Last week over drinks, a Writing Boots reader remarked that some Writing Boots readers are disinclined to argue with my posts even when they strongly disagree, lest I humiliate them in public with my answer. This was my response:
Then, I pretended to both of us to be (a) surprised and (b) saddened by the notion that readers would hesitate to contradict the opinions expressed here.
And I am sorry that there are people who sincerely object to what I say (or how I say it), but who hold their tongue for fear of rhetorical retribution. But the source of my discomfort is that I'm tantalized by two equally attractive possibilities: (1) the unlikely chance that someone can truly enlighten me on a subject I feel sufficiently knowledgeable to write about, or (2) the more likely chance that someone will throw me a fat one at the belt line that I may swat off the facing of the upper deck.
But I object to the insinuation that I ought to write, or react to readers' criticism of my writing, in such a way that would encourage any but the boldest, most confident readers to disagree. I didn't just pick this idea off the rack, fluff it up and hold it up against my breast for approval, motherfucker. Oh, you don't like it? I'll just put it back! I lived about a half century, and thenput this idea forth because I deemed it to be the truth. I expressed it in the style, and with the calibrated vehemence that I, having written a couple millions of public words under my own byline, deemed appropriate.
So though I recognize that you may object to what I have written, and welcome any comment you have, and will probably respond to anything you say … you should accept a high bar for being agreed with. "You have a point," should be considered high praise. "I hadn't considered that"—that should make your day. "You're right. I'm wrong. Thanks for changing my mind."—if you get one of those out of me, you should take the next week off, because I sure will.
An early mentor of mine sold me on the P.T. Barnum editorial plan: If you want to draw a crowd, start a fight. In that spirit, I have written some intentionally provocative things over the years. Nothing I actually didn't believe, but sometimes with the volume turned up, to irritate people, and lure them into saying something intemperate themselves. Now that I am a responsible publisher and friendly association boss, I'm far less likely to write a thing for effect. So if you attack something I have written, you attack something I actually think. Good luck with that. Seriously—good luck.
Now: The point has been made that, however violently I may disagree with a reaction to something I have written on this daily blog, the principle of kindness should guide my response. Hey, I wrote the post for free, in early morning hours or late at night—this one was scrawled in a notebook at an airport bar—in secret from all the people who rely on me to spend my limited energies in sensible and economically productive pursuits. Now you ask that I spend more pro bono time and agony couching replies to quibbling critics in courteous terms? At the risk of cultural appropriation: Ain't nobody got time for that.
The only kind way to respond to a critique I deem dumb would be not to respond to it at all. So—if you do dare to respond—how do you like your correspondence? Hot or cold? Those are the choices.
I hope you’ll allow me to quote your mother [as a long-time reader of this blog, I’m certain I’ve seen you quote this previously] for a moment: “Fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke!”
Seriously, though,I am monumentally sick of the new politically correct, wishy-washy, touchy-feely, milquetoast approach to discourse the world has recently been subjected to and told it is now the ONLY way to debate. They can all fuck off with that crap!
If you believe in something enough to take time out of your life to write and publish it, and I believe strongly enough in my dissenting opinion to what you said, then both of us should be prepared to take our lumps in how the resulting discourse plays out.
This: “everyone has to be polite and NICE to each other ALL THE TIME IN EVERY SITUATION” is bullshit. It’s how opinions get watered down and people get away with things they shouldn’t.
Granted, there’s a line between animated, some would say aggressive debate, and disrespectful or bullying interactions, and it’s often a fine line. But as you rightly point out, David, if we are all genuinely approaching a conversation with a respectful – if wound-up – commitment to our opinions, and if we are comfortable enough with the validity of our own opinions, then it shouldn’t present a problem when someone comes at us with a different opinion, even if that opinion is loud or ebullient.
@Kristen: This is just the sort of fatuous, sniveling comment that I loathe … oh wait. No, it’s perfect. WOW!
One aspect of this conversation that I didn’t cover in my original post is that 20 years ago professional communicators expected to have bracing arguments on professional issues in public. And a number of us did.
It was fun. (And somewhat dysfunctional.)
But people have less job security now and care far more about their personal brand than any ideas they are forming, about communication ….
Jeepers, Murray, stirring the pot again, eh? Where’s Amanda Chapel when you need her?
I generally have a rather, ahem, academic tone on public fora. Or so I’ve been told. I’m not sure whether that’s a reflection of my sesquipedalian tendencies, or that I’m good at spinning smart-sounding bullshit (or maybe both!)
Animated discussion can still be respectful – one of my ongoing themes of late is that discourse has become tres coarse and we are suffering for it. But I shall defend your ability to say and discuss whatever the fuck you want to.
😀
No, I’m not arguing for coarse. Why in the greasy folds of a hippo’s scrotum would you think that?
I’m saying that if I get a comment on my blog (or on Facebook, about my blog) that shows clichéd, sentimental, self-pitying, anti-intellectual or otherwise slovenly thinking, then I’m going to point that out sharply and try to prove it rhetorically.
And even, perhaps, entertainingly.
Dave, bubbie, it’s your planet, dude. Rock on! (GFHS can be an acronym!)
Sticks and stones may break your bones but that photo of you is a whole other story…
To the tune of Big Ben’s (now dormant) chime: Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong…wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. (stolen from an old Scrubs bit).#pokethebear