So I Have a Friend

[billroper]

Or maybe I had a friend. Some days, it can be hard to tell.

A few months ago, he wondered cryptically in a post on my friends list about why it is that people with different political opinions than his who he enjoys discussing things with eventually get tired of talking to him on the subject and wander off in varying degrees of either silence or huffiness. I'm guessing, given the timing, that I was the particular person referenced in that post. (Cue Carly Simon and "You're So Vain".)

And today, I got a little condescension bomb from him on a dead thread. And it reminded me of why I walk away from these conversations with some people.

Because, as daisy_knotwise frequently reminds me, "What's the point?"

I have lots of opinions myself. I like to believe that they're founded in data. I even see that I've occasionally been known to change my opinion given fresh data to look at. (No, I don't feel like getting into examples right now. Take my word for it for once, ok?)

But, you know, I am just sick to death of condescension. Condescension was what got me to walk away from a particular mailing list that I was on, prompting the comment that I reference earlier in this post.

I do my best to argue honestly. I will put out a proposition or argue with someone else's proposition, but I generally try to start from a basis of fact. I assume -- until reasonably proven otherwise -- that the other person is also interested in facts. I have been known to make suggestions to liberal partisans on how to improve their arguments, because I truly believe that we are all better off if we can discuss these things rationally. I've told conservative partisans to knock off the name calling, because it's counter-productive. (I don't make that argument to my liberal friends, because I'm pretty firmly convinced it would do no good. Maybe I'm wrong.)

And there are days when all this is extremely frustrating.

This is one of those days.

Comments

[billroper]

That's a fair criticism. What I didn't mention was that I saw someone here on LJ make exactly that request and watched several of my liberal friends and acquaintances proceed to explain that they had perfectly good and valid reasons for the name calling. I just went through a similar (although not identical) experience on the GT list.

So my opinion is based on data, although not necessarily any data that directly reflects on you. Nor have I noticed you doing a lot of name calling.

[madfilkentist]

Is the use of an expression "name calling" or merely an accurate description? Often that's a point of dispute in itself.

[billroper]

The case that I'm thinking of here would be something like "Rethuglican" or "McSame". On the other side, one might use "Obamadroids". (Picking a few that I've seen around.)

It is one thing to say that "Republicans are thugs", or "McCain's policies are identical to Bush's in every important way", or that "Obama's supporters are part of a dangerous personality cult around the man". While these statements are potentially objectionable, they're also debatable in some civilized fashion -- at least in theory. :)

Simple name calling, not so much. It's a way to spread heat instead of light. If that's the goal, it works splendidly.

[kevinnickerson.livejournal.com]

I hadn't heard "Rethuglican" before. I'd go with offensive on that one. McSame, while a put down, does have some legitimate rhetorical flourish to it. Possibly I feel that way because I'd say pretty much the same about the long forms you give. "Republicans are thugs" is offensive and useless. "...policies are identical..." is a reasonable argumentation tact.

It probably does me no good, but I try to be meticulous in typing, oh let's say, "President Bush" even when I'm thinking "*(&%^%*#$". Well it does some good, it lets me believe I'm taking the moral high ground. At least not dragging in the gutter anyway.

[billroper]

I appreciate the effort to stay out of the gutter. :) (And I understand the temptation to go there...)

[mbcrui.livejournal.com]

When I see names like that I think about a scene from West Wing where-in the President is interviewing a new secretary wannabe (Lily Tomlin) who, at some point, was investigated by the Secret Service for making a threat to the President by suggesting that he drink poisoned water. She's hired because she referred to the office respectfully.

I respect the office. Sometimes I don't respect the person holding the office, but villain or hero, they are OUR PRESIDENT.

[carolf.livejournal.com]

What kevinnickerson said. Exactly.

Nixon *was* a crook -- and there was sufficient inquiry to prove it. But the term was used long before he broke the law by people who had no facts in either direction.

The earlier use was name-calling. The latter use, though vulgar, was accurate.

It gets more interesting, though, when the rhetoric changes the word. There is nothing dirty or shameful about "liberal." Its dictionary meaning suggests lots of warm fuzzies, in fact. But when Bush sr. talked about "card-carrying liberals" there was no doubt he was using it pejoratively.

It wasn't the word that disturbed me; it was the sneer.

[edited because the order of coments didn't make it clear to whom I was responding.]

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

That's a good point.

[carolf.livejournal.com]

Oh, I didn't assume I was one of those you accused of name-calling. For which I am glad -- I put a lot of effort, sometimes, in NOT getting personal.

No, I was merely pointing out that, were I a stranger to you, your statement swept me into your accusation, and that you could not make that statement accurately about me. That your own attitude was, consciously or not, putting you on the path towards that to which you were objecting.

And yes, I'm sure some of your friends/acquaintances respond as you mention - yeah, but I'm justified in my name calling. That still doesn't mean it's pointless to make the suggestion, nor does it mean that *every* liberal will react similarly.

A too-small data sample can be as useless as no data at all. That way prejudice lies.