Green My Hood

You could also pay people in your hood to move dirt from one pile to another. It creates jobs and there is no carbon footprint.

While were at it, lets use taxpayer money to set aside space for unicorn grazing.

When he writes "we" I didn't necessarily think he means "the taxpayers" or at least not federal ones. Of course, "we" isn't very specific. I assumed he meant his community could employ these people to do "audits". I actually appreciate Leroy's focus on community-based solutions. Most of the things he advocates are things that his community/city can do without getting the federal government involved. If it fails, then we'll know either not to replicate it somewhere else or to change the formula. I applaud his efforts and wish him Godspeed.

These types of changes should start in our local communities.

I dunno, the book to which he links calls for a "green new deal", so it's probably safe to assume he'd like to see some government funding.

Which introduces a flaw in his argument. If you take taxpayer money to train a guy to fix your gutters, and pay for him to fix your gutter, you are indeed creating a job. But you are taking away money from all of the other would-be recipients of those taxpayer dollars, whether they be clothing manufacturers, hammer makers, or even other gutter replacement companies.

Why don't you be specific about what you disagree with in the article rather than just offering snarky potshots?

The very moment the author provides specifics on the budget for his urban-solar-powered-life-garden-lead-paint-reduction-project, I will give you a detailed report of disagreement.

You probably could have expressed that concern without the sarcasm, though, right? So, since you are capable of doing so, why don't you?

After actually having lived in a city, I will say that city life can be adapted to have a great charm all its own. And, FWIW, it is actually greener than life elsewhere. Imagine having everything within a 3-5 mile radius, with the majority of needed things within walking distance. Living in a city, that is very possible. Elsewhere, not too realistic.

He could, but why would it be necessary? Sarcasm is a valid means of communication (the Sojo bloggers employ its use all the time), and I think his comment took an intellectually honest stab at Barber's post, which is high on rhetoric, but low on specifics.

Given the realities of the situation, he might as well have proposed unicorn grazing. At least, that's DITE's argument. I'm sure he wouldn't mind a counterargument.

Squeaky,
that would require an effort to see things from Barber's point of view. Much easier to sit back and take sarcastic potshots. It's an old American tradition (think H.L. Mencken or, today, people like Rich Lowry).

I hadn't seen that. If it's his plan to have the federal government finance his ideas I'd recommend that he start local first.

"The very moment the author provides specifics on the budget for his urban-solar-powered-life-garden-lead-paint-reduction-project, I will give you a detailed report of disagreement."

DITE:
The logical flaw in this comment is that, even without seeing the kinds of specifics you are asking for here, you are already presuming you would disagree with Mr. Barber.

If you're going to disagree with him out of hand no matter what he writes, why bother saying you want details?

Yes, much easier. And more fun.

I disagreed with his general idea generally. I'm assuming that I'll disagree with his specifics specifically.

So you think developing community gardens, removing lead paint, weatherizing homes, and cleaning up and beautifying eyesores in our neighborhoods are bad ideas?

Why?

Well, because, believe it or not, some of us value honest discussion. And comments like that do not promote honest, thought-provoking discussion. It's very easy to just take pot-shots at one another. Far more difficult to respectfully consider what another person is saying. And oddly enough, I expect the latter on a Christian blog. So, like it or not, I will continue to hold people to higher standards of discourse.

And Christlike how?

Will you call out Sojo bloggers on their use of sarcasm, then?

Sure, will you? It's hard for me to understand why this is something you disagree with, so please explain it to me. I'd really like to understand how comments like DITE's promote thoughtful discussion in a Christ-like manner.

I"m not at all interested in the "they do it too" argument.

Will I? No. I don't have a problem with sarcasm. I do have a problem with disregarding the argument being advanced, but that's not the case here, given the original author's lack of specifics. I think Christ is on the record having used sarcasm to illustrate a point. Would you disagree?

Apparently we have different definitions of what intelligent, respectful, Christlike dialogue amongst believers on a Christian blog should look like, so there's no point in arguing about it.

I think it's a gender thing. As a rule, men appreciate sarcasm and irony, whereas women do not. On a board with both perspectives, I think you need to err on the side of letting it pass.

which of course begs the question - how much time would Jesus devote to a blog site? wwjb?

DITE, I believe that you have violated the site's Comment Code of Conduct in the ways described::

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree-even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will participate in community accountability by rating posts up or down based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed, and will flag posts that violate these rules of conduct. (Proverbs 12:18)

Therefore, I have flagged your comment and given a down arrow to your post, as Sojourners has asked.

To all other readers:

I'd like to suggest that when a comment occurs that does, indeed, violate the Code, we all simply respond to the writer by calling her/him out on it and refusing to converse any further. A person commenting in ways that violate the Code do not have any interest in entering into dialogue about the original issue; rather, they seek to dismiss and to shame the person(s) to whom the are responding. This diverts following readers' attention away from the original issue and onto the Code violator and/or other issues (e.g., below, genres of commentary and criticism, gender identities), and too often elicits a response in kind, resulting in further Code violating. Let's just be Jesus-like in our behavior: call-out and walk away! Blessings to all!

Exactly. Thank you.