Mr. XXXXX, you're a lying sack of shit.That bothers me. Is it just a difference of style? Is it just that my friend has spent time with fisherman and others who tend to use more colorful vocabulary? Is it just that I'm out of touch with the modern world where profanity is common?
Actually, it's not the profanity per se that bothers me. Though I think that when it is used as frequently as it is, say on The Wire or even Jon Stewart, the words no longer have the power that profanity once had. After all, if every other word in every discussion has 'fuck' as its root, what can you use when something truly worthy of profanity happens? The power of the truly taboo word is gone when there are no taboo words left. But that's a minor part of my concern here.
Probably I'm most disturbed by insults like this in political blogs because they divert the reader from the argument. Wikipedia explains this sort of attack:
Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.This isn't much more than a third grade level argument. But there's no teacher around here to explain to the children why this is inappropriate and to get them past being miffed and to go back to playing together.
I think it is also bad strategy for political bloggers for several reasons.
- Calling others nasty things is a form of venting. It makes the ventors feel good when they are frustrated and feeling otherwise powerless to do something about a situation. (On the other hand it can be like kicking a victim who is already down and out. Perhaps that also is a sign that one knows the problem hasn't been solved.)
- So, as self therapy, being bitchy is appropriate when you are alone or with your close friends. But not publicly. Your friends know that you are using hyperbole and they may even encourage you. Your friends probably agree with you, it's not aimed at them, and they won't hold it against you tomorrow. If it is aimed at them, they know not to take you seriously.
- In fact, with your ideological cohorts, you may even build up a sense of solidarity and enthusiasm. Sort of like Sarah Palin on the campaign trail riling up all those anti-'them' passions.
- But when you do this publicly on a blog, everyone else can listen in. This invective is proof of your weak arguments to them. More likely these are seen as fighting words that increase the divide and justify their own counterattacks. This is no longer political, it's personal. I can understand Sarah genuinely feeling that she's being attacked personally by some of my fellow bloggers, that it isn't her actions that are being attacked.
- When someone starts calling you names, it's easy to react only to that and not even see the rational arguments that proceeded or followed. There is no trust for the motives of others. What 'they' say and do is merely strategy to defeat 'us.' So we don't listen to their arguments and they don't listen to ours.
- I believe that people are extremely complex and their behaviors and words are often intended to be masks to hide what they really believe or feel. Rather than call people like Sen. Larry Craig a hypocrite or worse, we should be asking what is it in our society that causes people like him (and countless others - including Bill Clinton) to have to dissemble and even be hypocritical about their sexuality? Or their other socially disapproved behavior? What happened in their lives that causes them to have to escape into alcohol, drugs, gambling, or making lots of money, or having a bigger house? Calling someone a lying bag of shit doesn't help our understanding of the behavior. Understanding might ultimately lead to ways to reduce that sort of behavior in the future. Not just of this individual, but others who have the same behavior patterns.
- In many Asian cultures, losing one's temper is seen as loss of self-control. It's natural to get mad, but it's generally better to be in control when you are dealing with your opponents.
I guess on a less important level, I'm dismayed by such language because it reflects a lack of rigor on the part of the writer. For me, a comeback should be witty and unexpected, so that even the recipient has to admire the mind that came up with it. Or it should be couched so that it takes a moment to realize that one has even been insulted. Ideally it should be closely linked to the issue at hand. Studying the words of masters - for inspiration, not for copy - such as Winston Churchill or Oscar Wilde might inspire one to work at it a bit. Here's one from Churchill:
He has all of the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire.And Oscar Wilde reflects a theme I've been trying to get at here:
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.