I'm disgusted by people who choose to slander the whole community by selecting two comments and drawing conclusions that don't wash - and who then run away.  Whatever the problem is, there's no need to take it out on the rest of us.  Heckle is as heckle does, myriad.

If all of us here haven't reached the magical level of enlightenment necessary to please Dove, I'm truly sorry.  And speaking of helpful, I don't believe Dove's broadbrush accusation is helpful in the slightest.  It is a fine example of elitism, itself.

As for "obviously hurting at some level", I didn't read that into this diary at all ["I am callous, heartless and unfeeling..."].  I guess I'm just another dumb insensitive merkin not to pick up on the hurting that you claim to read.  If I had sensed anything other than "derision and sarcasm" from the diary I would have posted something that you might think was more helpful to Dove.  

Disagreeing with "my perception of the world" is really not an issue here. In a political context, I have almost always agreed with Dove and have felt no need to differ.  I am as internationalist as it gets anywhere on the planet, and harbor no misbegotten illusions of nationalistic elitism.  However, I do object to  broad-brush attacks wherever and whenever I can.  This is not a political world-view, but a logical worldview.  If you differ with a logical world-view which says that broadbrush generalizations are hurtful, not helpful, then I can have that discussion with you.  If you differ with a psychological worldview that even though different people are at different levels of understanding about different issues they are still worth talking to, then I can have that discussion with you.  If someone states a broadbrush generalization and walks away, there is no discussion possible.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -Margaret Mead

It's good to see you about and I would very much like it if we could keep in touch. I'm actually ok - I write very slowly these days, so it's not as though I hadn't had a chance to think through what the range of reactions  was likely to be (if any). But in general, I do agree wholeheartedly with the idea that, by-and-large, people who find themselves writing such posts are usually doing so out of pain and that mockery is usually an inappropriate response.

Your second thought is the closer to the mark of the two, I think. Let me try and do a bit better at articulating why I'm leaving, since that was, after all, the point of writing this.

It seems to me that, collectively, this space is becoming more patriotic and that (again, collectively) the ways in which the Iraq war, the military and also Islam are being discussed are changing in ways that are aligned with that increase in patriotism.  In my post, I used the words `structure' and `structural' to try and convey this sense of something that is not merely `individual,' but on further reflection I think that `collectively' may be more accurate.

My desire to convey `something that is not individual' was also why I did not attribute the quotes I cited and why I tried to make plain that - although it seems to me that they marked salient moments - other statements could, and possibly should, have stood in their place. Certainly, they were not isolated and certainly they occurred within a context.

Here is a stab at what I do and don't mean by collective.
I do not  mean that individuals are not responsible for their speech and silences.
I do  not  mean that there is a general consensus among those who post here about patriotism and its desirability (or about any of the other subjects mentioned above for that matter)  - it is abundantly clear that there is no such consensus and that these are contested subjects.
I do mean that we are collectively responsible for the totality of what is said here. Not Booman. Not the site administrators. But all of us.

Now, the obvious rejoinder is something along the lines of: "Well dove, you've just said you don't think there's a consensus. Why don't you stay and do your bit by contesting these subjects then?"

And I would argue that contesting patriotism is what I have been doing - fairly calculatedly and deliberately - as best I can. (And yes, my post and this response are certainly calculated, in as much I tried to mean what I said and say what I meant and think through what the reaction to that was likely to be, revising as I thought appropriate).

So why leave? Why stop? Why fall silent here?

Albert O. Hirschman wrote a book some years back called Exit, Voice and Loyalty which I had occasion to read in circumstances that made it rather relevant. The book is much more interesting than the Wikipedia entry. Among other things (and here I'm writing from memory, so those who have a copy to hand or a better remembrance should feel free to jump in), Hirschman makes the argument that an interesting thing happens to those who dissent from an organisation or community, but never `exit.' If I remember rightly, he claims that over time, their dissent becomes `acceptable' - that is to say, it becomes a predictable thing that everybody expects, which has no potential to effect change. Indeed, such `acceptable dissent' can sometimes even be coopted and made useful by the organisation being dissented against:  for well-known examples of this, one might think of Colin Powell in the United States and possibly Claire Short in the United Kingdom.

I'm inclined to think that Hirschman is right. After doing quite a bit of rereading and thinking, I'm also inclined to think that the point has come (indeed, it probably came and went a while ago) where to remain would be to fall into that trap of acceptable dissent. Therefore I will not.

This being the last time I will write in this space, I thought I might as well try to clarify. Sorry it ended up kind of long.


Refusing to vote for the greater of two evils is not an adequate alibi -- poco
In Flight