Since I confronted the Santa Fe Reporter earlier this spring for their spin and biased reporting they have not only been interested in attacking me as being heavily influenced by my personal ideology, but they have also gone personal. First asking to meet with me, then offering to have me on the Santa Fe Reporter’s podcast program. The requests from the SFR were harmless enough (though one approach from Alexa Schirtzinger was rather forceful and sinister).
When I didn’t begin arrangements to meet the Santa Fe Reporter’s Alexa Schirtzinger or agree to be a guest on the Weekly Word podcast with Santa Fe Reporter writer Joey Peters, Peters took another path.
One dog picture:
Two dog pictures:
Then a very strange message:
Peters seems to have me confused with somebody by the name of ‘Rebecca.’ While I can’t fault him for his curiosity, the approach Peters chose is inappropriate, unprofessional and (to be honest) a bit creepy.
Yesterday I wrote about Alexa Schirtzinger blocking me on Twitter and my thoughts on her actions which make it clear she is biased (read here). To the aforementioned I received interesting responses.
Joey Peters Santa Fe Reporter’s Staff Writer was the first to come to speak out:
Alexa Schirtzinger, Santa Fe Reporter’s Editor:
Addressing the issues with the Santa Fe Reporter
Alexa and Joey,
I believe we (whether it’s you and I, or my approach to thinking as contrasted with the Santa Fe Reporter mentality) have fairly basic, fundamental differences in philosophy.
For me, the philosophy of government, the development of a worldview, and practical politics itself, are all about ideas. For many on the Left, so-called “progressives” et al., it’s too often about personalities. I prefer argumentation that goes to the central point of the idea being discussed— causing participants to reflect on, and ask the question: Does this make sense? Whether the criterion is economic, historical, demographic, cultural or just simply political. I practice argumentum ad rem. And I get frustrated when people cannot defend their viewpoints and begin substituting name-calling for real debate, in other words when people respond argumentum ad hominem—as if it makes a difference ‘who’ I am as opposed to ‘what’ I believe, and what I am positing.
So it is with your, and apparently the entire Santa Fe Reporter’s, obsession with who I am. Fairly or unfairly, that approach sends the signal that you’re out of ideas—that you have given up on defending your ideology, that you’re just not able to answer questions point by point.
In contrast, I would be happy to exchange ideas, answer any and all questions you may have, engage in dialog, and have you answer questions too. My focus is on the argument to the idea, not the argument to the person.
- Politix Fireball