Just So Unnecessary

[poliphilo]

I know this is frightfully English of me, but I don't see why we can't debate our differences- and do it stringently, wittily, hilariously- without having recourse to personal insult. What do you gain by calling someone an ape? Or for that matter banging on about small hands and peculiar hairstyles? Nothing that serves your cause.

Insult raises the heat, widens the gulf, lowers the tone. And sometimes- as Roseanne Barr just found out- your carelessly aimed stone can bounce off an opponent's tin roof and strike you full in the gob.

Comments

[oakmouse]

I agree that insult really does nobody any good when you're trying to have a genuine conversation or debate about an issue. Media people, especially news commentators, should keep off it entirely.

On the other hand, when the issue is one on which the great majority of people will never have a voice, and the insults are aimed at those in power, some use of insults --- humorous, witty insults, not the boring obvious pedestrian kind --- can be a valuable safety-valve to keep explosions from happening. But really, even that has very little place in public discourse; it's more fit for people to use, say, on their DW accounts, where nobody but their Flist will see it.

(For the record, I think that any media personality who descends to obscene insults shoud be fired for lack of professionalism, regardless of who they are and who their target is.)

[poliphilo]

There's a grey area- where dispassionate criticism shades into insult. If someone has actually stolen something it's entirely legitimate to call them a thief...

[oakmouse]

Oh, definitely agreed. It's only an insult to call someone a thief if they're innocent of theft. Otherwise it's a simple statement of fact. (ETA: or perhaps not so simple, depending on tone and context and delivery. But still, statement of fact.)