Bryan Strawster, who stands on the other side of Joan in this debate in Minnesota, has had “more than one hundred and thirty comments that I have submitted to Joan’s blog that have never been posted,” and indicates he’s willing to have a talk anytime in a fair an open forum. Weer’d Beard says much the same, and notes Joan’s response to my post:
Nope. There will be no discussion on that blog which regularly demeans me and calls me names. We will have the “discussion” on my blog if you want.
So disagreeing with Joan is equivalent to “demeans me and calls me names?” I’m pretty sure most people who have read me for a while know I am accepting and even welcome dissenting opinion. I might turn on the snark sometimes, but I’d like to think were all adults here.
In fact, Joan seems to have done an entire post in response to my original piece, which confirms she’s more desiring to speak at us than speak with us:
But the “gun guys” missed my point, as is often the case. I am always amazed that these folks pick out several of the smaller details about which to quibble but ignore the main point- the victims of the shootings.
No, we didn’t miss your point. Your post’s title said “We need to talk,” and implied that there wasn’t somehow a conversation already going on. So do you want to talk or don’t you?
So when the “gun guys” on my blog want me to come to their sites to have a “discussion” while calling me names and demeaning me on their sites, it’s really not too possible to have a “discussion” with them.
And we are supposed to ignore the regular demanding of us on her site? I could just as easily take offense to the things she says daily about the “law abiding gun owners,” and trying to paint us all as “fearful and paranoid” nut cases just a hair’s breath away from murdering loved ones or shooting up a coffee shop. But I understand spin, and the fact that both sides, in any public debate, engage in it.
When Joan says “I guess I struck a nerve,” that nerve is pretending to want a conversation when clearly she does not. What she wants is an echo chamber, and she’s welcome to it. She’s pretending to want a conversation but intent on allowing nothing of the sort. That is what some may classify as “disingenuous,” and perhaps even “hypocritical.” Maybe that’s the kind of “calling me names” or “demeaning me” Joan is speaking about here, but there’s an old saying that if the shoe fits ….
26 Responses to “The Continuing Saga of “We Have to Talk””
- It is impossible for Joan Peterson of Protect Minnesota to tell the truth on gun control | Bryan Strawser - [...] at Shall Not be Questioned – Post 1 and Post 2 and at Weer’d [...]