| « | A Critique To The Right |
»
|
|
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Further Thoughts On Vileness And Insult In Discourse: A Personal Vignette
"You think, then, that I must apologize to my lady wife?"
"Do you think so, Sire?"
"The notion is unattractive, Duke."
"What was it you told me last week day about unattractive notions?"
"That they seemed to be good indicators of the proper course."[From Steven Brust's The Phoenix Guards]
Fran here. Today's topic is one I've been straining not to write about...indeed, not to think about. It tears at my Christian convictions, to the point where I find myself wondering whether I'm too badly flawed to call myself one. But the discomfort of the subject has convinced me that it must be aired.
It is supremely important that a man regularly examine his own conscience and character, for consistency with one another and with the most reliable external standards he knows. As fallible, impulsive, and easily misled as we are, he who sloughs this responsibility has taken a big chance with his moral standing, and with the well-being of anyone who might depend upon him.
SMITH: I believe that a man is as big as the things that make him mad. Nobody around here has been big enough to make you mad.
MACREEDY: What makes you mad, Mr. Smith?
SMITH: Me...? Nothing in particular.
MACREEDY: I see. You're a big man, too.[From Don McGuire and Millard Kaufman's screenplay Bad Day At Black Rock]
There are a number of people I dislike. That is, I find them irritating or obnoxious company. When given the option, I act to avoid them. But I don't hate them; indeed, I do my best to wish them well. The distinction eludes quite a number of them, including a few who consider themselves my intellectual and moral superiors.
But in that group are a few people who've made it clear that they wish me ill. They'd like to see me silenced, beset by calamity, perhaps even killed. When I become aware of that sentiment, it becomes difficult to resist returning it in equal measure. I haven't always succeeded.
Awareness of hostility at a distance is one thing; hostility flaunted in one's face is another. When you're compelled to endure a man who wishes you ill and makes his hostility plain, your self-control can be tested to its limits. When you know that you're capable of doing him great harm, that he couldn't stop you if you chose to do so, and that he isn't aware of any of that, you face what might be the severest test human morality can endure.
Therefore, since all men have a limited ability to resist provocation, it becomes obvious that you must impose limits upon what others can impose upon you. But since no such limit is impenetrable unless you live on your own private asteroid, more likely than not you'll be provoked beyond your strength at least once in your life. If no one's around who can restrain you, there's little doubt what will happen next.
There are persons whose character is so low that they routinely attempt to provoke others to intemperance, simply to win an argument. As I mentioned in the previous essay on this subject, this is becoming a preferred tactic on the Left. Since leftists' rational arguments for their positions are in terrible disarray, they have nothing better than scorn and insult with which to "reply" to us. You can observe this even at high levels of government; the recent exchange between Senator Barbara Boxer and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is a case in point.
As an outspoken libertarian-conservative, I receive a quota of abuse proportional to my extremely modest influence. (I instituted comment moderation so that Eternity Road's readers wouldn't have to cope with it.) By and large, I'm able to shrug it off, but a recent incident has tried me to my limits.
I have an unusual attitude toward insults. I don't really care about being called "stupid" or "ignorant;" those are grammar-school thrusts, and self-refuting at that. As for "ugly," well, as long as it isn't the C.S.O. saying so, I'll let it pass. But I do care about being called dishonest or insincere.
Of the two, "insincere" is worse by far. A man may propagate a falsehood by accident, simply because he's been misinformed; thus, his information might be bad but his motives good. But insincerity is a character indictment one cannot detoxify: it's the accusation that your overt words and deeds cannot be trusted because your actual motives are dark ones: unspoken desires to deceive, wound, or destroy. Anyone who dares to call me insincere to my face had better have his gun drawn.
Of course, in these days of the Internet, it's possible to insult someone grotesquely without ever coming within his reach. A lot of people avail themselves of the possibility.
Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig enjoys it. [Author unknown]
Smith, a person who has taken pains to insult me in the past, recently crossed my danger threshold. The actual occasion was ironic; I'd stopped by his site, which I thought he'd opened only recently, and wished him well in a comment to a post in which he'd explicitly insulted me. He responded to my comment by insulting me a second time.
I made note of this exchange at another site, which I'll call The Other Site (TOS), where I was a co-contributor. Smith apparently noticed, and chose to respond with derision. I told Smith quite plainly that I dislike him -- I've never troubled to hide it -- but that I wish him well nevertheless. It was then that he called me "insincere." Apparently, in Smith's world, there's no distinction between distaste and hatred.
In my opinion, Smith thinks much more of his modest intellect, knowledge, and eloquence than they deserve. (He admires James Wolcott; make of that what you will.) An insult from a mediocrity, even a deadly insult, is one a civilized person should resolve to ignore; the alternative is to descend into his wallow. But the damage was compounded by a "sin of omission:" neither the editor of The Other Site, who had actively solicited my participation there, nor any of the other contributors said a word in my defense.
It's been a couple of weeks since this took place. I've been unable to expel it from my thoughts since then.
The Internet is a blessing in many ways. Had Smith been within arm's reach when the above took place, I'd have done my best to thrash him to within an inch of his life -- and my best is very good. So at least I won't have that on my conscience. But what I do carry there, as I mentioned above, is the fulminating anger that would have propelled that beating. I've found no way to exorcise that demon.
Alongside that is my unslaked desire to tell the folks who didn't speak up for me exactly what I think of their silence. I haven't done that, and I don't think I ever will. But to say the least, it galls me to think that they held me, their co-contributor whose participation they actively solicited, in such scant regard. Well, the association is ended now, so perhaps I only need some time to get over it. What will take me longer to get beyond is the desire to reciprocate the slights I was dealt, a desire no follower of Christ is supposed to indulge.
The irony here is that this is what the forces of evil in this world would most like to see: that we who prize freedom, who seek to uphold a high standard, and who want above all things to view everyone as good and benevolent, should come to doubt our own decency, and in doubting fall silent.
If you pray, please pray for me. I think I need it.
Comments
Dear Fran,
I’m aware of the incident that inspired this. But I was not aware of its affect upon you nor of the ramifications to which you’ve permitted it to drive you.
Yes, even I, the agnostic, pray for you much, as it is your wish.
I sometimes wonder if you accepting some things on faith alone prevents you from digging deeper into the meanings that are derived from your faith.
Maybe it would be easier for you to fulfill your Christian fellowship inclinations were you willing to accept that some men are on earth precisely to be a trial to you. Even God Himself has chosen to write some men off long before He introduced you to the scene.
As I see it then, it cannot be our job to win such creatures over. The best we can do is not succumb and to protect others from them when and wherever we are given to opportunity.I once tried to get you to explore the rotten character of some men as scripture warns of them. And I quoted you chapter and verse. Do you recall? Or are you too proud to ask me if you’ve forgotten? If I feared to be foolish or misunderstood, I wouldn’t write even as little as I do, nor would I have written this, in response to your pain.
Fran, the job for which you have been gifted, and certainly seems to be for what you have chosen includes warning other men of the traps such vermin will set for them. You cannot do that as well if you don’t unmask them as willingly as you uncover their traps.
Readers here may recall my quote of Sun Tzu the other day. Is your desire to feel Christian forgiveness enough to keep you from employing half of the wisdom of that quote? To keep you from declaring (recognizing) who is and is not an enemy to you and to that which you care about? To let them derail you on your course? To let them drive you to distance yourself from those closer to you as apparently that gnat has done?
Once again, God Himself is quite clear that He knows His enemy. Are you more moral than He? It’s not as farfetched a question as that seems. See, I’ve even Googled and found skeptics who call God immoral because of that Biblical quote. What more should you need to comprehend to what extent your enemy will not limit himself?
But, this is an exploration I’ve requested of you for years now. I pray I can be rid of this nagging feeling that even in your hour of need you’ll still pass on my persistence.
Well, I guess my main point is that resolving this conflict may make it easier for you both to forgive those who didn’t immediately come to your aid and to redouble your efforts at your chosen task. I pray that this time I reach you.
Pascal
Posted by Pascal Fervor on 01/17/2007 at 08:16 PMFran.
Praying for you as I type. For strength. And for God’s Justice for a strong, kind man ever-striving to be a better man.
And for Justice for others as well; for that is my prayer for the evil-doers, not that ill should fall upon them, but God’s Justice.
And why in the world would you want above all things to view everyone as good and benevolent when your heart and even God Himself knows they are not? You set yourself an inhuman task, fail and then blame yourself.
Steady.
Posted by on 01/17/2007 at 09:33 PMThis may or may not apply, so grain of salt and all that.
I had a similar experience last year over a conversation, of all things, of Cindy Sheehan. And the people who I expected to come to my defense remained deafeningly silent. I was shocked for a bit, but then as time went on I realized they didn’t jump to help me because they didn’t even assume I’d need or want their defense.
So perhaps your fellows, completely confident in your ability to so abley defend your propositions what with your galactic brain and all, never considered helping your necessary?
So it’s possible a compliment and not an insult was delivered. None the less, I’ll be praying for you never to doubt your own decency. It would be ridiculous since it’s evident in everything you post.
Posted by Lana on 01/17/2007 at 09:57 PM”...should come to doubt our own decency, and in doubting fall silent.”
Don’t doubt it for long, and please don’t fall silent.
Posted by Keith on 01/18/2007 at 06:54 AMYou are always in my prayers.
I love dogs. All dogs. Sometimes a vicious dog must be put to sleep lest he harm some innocent.
Posted by og on 01/18/2007 at 09:03 AMWhatever happened to a good thrashing? Seems to have had a salutary effect on the nabobs that has hitherto being lacking.
Carry on.
M
Posted by Mark Alger on 01/18/2007 at 10:05 AMThe “Smiths” of the world are always perfectly happy to participate in the virtual world, always well aware that they can provoke a person without the risk of a real-time punch in the nose.
Fortunately you are above such petty ignorance, and hopefully you take solace in that despite the silence of others.
Posted by Xealot on 01/18/2007 at 10:41 AMThe Internet is a blessing in many ways. Had Smith been within arm’s reach when the above took place, I’d have done my best to thrash him to within an inch of his life—and my best is very good.
I concur with Xealot. Had Smith been within arms length, my guess is that the above would never have taken place.
Posted by Tony on 01/18/2007 at 11:26 AMI will certainly pray for you sir.
John
Posted by on 01/18/2007 at 12:25 PMI second Lana (#3): you are a formidable wordsmith and thinker, so it is likely that those who know you saw the offending comment and chuckled gleefully to themselves in anticipation of the coming smack-down. They probably did not expect you to take it so personally.
Furthermore, the fact that you think (even agonize) about this speaks well for you—even if you fail to live up to your ideals in all cases. I doubt very much that your antagonizers ever question themselves or their motives.
Posted by on 01/18/2007 at 01:30 PMI just stumbled on your site while surfing the web.
I just don’t see how libertarianism and Christianity can mesh. (I’m neither Christian nor libertarian.) Aren’t Christians supposed to live communally, waiting for the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God? That being the case, how on earth can Libertarianism, which is all about property rights, be squared with Christianity?
Posted by on 01/19/2007 at 02:53 AMMetrodorus: It is quite easy to square individualism and property rights with Christianity. Being a Christian isn’t about being communal, it’s about a relationship with God and your personal faith. Christians must, of course, always be aware of the greater community and strive to help others where possible, but in the end the choice to accept the Christian faith is a personal one i.e. an individual one. Your Faith is your property, and is only shared with God. You may tell others about it, you may write about it, sing songs about it, whatever you desire.. but it is still YOUR faith.
Our possessions on Earth are similar. They belong to us and ultimately to God. It is our choice to share it with a community or with others… it is an individual choice. Libertarianism says nothing about private charity, because it is your own choice to make… the point is that the only authority to which you should entrust your belongings (and your Faith!) is your own judgement and God’s, not some Earthly government decrees of forced redistribution.
If charity is forced, it is not really charity, and thus is meaningless in the eyes of a true Christian. Do you wish to give your earnings away for something that is meaningless? I thought not.
Posted by Xealot on 01/19/2007 at 11:02 AMThere’s one word to describe a person who claims to be a Christian and yet fails to turn the other cheek: insincere.
Posted by on 01/20/2007 at 05:22 AMAh, but I did turn the other cheek, Jake. What I’ve struggled with is the persistence of the impulse to retaliate, not any retaliation.
There are many words for one who accuses falsely, whether explicitly or implicitly: liar, deceiver, defrauder, slanderer. Pick one and apply it to yourself.
There’s a fine old word of Biblical origin for one who condemns the peccadilloes of others before attending to his own far greater faults: Pharisee. That one seems to fit you as well.
There’s one magnificent word for one who assumes a false name behind which to couch such a slander: coward. I’d say that one suits you perfectly.
Are you a Christian, by the way? If so, you might want to have a chat with your pastor.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 01/20/2007 at 06:31 AM
