As a note, if I ever use the term fisking non-derisively, slap me. The ridiculous practice has taken off and even now been showcased by Sullivan in Salon. I’m not sure if it is more annoying than the overuse of the term ‘indeed’ or the annoying habit of many bloggers to use the term ‘interesting’ as something like a knowing nod only the cool kids are in on.
The problem with fisking is it takes a very articulate person like Sullivan, well when he wants to be, and reduces them to make snarky commentator on an arguments’ side notes much of the time. Seldom does fisking result in a refutation of the central argument or even the evidence. Usually it centers on some side note or pithy comment used for getting attention. A perfect example above is his mention of the 100 Years War. That is relevant to modern warfare how? (was that a fisking–oy).
It might be helpful to remember paragraphs are meant to explain a point. Breaking down those paragraphs loses that point often and thus fails to refute the actual argument. A far more productive strategy would be to outline an argument, state its premises, its evidence and its logic and then attack those. However, for much of the blogosphere that takes too much time. Instead insinuating those who disagree with you are unpatriotic or a hack (oh the irony there) is much more fun.
One of the most fisked authors is Paul Krugman. I’m not sure what it is about him that brings out so much anger, but I have seen few substantive rebuttals in those fiskings. However, I have seen problems with some of his arguments, but fisking never seems to get at those problems. Why not? Because it is designed to produce pithy remarks and not a substantive critique.
Finally, fisking seems to promote an inane comparisons to appeasement in 1938 a. If anyone noticed, we already drove the guy out of the figurative Sudentland. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t look to overthrow him, but let’s try some original thought and not a reliance on a bad analogy. Whenever an alternative to immediate action it is claimed to be some sort of appeasement. That isn’t appeasement, it is setting priorities.