Many years ago, one of the evening news shows included a “point-counterpoint” segment, in which a conservative and liberal would have a brief exchange of views on an issue of the day. As many of you will recall, Saturday Night Live had great fun with its own parody of the segment; I think Jane Curtin and Dan Akroyd played the debaters. Curtin would make her case, after which Akroyd would launch into his response by saying “Jane, you ignorant slut.” It was funny because we all know people who just can’t seem to distinguish between an ad hominem insult and reasoned argumentation.
Anyone who ventures to express opinions through columns or blogs has to be prepared for less-than-civil responses. Between my years at the ACLU (where one critical letter was “hand delivered”– wrapped around a brick and thrown through the window) and fourteen years as a columnist for the Indianapolis Star, I’ve developed a pretty thick skin. Very few responses still have the ability to surprise me. But I still haven’t figured out why people invest time and energy in unproductive invective, whether directed at me or posted to someone else’s comment page.
I was reminded about those questions again the other day, by an email from someone who really, really didn’t like a recent IBJ column. (My favorite part: “I never read your columns, and this is an example why!”)
Disagreements with my columns or blogs come in two kinds. Every so often, I get a message saying something along the lines of “I disagree with what you say, and here’s why,” or “I think you got your facts wrong; take a look at XYZ source.” Those are great. They begin a dialogue. They aren’t always persuasive, but often are. If I’ve misunderstood a situation, or failed to address a perspective, letting me know about that educates me. I’ve altered blogs more than once to reflect new understandings or correct factual errors. Those writers may embarrass me, but they do me–and my readers–a real service.
Those folks are, unfortunately, rare.
Far more common are the (usually ungrammatical) messages that simply name-call. They write only to let me know that I am a blot on the human landscape. And that raises the question: what do those correspondents think they are accomplishing? Surely they realize that calling someone names, or calling their parentage, religion or intellectual capacity into question is unlikely to change the recipient’s opinions, or persuade other readers of the superiority of their own views.
It’s equally unlikely to elicit a response. (I mean, what sort of response to “you left-wing elitist bitch” is available or appropriate?)
If someone isn’t interested in engaging in genuine conversation, if he (it’s usually a he) cannot or will not ground his criticism in fact or evidence or analysis, cannot point out where the offensive opinion is deficient–why write anything at all? What are such “messages” supposed to accomplish?
As the King of Siam famously said in The King and I, “It’s a puzzlement.”
I believe that when those people respond that way to a blog or newspaper column, they are looking for a fight. I’ve seen this so many times – they put out the bait, and usually a few people take it. They try to persuade the “negative” person how they’re wrong, how their ideas are wrong, etc. This is just what that person wants. It gives him license to keep going – writing more and more outrageous things. I have given up on these people – I won’t respond to them anymore. I refuse to take the bait.
You might be over thinking this. Some folks feel and therefore they react. And that’s about it.
It is sad that these people do not have enough critical thinking skills to realize that people who do pay them no attention. While they intend to ridicule, their methods backfire.
You may be a “blot” by some definitions, but you’re our “blot” for which I am ever so grateful! I can’t tell you how many times I invoked “Jane, you ignorant slut” (or John or Ryan or whoever else I might have been in conversation with) at least in my mind over the last twelve years. For those who remembered the SNL scenes it was a hoot. For those too young to remember, it was one of those “…you had to be there…” moments. Keep pushing those buttons and writing your columns because they do provide us with the opportunity for genuine conversation.
It’s no puzzlement, really– hatred is prosaic and banal, boring as the day is long, but also tragically familiar. Keep doing what you’re doing. You mustn’t let these ignoramuses distract you from your goal. The asking of the questions you ask provokes the very kind of dialogue that invalidates the haters. Hearts and minds change over small things. Who can say this hasn’t happened over something you’ve said or published?
I’m reminded of a talk that Bad Astronomer Phil Plait gave where he posed a pair of questions to the audience: “How many of you have ever changed your mind about a belief? How many of you did so because you were yelled at by someone?”
My amateur psychology tells me that those who respond by launching a nasty attack are afraid. They may be afraid of varying things, but it’s fear that provokes a person to lash out that way.
And I’d forgotten about the hand-delivered letter. I do remember a rather nice letter I received while president of the board saying the writer would pray for my soul.
I got one of those! Except it said “I am praying for your sinful soul.”
Not that this has anything to do with your point, but Jane and Dan were lampooning “Point/Counterpoint” which was on “60 Minutes” from 1971 to 1979. James J. Kilpatrick and Shana Alexander were the models for Dan and Jane.
Most of these people are verbal bullies who have gotten away with their name-calling and accusations for years with few confrontations. When I married a black man I was called a “n-lover”; because I am friends with lesbians in my neighborhood I have been told some of the neighbors believe I am “an old fag”. Of course none of the name-calling was done to my face. One “lady” in the neighborhood has bullied the neighbors for years by turnng her four dogs loose several times a day and watching them bark, snap and lunge at people. I put up with it for 3 1/2 years before reporting her to Animal Control when the four dogs stopped snapping at a woman trying to mow her lawn and came across the street after me walking with my walker. A few days later the “lady” saw me on my daily walk, pulled her SUV next to me, called me a “crazy bitch”, said her dogs had never chased me and said she was going to “kick my ass.” My brilliant response to this was to say, “Well, come on, Baby.” She drove off, I wheeled my walker home and reported her threat to police. Her dogs were never loose again and my backside remains safe. Sometimes confrontation works; usually with cowards. With fools, it seems to encourage them to get louder and fouler. Know who you are dealing with before deciding whether to respond or ignore a fool.
When those types lack appropriate communication skills (and they do), their “ugly comes out”. That was an expression I had never heard until the Mary Winkler trial in TN began. Perhaps you know the sordid details and I won’t repeat them here. Her ugly came out as it did with the folks who threw bricks covered in nasty suggestions, or with those who didn’t waste a brick and just said it to your face or replied via your blog.
We all have ‘sinful souls’ and those who consider themselves ‘perfect’ are going to be really busy praying, which leads me to conclude that maybe, just maybe, they won’t have time to throw barbs and bricks.
I enjoy reading your perspective on many issues, otherwise I’d move on and not bother. But why DON’T you address reasoned challenges to your viewpoints? In the past 6 months I’ve seen you make disparaging comments against Republicans, Christians, Mormons, Jews, non-Urbanites, the elderly, and on and on…
Saw this sign on Facebook:
“People can be taught how to hate and people can be taught how to spell. But apparently, it’s one or the other.”