Monday, 1 August 2011

In depth

Not saying this isn't a good post in some ways, but I found it too snaggy, mentally speaking to be able to support it wholeheartedly, it's as much about interpretation as much as simple outright disagreement.

I find this a lot when it comes to FA, when it comes to blogging, I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that its too crude a format for the job that needs to be done re fat acceptance. There isn't the trust or respect that we see endlessly for those thought to have more 'kudos'.

The extent to which we cannot maintain a disagreeing interaction is unprecedented amongst such a thoughtful group of people. In fact, it's down right odd, I can't think of a comparable example off hand.

To discuss our nuances of disagreement we need a forum specifically for that purpose. I know we have some already, but they don't to my knowledge have the same focus. We need one to go through and discuss all received ideas and those of FA with as open a mind as possible, to test them and see if they hold up.

FA is perhaps too unwieldy to be one thing. If people get together with the specific purpose to generally go through ideas then maybe we can shake the dust of some of the more banal/suspect ones.


  1. How do we set up a forum for the purpose of civil disagreement? Who would be qualified to run it? For if it is unmoderated, it will be swamped by trolls. Even if it is moderated, I foresee endless discussions of what is allowed and what isn't. And what is to discuss beyond agreeing to disagree?

  2. I suppose its a case of whoevere puts it together and offers it up, is the one!

    My problem is access and technical proficiency, it would probably be better off being a group effort. I would be happy to be involved on a part time basis.

    Its necessity is that a lot of people think assumptions that come from their background are shared by everyone else, when they aren't. We need a genuine critical eye to go through all our assumptions because no one can think of everything all the time.

    Even agreeing to disagree, which would be inevitable, would stimulate us and make FA more interesting and cogent.

    It would challenge us intellectually as FA is not as robust as it could be because we effectively have no real challenge to what we actually think, just the stench of a whole lot of burning straw.