For some years I’ve been a member of a discussion group that has seriously deteriorated over time. Examples abound, but here’s a question from a guy–one of his most literate examples–that illustrates my growing frustration with the discussion group (slightly redacted to make it at least understandable out of context):
“[Do you] believe in the history as taught in school or revisionist history?”
First, what history? The author uses the definite article with the construction, “the history” but does not designate the history of place or period. Absent such designation, it should read, still goofily, “believe in history as taught…”
Next, what school? Where? What level of schooling? I could go on with that point, but perhaps you get my drift, eh?
And “revisionist history” as the “or” option in an “either/or” proposition? WHAT revisionist history? Many, many many revisions of history occur throughout the course of examining events of the past. Some represent particular points of view. Which “revisionist history” does the author refer to? Revision of what exactly?
The question itself reveals a particular POV–that of an historical/literary illiterate pretending to knowledge he does not have.
Irritating.
And such interlocutors are coming to dominate the discussions. Between them and the folks who know quite well how to use Google and how to cut and paste and use such “skilz” as a substitute for knowledge and reasoning to make dishonest arguments of misdirection, hand-waving, burning of straw men, etc., I begin to think it’s time to move on and leave the space to Ortega’s Mass Man.
*sigh*
It’s also become a site that could really use direction to this post, among others around the web… *sigh*
For those who just don’t want to click through, here’s the entire content of the linked post:
Counting the number of times these words have been misused (and misspelled! Yes, even “less”!) on the discussion list would take more time and effort than it would be worth. You’d think folks would at least use a spell checker, wouldn’t you?