A Morning’s Worth Of ConvergeSouth 2007
posted: October 21, 2007 | category: Uncategorized
tags: blogging
I attended the Friday morning session of ConvergeSouth 2007. I sat with the amazing and wonderful fellow mama and blogger Emily, of Mamasbloggin.com. (We had camera phone fun.)
First up was “A Fireside Chat” with Jason Calacanis, moderated by Ed Cone. If you’re interested in making money from blogging, and possibly even making millions off the web, then this was the session for you. (The Google ads on my blog cover my costs and I don’t care about making a profit or getting rich. I’m actually conflicted about having ads on my site at all.)
Calacanis’ new human-powered search engine, Mahalo, sounds interesting. It reminds me of the Tracy-Hepburn film, “Desk Set,” which has a computer squaring off against human researchers. The humans win. Mahalo seems to be built on that same premise.
Next up was “Step by Step” with Dan Conover and Will Bunch, and moderator Joe Killian. It was about new media and old media and journalism. Here’s the thing: Yes, I get most of my news online — especially breaking news — and I do consider blogs to be news sources (well, certain blogs, anyway), but… I love the feel of a newspaper in my hands, and sitting at the kitchen table with a cup of coffee and a laptop is just not the same thing. I want my old media with my new media. (Yeah, I’m over 25. Way over. Deal with it. *grin*)
The final panel of the morning was called “We Do Agree To Disagree,” with Ruby Sinreich, Chris Rabb and moderator Dan Conover. But this was a giant misnomer, as it should have been called, “We Do Agree That We Don’t Like Republicans, Conservatives and Evangelical Christian Leaders.”
First, there was the reference to James Dobson as a “whacko,” with a follow-up comment about “meth.” (I believe that was a little shout-out to Ted Haggard.) I can’t remember if that came from Chris or Ruby. I was too steamed by the anti-Republican and anti-conservative comments to think straight at the moment.
Chris Rabb said that it’s very difficult to form intentional communities and that if he discusses politics with Republicans, he wants to “strangle them.” He also said, “I’m on panels where people don’t look me in the eye.” No irony there.
Ruby Seinrich talked about going to blog communities where you feel comfortable, and said, “If I get shouted down, I’m not going back there… I don’t have a need to listen to a lot of Republicans.” Hmmm… I don’t have a need to listen to people trash Republicans. Not nice.
There were also comments about Republicans and “truth-telling” (implication that there needs to be some of the latter regarding the former) and either Ruby or Chris said, “I don’t want to get along with those people.” (Again, I’m not sure which one said it because I was feeling kind of angry at that point and just trying to write what they were saying.) One of the speakers went so far as to say, “I don’t believe that just because someone’s conservative or Republican that it makes them bad.” Awesome. Good to know. No follow-up statement about progressives or Democrats, though. Noted.
To his credit, Ed did speak up and challenge the panelists and I greatly appreciated it. I was too mad to say anything publicly. But I did say to Emily, “This is why some conservatives don’t want to come to ConvergeSouth.”
Let me be loud and clear: My fellow local bloggers who are progressives have never said anything to me like the things that were said by those panelists. Not once. Not ever. I know that we have our liberal v. conservative blogfights here from time to time, but I have never felt that local progressive bloggers didn’t want to talk to me because I’m a conservative. (Maybe for some other reasons, but not that one. *smile*)
Those out-of-town folk could learn a thing or two from how we roll in Greensboro. That panel made me angry. But it also made me thankful that I’ve never experienced that kind of ridiculousness locally, and that we are able to be friends across our differences.
Thank you, again, Ed. For saying what I couldn’t. You rock. And thank you, Mama Sue, for all your hard work on ConvergeSouth. I love my Greensboro liberals. Nothing changes that. Bless your hearts, Ruby and Chris. For reals.
I had to leave right after the morning session to go the GUM Futures Conference. (Where I promptly got my “happy” back. Yay!) And from what I’ve read on other blogs, it sounds like the rest of the day and Saturday were a lot less political — although I wasn’t able to be there. (I have great timing, huh? I managed to be there for the pick-on-conservatives panel. Sigh.)
P.S. Here’s what Emily has to say about it: “I keep telling you. You’re not Republican. You just THINK you are. I’m sure sooner or later you’ll realize your gen-u-wine progressive self. ;)” LOL. I love Emily.
Comments
30 Responses to “A Morning’s Worth Of ConvergeSouth 2007”
Leave a Reply
I thought the whole “We agree to disagree” part was WAY off base. Personally. What I took from it was more of the fact that Chris thought that there was more in-house cleaning to do with progressives. Whack jobs on both sides.
Also, Chris said that your average American norm is more conservative. Think about it. It’s a white, predominantly Christian background. Look at what conservatives represent. Go figure that. So progressives are deemed more the nutjobs and it’s tough doing that there.
Personally, my thoughts were that while there was a lot of good messages there, I usually don’t agree with Ruby on politics much the same way I don’t agree with Kos, or sometimes Sue. Or Roch. *laugh*
I would have liked to see more of… how they got along with disagreement. You know who would have been great on the panel? Dr. Guarino. That guy is so eloquent with his words, that you can’t be mad. I will point out that there are a couple of locals on both sides that like to duke it out “every time”.
In any case, didn’t get a chance to catch up with ya. Hit me up on IM when you’re not busy.
CM,
As one of our local liberals I tend to agree. Fact is, Having known her several years I like Ruby but Ruby is so filled with passion for her views that she simply looses focus of what ConvergeSouth is all about. We all know a few on the right who are much the same.
I did feel as if the panel got off-topic and lacked strong moderation but not every moderator is a strong as Ed Cone.
Sadly the panel was lacking in conservatives. Panelists are asked to volunteer and a call went out to the world but no one stepped-up. Local conservatives through their lack of participation have allowed the discussion to move left of where it should be. Like you I wanted the panel to discuss how we can agree to disagree because for me that has always been a huge personal challenge.
Chris did make that point that Ben referred to, that even on the left you can find yourself on the outside looking in. The same is true of the right.
I think that for as long as we rely on political parties to set the agenda we will be forever mired in these same problems.
CMF, thanks for the perspective. I actually really liked that panel, but probably more for Chris’s personality, and the new (to me) perspective that he brought to it. Maybe I allowed myself to be caught up in the eloquence and force of his points, even if they didn’t directly fit in the title of the panel, but I see your point.
Yep. One of our less good sessions, although as Johnny says the wattage of the panelists kept it interesting at least.
I was disappointed that my comment made pretty much no impact. Chris responded to my cable-news comparison by playing a cable news face card: going straight to the caricature opposition position in order to write off a much larger group.
The panel needed someone to push back against it, or on it. We invited Mary Katherine Ham to be on that panel, but she was booked (grandma’s birthday). We need help in programming these things.
On that last note: Given the format, I was disappointed that I and one other man were the only people in the crowd to speak up…
…although this is part of the conversation, too.
Darkmoon,
That’s twice now in the past week I’ve seen you use me as an example of someone whose politics you find too liberal for your liking. I’m left wondering why. If you are saying those things based on anything more than an unsubstantiated opinion, would you please give me an example of some position or idea I hold that you think is an example of me being “too” liberal for your taste?
Johnny, thanks for commenting.
darkmoon & Billy: I agree that it would be great to have conservative panelists and I hope there’ll be some next year. Sam has already said he wants to be involved and I hope Dr. Joe will, too, as well as some others. As for me, I focus on what I blog about — homelessness and service — and I haven’t paid as much as attention (there are only so many hours in a day) to the kinds of things that are talked about ConvergeSouth, so I don’t know that I’d make a very valuable panelist, which is why I haven’t signed up to be one.
That’s great input Michelle. I didn’t make any of the Friady sessions, but sorry I missed that one. It sounds like it would have motivated some commentary from me.
I would like to see a session that truley lives up to what was promised by the title of this one. Let’s find bloggers who have a strong political point of view yet remain respectful and are respected to tell us how it’s done. Guraino is a great suggestion. We have a year to find others. Let’s do it.
Ed & Roch, I was commenting as you were. (And trying to install a new plugin.)
Ed, as I told you at the barbecue, I didn’t speak up because I was mad, and I know better than to talk when I’m mad. Always a bad idea.
Roch, I actually think of you as one of the more politically moderate folks in our local blogosphere, and I would say the same of darkmoon.
@Roch: *laugh* Roch, no offense intended. But some of the stuff that you’ve said overall in local politics, I didn’t agree with. People seem to forget that I’m a left leaning moderate.
You come off in comments a lot more liberal than some and especially when you have conservatives hounding you and you throw it back in their face.
Again, no offense intended… it was more of an overall look, no particular one thing that I can come up with atm. So yeah, like you said… opinion. *grin*
From what CM said…. okay… maybe it’s more….
Big picture:
Left — Moderate — Right
(Roch)(DM)
lol.
Argh. it killed my spacing of my beautiful ASCII picture! Well, what I was trying to show was that Roch and I were both in the moderate section, but he was to the left of me… thus, “too liberal for my tastes”. lol
Darkmoon,
Your response comes up short. I aksed for specifics and you offered none. Maybe it’s time to re-evaluate. Pushing back against sloppy locig or irrational thinking when it comes from conservatives is hardly an example of me being too liberal. So, I’ll ask you again, what are these “some” things specifically I’ve said to lead you to paint me as too liberal? I wasn’t questioning your right to have an opinion, but whether it is substatniated on anything or just an unfounded conclusion.
Thanks for the tip on Handbrake, btw. Worked great.
I can’t find the exact quotes at the moment since I don’t read local political things anymore, but since you must have something:
“Do you see me “attacking” Guraino, David, Doug or you, Michelle. No. Why? Because the aforementioned are honest and thoughtful in their writings.”
I happen to agree with some of things said by those conservatives, and thus by association, if you stand on one side of the fence from them, then I’d disagree with you. Eh? Much of this stems as far back as the Chairman’s blog. I’m not saying that you’re like a left-nut. You’re not. Just as Sue isn’t, but believe me…. she’s too liberal for my tastes too. To each their own when it comes to political views.
I also will add that some of those that you go up against? I’m not certain if they should even be classified as conservatives, or just off. Most of the time, I see you pointing out things when they just throw stuff as “Roch is ” and such. Not sure why you feed those trolls at all, but if you find amusement in it, keep on trucking.
You should know better than to think that I pull opinions out without having observed for a while. lol.
No prob on the Handbrake thing. Like anyone in the blogosphere knows, you got a tech problem… I’ll be glad to help.
[…] Diverge South October 21st, 2007 — The CA Cara Michelle confirms that some of the much denied criticism of Converge South is warranted: […]
Roch, it’s good to know that you respect Guarino but can’t seem to point to any other conservatives locally who are respected. Respect usually means treating others how you want to be treated. Unfortunately, to so many it means treating others a whole lot better than they treat you. So if I want to be respected, I am required to ignore all the garbage that people say or write about me. If I treat them the same way, I am not worthy of their respect. What a unique definition.
I guess you do have a year to look.
It’s all relative.
Darkmoon,
You are too smart not to take a closer look at what you think you are seeing. The very thread you cite was me asserting that what I stand up for is honesty and accuracy, not fighting against specific political leanings. The fact that I mentioned conservatives bloggers I respect was precisely to point out that I was pushing back against some people because of their sloppy thinking and not because of their political leanings.
Your thinking would be like deciding that someone must really be against capitalism because they are a fervent supporter of open source or that someone must favor sick children because they are against universal health care.
If you want to really understand my political views, do so by looking at the ideas I espouse. It is a falacy to say I’m “too liberal” because I take a stand against people who don’t think who also happen to be extremely conservative.
Now watch how this works, Darkmoon. CA is a proud and staunch conservative. I’m going to correct him. You will pay close attention and notice that I’m not disagreeing with him because he’s a conservative and I’m not espousing some liberal point of view by doing so. You will see that I’m correcting him on the facts and you see there is no valid reason to make the assumption that just because CA is conservative, I must be “too liberal” for pushing back against him. Ready? Here goes:
“Roch, it’s good to know that you respect Guarino but can’t seem to point to any other conservatives locally who are respected.” — CA
CA, please pay attention and get your facts straight. In this very thread, as cited by Darkmoon, I was quoted as enumerating several self-identified conservative bloggers who I respect. Your premise that I cannot point to any others than Guarino ignores the facts at hand. (And, for what it’s worth, there are areas where I respect you too — not that that should matter to you.)
See, Darkmoon? Asking a conservative to get his facts straight is not a “too liberal” thing. It’s a reason thing.
Roch, I was clearly identified along with Guarino in the paragraph you were responding to. You chose to mention that you respected Guarino, but you did not extend those remarks to me.
“Roch, it’s good to know that you respect Guarino but can’t seem to point to any other conservatives locally who are respected.”
I pointed to others. Not you, but others, making you wrong to say that I “can’t seem to point to any others.”
Now, if you had originally said, “It’s good to know that you respect Guarino and others, but you can’t seem to point to me,” then we would not be having a discussion about getting the facts straight.
Roch, maybe one of the reasons you get the reputation for coming off as liberal to people like Darkmoon is because you love to correct and fact check conservatives, but don’t do the same for progressives.
Just an idea.
Actually Roch… like I said before… this was an overall opinion from a lot of observation. Truthfully, Sam hit it on the mark pretty well although it’s not just that.
And just curious…. who are you to judge what my level of liberalism is? If I make the comment that you’re too liberal for me, then that’s a subjective point of view. There was one particular incidence a long time ago that twerked the crap out of me, but for the life of me… I can’t remember what it was. Had something to do with the Chairman I think, but I don’t remember anymore since it’s been a while.
Realistically, most of the time I find that there’s not really a point to correct people. Believe me when I say that there are lots of things in the thread about the whole music festival thing that I could correct, but I chose not to do so. On the other hand, you go and correct people, which makes you look like you’re above others. At least that’s how it is presented to me. Are those people that are corrected indeed morons? Some of the time, when they don’t keep on topic. Sam actually is one of the few that I’ve read that seems to hold well like Guarino… just a bit more frustrated.
But if we’re in the land of “corrections”, then I’ll point out that your use of the word fallacy is incorrect based on the context. The basis of a fallacy is using logic to deem an argument unsound. But being that it’s my opinion, and thereby subjective, the argument doesn’t hold water when it comes to logic since logic would be defined by how I feel.
Truthfully, ya’ll need to just chill imho. I personally think politics detracts from CS and I’m totally with Lenslinger on this one. It’s about creative use of technology to get your voice out.
Roch is defending my (and the other organizers’) event and I appreciate it.
My current annoyance? Local conservatives bash the event every year. Yet last year, we somehow or another got Red State to make an appearance and that wasn’t enough. Note that this was going through a so-called “progressive” rolodex. I’ve offered many times through the years for help by local conservatives and each year, people are “too busy” or “I don’t attend events with progressives in them”. Hey… from this moderate’s perspective, you made your bed so sleep in it. Don’t go jumping down the throats of others that are trying to do something for the community when you just sit back and critique it.
That above is not directly aimed at you Sam, but I assume that others will read it. I have to get my frustration out too you know. haha.
Take it as you will.
Sorry CM, for that long thing… I didn’t realize how long it was and I didn’t realize it was your blog. My apologies.
No problem. Y’all debate it all you want. Just keep it pure. Jesus reads this blog.
“this was an overall opinion from a lot of observation.” — Darkmoon
I know. You keep saying that, but over and over again you are unable to tell me one view I hold or one policy I support that you think makes me too liberal.
“On the other hand, you go and correct people, which makes you look like you’re above others.”
I like you, Darkmoon, but you are right, there is a substantial difference between us there. I think it’s important that people trying to advance ideas or influence public perceptions not be allowed to get away with misinformation. You don’t wish to confront such things. You’re not the kind of guy to take a stand, but maybe you should have a little appreciation for those who do — especially when they are standing up on your behalf as I did in the thread you cited–against those who were making scurrilous accusations against ConvergeSouth.
“But if we’re in the land of “corrections”, then I’ll point out that your use of the word fallacy is incorrect based on the context.”
Sorry, wrong. My use of fallacy was not describing your opinion, but the lack of a foundation for it. You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. I might have the opinion that you are mean to children, but without some evidence, that’s not a valid opinion. I can’t just say yes, he’s mean to children and nobody can deny it because that’s my opinion. Such an opinion would only be valid if I could offer some examples of you being mean to children — just as you should be able to offer some examples of me being too liberal if your opinion of me is valid.
“My current annoyance? Local conservatives bash the event every year.”
Go back and look at the thread that you cited above, Darkmoon, the one that you offered as an example of me being too liberal. That bashing of CS is exactly what I was pushing back against. People were making all sorts of unfounded accusations and assumptions, all justified by their OPINIONS based on factually incorrect information and fabrications. But instead of appreciating that someone was wading into the morass and doing the heavy lifting, you conclude it was arrogant and makes me too liberal.
sigh…
[Thanks, Michelle for hosting our little discussion.]
Okay. A little lesson in logic. First, if I observe that you do correct conservatives more than liberals. That’s fact. Based on that alone, you lean one direction and not the other. Notice I say lean. Your use of fallacy is still incorrect because of two things. 1) It’s my perspective. 2) Perspective is subjective. Thus, if I perceive that you are more liberal than I, then you are. You can’t change that. Opinion is always valid… you don’t have to back it up actually. Defn of opinion is: personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
I wasn’t complaining about the fact that you were defending CS. Like I said above, I appreciate it.
But here’s the key point… there’s no reason to defend something when you’re trying to use logic against the illogical. It’s like trying to explain faith with science or vice versa. Just doesn’t work out.
Thus, my perspective is that you should “choose” your battles to fight, instead of wasting energy on those that will come up with some illogical way to connect A to Z. I see the point of it, but I don’t think its worth my time or yours. Take the good comments, and throw out the bad and move on.
It’s just like Calacanis said in his keynote on Friday…. he reads his critiques by looking at the middle of the comments and taking off the “You idiot” off one end and the “you should go die” on the other. In the middle somewhere is actually some good feedback. That’s the way I look at it these days… no need to have a tiff about it.
Btw…. you used the term arrogant. Not I. I was just letting you know how conservatives view it. Again, it’s a perspective thing. Step back, and see how they view you and how you view them.
It also corresponds to why they get defensive if you were perceived that way.
Three years of having this backlash. Which is why I say… ehh… do I care? Sure. Did they do something about it? No. Oh well. Whatever.
There are people who are of the opinion that the Holocaust never occurred. You would not challenge them–not call them wrong–because, afterall, “opinion is always valid,” right?
Again, you’re using logic to disprove illogical. What point would come to that? Okay, so you’re going to challenge them… and the other side says… “no… it never happened.” Okay. And you fail to make a point because someone believes strongly in something?
Great… good job. Good luck with that.
In my life, I fail to see the point in convincing people that don’t wish to be convinced. Again, it’s a matter of perspective. And if people see it that way, hey…. I’m not wasting my breath. I’ll speak my mind, and if they don’t view it….
Whoa.. go figure… “we agree to disagree”. Session topic.
Opinions are valid. Always. Why? By definition. You don’t need validity since it’s a perspective.
May I suggest that you boys settle this one old skool?
Why sidestep my example? You keep saying that opions are always valid. If someone is of the opinion that the Holocaust never happened, you find that valid?