James : http://allordinary2.blogspot.com/search?q=camper

I would say that blogs, because they effectively in perpetual conflict, have brought me closer to KP’s (Chantal Mouffe’s) ideal of being happy to disagree but respecting the other person’s sincerity. I presume this was ‘antagonistic pluralism’?

I have become much more a fan of things like giving a central bank type body power over eg GST rates pretty much solely as a result of this blog and one contributor in particular.

Laura

Most books I buy for people are because I’ve seen them blogged - does that come close? Also I saw a blog post about LED lighting (years ago now) and tipped off a friend who is an interior decorator who went on to impress several clients with her cutting-edge ideas

I challenge any of you to come up with a blog as agent of positive change narrative which is even half as good as that.

In terms of argument-based content I have never really been convinced to change my mind. Similar to derrida derider I found that there have been moments where what has been expressed in a blog post or series of blog posts allows me to make up my mind or discover something about the ‘why’ because of the blogging context of ‘who’ saying ‘what’ ‘where’. So less about what is articulated as blogging and more about what is expressed through blogging.

On climate change, I’ve become very resistant to having my opinions shifted, because too often, after reviewing the arguments presented by denialists and going back to sources, I find a lot of misquotation and omission of that nuance stuff. Ditto Iraq.

I might have become a bit more “centrist” in my general approach to writing, a little more inclined to kick seven shades of excrement out of bad argument regardless of who’s advancing it.

And that’s quite enough self-examination for today.

I’m sure the are other instances where my views have been modified or at least become more informed and nuanced as a result of blogosphere reading. It often seems that blogosphere dialogue is just shouting past each other in self-imposed angry darkness, but it may be just that fairly strongly held views only change slowly/incrementally.

I still like Chantal Mouffe’s characterisation that a major purpose of dialogue is to achieve “agonistic pluralism”: we may still disagree but may hopefully reach a position where we each at least respect that the other holds her views sincerely and has reasoned arguments to support them (though dealing with Jennifer Marohasy is the exception that proves the rule), and that this facilitates constructive compromise.

Sometimes - but most noticeably on the Iraq war, and ironically it was changed by a couple of blogs supposedly supporting my then views. I moved from a half-hearted supporter of it in late 2002 to a vociferous opponent because, in the first instance, of the patent mendacity of these bloggers’ arguments when repeating the official line.

This led to the conclusion that the official line was therefore mendacious, and as dsquared said “good ideas do not need promoting by lying like a rug about them”.

Rest assured, PC, I won’t repeat Harry Clarke’s classic attempt to question your comprehension.

I was making explicit the fact that you were answering a different question, namely “how many times has any reader of this thread had their mind changed by any blogger“.

Just out of curiosity, how many times has any reader of this thread had their mind changed by any blog?

Jesus H Christ. In what way is the method of delivery relevant? I’m particularly surprised by James Farrell’s response.

There are two issues involved here.

Firstly, try rephrasing the question as “how many times has any reader of this thread had their mind changed by reading something”

If the answer to that is “nobody”, or “maybe some people, but not me”, the respondent is either lying or delusional.

Secondly, there’s an assumption that bloggers are random nobodies. I’m not a blogger, I am a random nobody. But people like John Quiggin, Nick Gruen, etc, aren’t random nobodies. It is possible for people to change other people’s minds, and whether they do it by publishing papers, writing columns or blogging is completely irrelevant. Well qualified people with good ideas, like John and Nick, will attract an audience, and will change people’s minds.

I’m not going to say who, however, because they already have heads larger than a small planet

Well that rules me out - small main sequence star is closer to my hat size.