I like a fight. I like to win. I admit it.
I don’t like to be unkind or ungenerous, however, and to my regret, I find myself periodically being both unkind and ungenerous. Most recently, I’ve been unkind to Steve May and his supporter(s) on another thread. I offended Lodger unintentionally, but unnecessarily, on another thread. I feel like I owe an apology to Edgar, not for disagreeing with him, or even being wrong, but for being ruthless.
As hard as I try, I haven’t figured out a way to keep from slipping into occasional bad behavior. I could be worse. Part of the reason that I post under my real name is that it keeps me more fair and honest than I might otherwise be.
In the interests of being nicer, I’m starting a list, not of wrongs, but of ways to be nicer and still keep up the fight. I’m not calling for stricter moderation, suggesting that we start following some sort of code, or policing our thoughts. For myself, at least, I hope to be more mindful of what I’m saying.
One thing I’ve noticed is that it’s almost always bad to make assumptions. About people and what they think. And about what they mean. All we know is what they write, a pretty small slice of anyone’s life. More frequently, we make assumptions about what people mean. It’s natural to draw inferences from what people write, but sometimes a hostility underlies our inferences, a desire to unfairly circumscribe a person and his or her thoughts. It’s no fun being on the end of that.
I don’t have a solution to the problem of hostile assumptions, but in the future, I’ll try to ask a question rather than make an assumption.
I’m not making a call for anyone to apologize or pledge to eat the niceness gun, but I’d be interested in what types of behavior on BMG “chafes your ass” (in the words of Central Mass Dad) or how you maintain your niceness.
One problem is that many of us have been brought up to go for the jugular. We even think it’s a lot of fun. And we think it’s a conclusive way of arguing. I used to do this a lot. Maybe I still do, but at least now I try not to.
I remember that after one heroic moment in which I had (to my own satisfaction anyway) completely demolished the person I was talking with, one of my friends pointed out to me that the way I was talking probably made me feel good, but didn’t actually have any effect whatever on what other people thought. I’ve done a lot of thinking about that ever since.
Thanks for posting this.
and tactical nukes deployed against you, metaphorically speaking, it’s hard to figure out a way to take the nice route.
Don’t bring a gun to a knife fight. There are times when maybe it goes too far, but in a lot of cases (I can think of some specific commenters that I have no regrets hitting hard) it’s totally justified. Mocking and satire and sarcasm are time-honored tactics to showcase the ridiculousness of your ridiculous opposition.
Did I mess up the common phrase. Scratch that, reverse it – don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.
Well, I’m a liberal, I don’t really do guns much. ^_^
… that Abraham Lincoln, in his youthful days, was quite nasty in print editorials and had developed quite the reputation as a cutting wit such that, at one point, he was challenged to a duel for words put in print (but pseudonymously… hm…). I can’t find my volume of David Hebert Donalds biography of Lincoln right now as my library is packed for an incipient move, but, IIRC, Donalds discussion of the change in tone before and after 1842 in letters, editorials and corresponded points to a significant repentance on Lincolns part: he was always regarded as warm hearted and very weak with a grudge, but something about attacking others in print brought out a nasty side of him… but it is something that he came to both regret and which he tamed. Which is all to say that you’re neither original nor unique in grappling with these issues.
It was also said that while Lincoln was combative with Stephen Douglas in their famous debates neither stooped to personal attacks and each had a great respect and warm regard for the other.
Also, I’m given to understand that the fellow with whom Lincoln almost dueled (it was called off when Lincoln apologized, I understand) was later elevated to the status of Brigadier General by a President Lincoln. Like I said, he was weak with a grudge…
In general, I find, that most nastiness (my own and others) is devolved from mis-understandings and that patience, on my part, in either seeking for or providing clarity is a winning strategy. There are times, I sorely grieve to admit, where I’ve not held on to this patience.
There are, to be sure, times when simply walking away is the only righteous answer: difficulties with those who are simply looking for something about which they can be demonstrably angry, for example; as well as those insufficiently schooled in reading comprehension to affect an actual debate. Practice alone can help determine these people and temperance used to avoid them.
The greatest difficulty, I find, is when some moral outrage is perpetrated and then defended… and later, often, turned around to accuse me of viciousness for simply pointing out something that, though fact and plain, might be hurtful. If I say “George W. Bush uses torture to achieve his ends,” am I being nasty? Or truthful? Both? If I say “John McCain is not to be trusted because he, though tortured himself in Hanoi, later embraced and promoted torturers…” Nasty? Truthful? Too often the rightwing charge of “liberal bias’ is merely a kneejerk reaction to truthful statements that, when they land, hurt. Sometimes the truth is nasty…. but that doesn’t automatically mean that everything that is nasty is the truth.
If, in hurting or being nasty, should they not be said? Can I call a liar a liar? If we have objective measures to label someone incompetent or malcontent or divisive or whatnot, can we not simply say so? Or must we either use euphemisms or pretend otherwise? And what good will that do?
I do not, as you say above, take much pleasure in the fight. I often get exasperated and quite angry after which I might lash out intemperately. In other instances, a ‘morose delectation’ sets in as I begin to feel an untoward superiority which, in time, makes me angry at myself, often leading to further intemperance.
When you’re taking flak, you’re in the target zone.
I’m all for niceness and civil discourse. We’ve gone far far beyond that. When the lynch mob is pounding on the jailhouse door and the prisoner is cowering in fear, you don’t open the door and say “let’s talk about this”.
A major right-wing commentator called a courageous young woman a “slut” last week, and suggested that she make and broadcast videos of herself having sex. He’s still on the air. The campaign of a leading GOP contender egregiously takes quotes of Barack Obama out of context, and proudly defends that when called on it.
This is an entire campaign that panders to “identity politics” — bigotry, racism, misogyny, xenophobia — and just plain ignorance and hate. We see it from every GOP candidate, and it will only intensify.
These guys are kicking us in our nuts, have been for years, and I’m sick and tired of complaints that I’m being “un-civil” for saying so. My father, a WWII veteran of the Pacific theater, told me that the hardest part of combat for him was realizing that the enemy was shooting at him, and that he had to shoot and kill the enemy — even though the young Japanese infantryman was smiling at him.
They are shooting at us. We must not forget that.