." That you describe that very reasonable choice as "disrespectful" reveals a lack of empathy for the downside of being an online personality. It's not all love and insight around here. (And it almost invariably includes death threats.)
In my opinion, John McWhorter carries on in a consistently respectful fashion. Your own remarks are often well-crafted and insightful. This one struck me as inapposite and even disappointing (which reflects my generally positive regard for your comments).
I don't know what Twitter or Facebook or TikTok is like. I don't participate. I understand it to be the cesspool that you describe. Personally I've never seen a death threat or anything remotely resembling one in a substack comment.
Maybe I'm old fashioned but when substack authors specifically say "we would like to hear what you think" I take them at face value. John's comments make one feel like a sucker.
John seems to think that not paying attention to the comments here is some kind of badge of honor. It's actually disrespectful to those who listen to or read the posts and take the time to share their thoughts.
I disagree .. he and Glenn give us the topic and discuss ..As the audience we can discuss further thru comments and I enjoy reading the comments. I doubt either of them want to get on here and explain themselves further. Who has time for that. Glenn stated he reads the comments to make sure they are civil, very rarely does he comment back. Seems to me the question and answer session they do once a month is the place they elaborate.
I don't think it's disrespectful of John not to read the comments, though I am disappointed that he doesn't. Maybe he simply doesn't have time or maybe he doesn't want to be sucked into fruitless arguments.
Disrespectful? To not read people's comments when/where they choose to write them?
John has a duty to do that, does he?
Says Mark Silbert, keeper of some kind of list miscellaneous obligations, shibboleths, and insufficiently heard commenters?
And to think that, even after these very remarks, John may be ignorant of this. Where does he get off like that?
John? John?
:-)
Frankly I couldn't care less if John looks at the comments or not. It's the arrogance of bragging about it that bugs me.
As for BWhatt, you might try occasionally adding some value as opposed to slinging personal insults.
John has previously talked about not engaging with comments on Twitter or his NYT column either. It's nothing personal. It has everything to do with a keeping a level head, and considering how prolific he is, I don't see how he would have the time anyway.
Some accuse John of arrogance on occasion. I would rather praise him for it.
I've read a number of intimate accounts of online writers in which they describe what it's like to read online comments. All described it as being jarring, often threatening, and more of a blight on their lives than a source of illumination.
Undoubtedly, people regularly drop valuables down the drains in their sinks. But that won't make it rewarding to go prospecting in the sewers.
I think John is showing some satisfaction in his decision to avoid drinking from the toxic firehose that is called "online discussion." That you describe that very reasonable choice as "disrespectful" reveals a lack of empathy for the downside of being an online personality. It's not all love and insight around here. (And it almost invariably includes death threats.)
In my opinion, John McWhorter carries on in a consistently respectful fashion. Your own remarks are often well-crafted and insightful. This one struck me as inapposite and even disappointing (which reflects my generally positive regard for your comments).
I appreciate your explanation.
I don't know what Twitter or Facebook or TikTok is like. I don't participate. I understand it to be the cesspool that you describe. Personally I've never seen a death threat or anything remotely resembling one in a substack comment.
Maybe I'm old fashioned but when substack authors specifically say "we would like to hear what you think" I take them at face value. John's comments make one feel like a sucker.