On the Contrary

In simple terms, Harris uses the tactic of countering "not to nullify but to suggest a different way of thinking." Once again, the act of keeping a story, opinion, theory, or idea alive is the goal of countering, just as we have seen it to be the goal of forwarding, as well as blogging (in general). It is different from forwarding though in that you note the limits of an idea or a text and suggest a new, perhaps substituted, way to think about it. When forwarding, as we learned, you note the uses of an idea or a text and apply that information directly to your own, similar, yet slightly more developed, line of thinking. Harris outlines three ways to counter a text, which are: arguing the other side, uncovering values, and dissenting. No matter which of these approaches to countering is utilized, it is easy to offend to the opposing party, which Harris warns against. To avoid unnecessary fights and personal hurt, Harris proposes and encourages "honest yet civil disagreement," in which the purpose of countering is reiterated as a force to "rewrite the work of others in order to say something more," rather than settling on simply disagreeing.

I found an example of countering in Andrew Sullivan's blog, The Daily Dish, in which one of his readers wrote in response to John Nagl's prescription for Afghanistan. John Nagl is a retired United States Army officer who is seen as an expert on counterinsurgency and recently (I'm assuming) released his opinions of how the situation in Afghanistan should be handled. The reader counters Nagl's ideas by first stating two of the claims he believes are true and valid. Thus, fulfilling the first step of countering and offering credit to Nagl. The reader then states a third claim made by Nagl which he (the reader) believes is unrealistic and should not be applied to our relations with Afghanistan - a move that marks the second step of countering. Finally, and most importantly, the reader proposes a new use for Nagl's third claim. He argues against Nagl's idea, but does not stop at disagreement. Rather, he offers a new approach to this idea, keeping it alive, but sending it in a new direction.