– No, Rauparaha, probably not (though I can’t be sure), but it would make ME happier if you just put in a little more effort some time. A manicure would be a good start!

Hmmm, I see it as more of a spectrum of choices than a need for extremes. I definitely do not see you as racist or a person lacking empathy. Surely merely stating that you can understand that the way you framed the issue could be interpreted in a negative way that you didn’t mean to put forward would satisfy some type of middle ground.

So far you have stated that it is other peoples interpretation of your post that is in the wrong here – however, I feel it would be apt to admit that part of the responsibility for this falls on the way you framed the issue.

I am not meaning to be a troll here, however I have to admit I was surprised with the tone of the post, and I did find the remark to Edmond dismissive – I was surprised because I know you are not like this at all.

I think this has gone too far already.

You have consistently mentioned “slight slips” that we make on the blog. However, just because we make a slip doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be answerable to any reasonable inference that is made from it. You have clarified yourself since, however I felt that you comment to Edmond was too dismissive, stating that HE took it as a slight rather than admiting that it could easily be interpretted as a slight on Americans.

Now I at least 100% agree with the concept of your post – that it is important to remember that maximising welfare is the goal of policy, not arbitray but measurable goals. However, I also felt that treating Americans as an absolute, especially in such a negative sense, actually detracted from your argument by “shifting the focus”.

You may again criticise the fact I am making a value judgment by interpreting part of your piece in this way – however, everyone that interprets something has to apply a value judgment. If you think the value judgment that Edmond and me applied is completely wrong I suppose you could continue to dismiss it.

I began the opst by working from an individual’s comment and then cited a a stylised judgment of some commentators. The only thing I generalised across all Americans was working more hours than the French. That is an empirical fact and I made no value judgment about it. I could have been more careful by ascribing pejorative judgments to ‘some’, admittedly. However, in the context of a blog post I think such slight slips are commonplace and forgivable.

Hmmm, I would say that the statement was unnecessary strong – in so far as some of the rhetoric could have been removed without damaging the validity or readability of the statement.

Furthermore, a smilely face in of itself would not have changed the readability of the statement but would have made the tone a little less aggresive 😛

If you want to keep “attacking American consumerism” for the sake of readability I would prefer to lay down the fact that this isn’t a blog wide value judgment 😉

(winking face inserted in line with the Matt Nolan style guide)

But toning it down and being more precise would make it much less readable and technocratic sounding/boring:P

It did seem like an unnecessarily strong statement to me, you needed a winking face to imply that you didn’t mean it 😉

I think you are just trying to regain some of your left-wing street cred with the awesome Dr Calcott by attacking GDP, consumption, and the US in one go 😀

Edmond, I’m sorry if you took it as a slight on Americans. Obviously there are all sorts of people wherever you go; however, I hope that what you took from this post was a comment on the specific subsection of any population who stereotype others who are different as worse. Relating it to a specific group of Americans with particular views makes the post an easier read, but I wouldn’t want to suggest that ALL Americans act or feel that way.