All right, dudes and dolls! So far, in my discursive travels in these final weeks leading up to the election, I’ve been called a fascist and a racist (check comments at these links, not post bodies).
So nobody’s exactly said Nazi yet. (Just throwing that out there if you’re looking to call me a name, and you value novelty.)
Of course I’m neither a fascist nor a racist, but that doesn’t matter! This is the process, and ad hominem is just part of it!
Actually it matters a great deal, and no, it’s not just part of it. In fact, to my thinking, most of the time it gets you excused from the grown-up table.
Folks, look. I’ll get in there and go toe-to-toe with you. Most of the time I can articulate reasonably well why I think something, and I’m delighted to tell you about it. Furthermore, I’m delighted to hear why you think something. I assume you are an intelligent and reasonable person, and that you have arrived at a position thoughtfully. I want to hear it. Disagreement has shaped many of my views.
And I never have to look far for disagreement. I’ve encountered damned few people as far left as I am socially and as far right as I am fiscally. Sure as shit, I think something that pisses you off. Check here.
But we’ve got to have that basic mutual respect, and name-calling destroys it more quickly than just about anything else. The arena for a mature and stimulating exchange of ideas is a mutual construct.
I’m not altogether innocent. I think that, however, should you be bored enough to research such, you’ll find that on those rare occasions I’ve called someone a name, it’s almost always return fire. I much prefer to keep our engagement intellectual and ideological, but if you’re going to make it irrational and personal, then I haven’t been above throwing it back at you.
(I’m offering that much more as disclosure than attempted justification. There’s a rocking ton to be said for being big enough to walk away too, and there have been times that I haven’t been big enough.)
There’s a hell of a lot going on in my head, and there’s a hell of a lot going on in yours. Reciprocal acknowledgment of such and accordant behavior isn’t too much to ask.
Possibly related posts (automatically generated):
- Polemics at The Blue Door Sorry I didn’t write anything last night, folks. Well, actually I wrote quite a lot, but on Mrs. Chili’s blog. We are enjoying a stimulating...
- “Quite comfortable” with being a one-term president That’s Robert Gibbs on Obama’s willingness to “make (tough) decisions” on health care reform or anything else that comes up that demands it, shucks darn...
- Plus, we’ll whip some goals and objectives on ya Yeah, look, that’s not going to work for us. In fact, that whole week is looking bad. We’re expecting some new requirements, and plus I’ve...
- The cutting of the nuts and what-not Can’t not post about this. So it seems that the Honorable Reverend Doctor Minister Jesse Jackson Sr., in one of the best hot mike accidents...
- A solution “to a crisis we did not create, and which the federal government has refused to address.” So says Arizona governor Jan Brewer about the illegal immigration bill she just signed into law. My favorite part of the early fallout is that...






Name-calling is pretty lame, and I’m one who should know!
I think in any dialogue certain “scary words” get thrown in, and I’m not the only offender. The real problem comes when one (like who?) fails to resist the temptation to do it in response (like the retaliator in a football dustup usually gets the penalty flag).
Sometimes it is easier to apply a label to someone, or something, than it is to make a detailed, reasonable statement. In my case, it usually amounts to pure laziness (of which I have a strong streak).
Arguments couched “ad hominem” never reflect well on the person making them, all the way from us members of the hoi polloi to candidates for the highest office in the land.
I feel so much better now that I understand that you didn’t think *I* was calling you out as a racist. I was kind of killing myself over this.
I do think these conversations are important to have, and I also agree with you that, ESPECIALLY in conversations like these, the rules of polite conversation have to be fastidiously observed. It’s just too easy for things like this to go bad in a hurry, as evidenced by my misunderstanding of your response to my blog post.
Love you!
Chili
I think you should cover the whole ball of wax and make a post on Prop 8.
Buzzregog: I’ll just make it here.
1. The government shouldn’t be involved in marriage whatsoever.
2. As long as they are, and as long as there is any legal and/or logistical advantage to being married, said advantage should extend to same-sex couples.
How’s that?
PERFECT!