Rude Comments Not Appreciated... Lack Of Conscientious Thought Appreciated Even Less
A person who identified himself as "Russ" left a comment about one of my posts from April 2006. While I appreciate the fact that he took the time to go all the way back to April, 10 months back, to read my posts, I have to question the legitimacy of his comment. I question the legitimacy of his comment because of the manner in which he expressed himself, and the loose association he seemed to attach his comments to the original post.
The original post to which "Russ" commented was entitled "Censure Seems Inappropriate", and never mentions John Kerry at all. Yet, the very first part of Russ's comment attacks John Kerry:
Russ's use of overt profanity is uncivil and inappropriate. He is apparently expressing anger, but the anger is not directed to anything I stated in my post. My opening statements in my original post addresses hearings in Congress regarding the conduct of President Bush and a proposal by Senator Russ Feingold to censure the president on the basis of this conduct. Apparently, Russ is a bit out of touch with the reality of my post.
Russ goes on to say:
My post never mentions Muslims at all. It never mentions Kerry. My post criticized the actions of President Bush and his warrantless spying, disregard for our civil liberties, his conduct of combat over seas, and his disregard for his oath of office in favor of his allegiances to an entrenched ideology, big business and the Christian Right.
Since Russ failed to focus on anything I said, and his anger lacks specific focus, I must assume that he really has no grasp of the parameters of the issues I addressed. So I have to ask what it is that he is angry about? What is the basis of his angry and inappropriate commentary? Why is he attacking my character rather than my words and my position on the issues?
I can only assume that Russ is entrenched in some ultra-conservative ideology that does not care to be confused by the facts, rational thought or the forensics of the debate. He apparently only cares to engage in character assassination and casting aspersions rather than dealing with the issues legitimately raised by the events covered in my original post.
It seems, even though Russ and I have never met, that he feels I am some sort of ill-equipped person that would feel threatened by such commentary. I do not understand such an attack on the integrity of my standing as a man, or my integrity as a person. But, psychologically speaking, it appears that the inadequacy is not mine to own.
Once again, I implore my readers to read my words. If you want to respond--positively or negatively--do so with an appropriate focus on the issues I raise rather than merely employing an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem attacks only reveal a certain ignorance and a lack of integrity and a lack of intellectual prowess on the part of those that employ such tactics.
I would prefer to genuinely engage people on the basis of our views and the facts that support or detract from those views. I have never backed away from genuinely listening to intellectually sound debate. In fact, as anyone who has engaged me in such debate will attest, I relish such engagements with an intellectual curiosity and an appreciation of the integrity of the other person.
In any event, I really appreciate the fact that anyone reads my posts. I know that we all have a lot on our plate and taking the time to read my blog is taking time away from other things. I know how much time it takes to remain informed enough to formulate opinions on the matters that confront us with ethical and intellectual integrity.
So, while I did not appreciate the vulgarity of Russ's comments, nor his apparent lack of specificity in regard to my comments, I felt the need to respond to his effort to read my posts. Thank you, Russ, and everyone else, for reading my blog.
The original post to which "Russ" commented was entitled "Censure Seems Inappropriate", and never mentions John Kerry at all. Yet, the very first part of Russ's comment attacks John Kerry:
"Bla Bla Bla... Kerry is an as***le too."
Russ's use of overt profanity is uncivil and inappropriate. He is apparently expressing anger, but the anger is not directed to anything I stated in my post. My opening statements in my original post addresses hearings in Congress regarding the conduct of President Bush and a proposal by Senator Russ Feingold to censure the president on the basis of this conduct. Apparently, Russ is a bit out of touch with the reality of my post.
Russ goes on to say:
"Where do you think we would be today if Kerry was in charge? The reality of it is, we would be in the same boat. Do you think the Muslim world would be our friends? Look around, do you think "Death to America" painted on signs are for the Bush administration only?"
My post never mentions Muslims at all. It never mentions Kerry. My post criticized the actions of President Bush and his warrantless spying, disregard for our civil liberties, his conduct of combat over seas, and his disregard for his oath of office in favor of his allegiances to an entrenched ideology, big business and the Christian Right.
"Please pull your head out of your ass before its too late. Thanks."
Since Russ failed to focus on anything I said, and his anger lacks specific focus, I must assume that he really has no grasp of the parameters of the issues I addressed. So I have to ask what it is that he is angry about? What is the basis of his angry and inappropriate commentary? Why is he attacking my character rather than my words and my position on the issues?
I can only assume that Russ is entrenched in some ultra-conservative ideology that does not care to be confused by the facts, rational thought or the forensics of the debate. He apparently only cares to engage in character assassination and casting aspersions rather than dealing with the issues legitimately raised by the events covered in my original post.
"Be a man, post this for all to read. (Or are you afraid it all too true? I am.)"
It seems, even though Russ and I have never met, that he feels I am some sort of ill-equipped person that would feel threatened by such commentary. I do not understand such an attack on the integrity of my standing as a man, or my integrity as a person. But, psychologically speaking, it appears that the inadequacy is not mine to own.
Once again, I implore my readers to read my words. If you want to respond--positively or negatively--do so with an appropriate focus on the issues I raise rather than merely employing an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem attacks only reveal a certain ignorance and a lack of integrity and a lack of intellectual prowess on the part of those that employ such tactics.
I would prefer to genuinely engage people on the basis of our views and the facts that support or detract from those views. I have never backed away from genuinely listening to intellectually sound debate. In fact, as anyone who has engaged me in such debate will attest, I relish such engagements with an intellectual curiosity and an appreciation of the integrity of the other person.
In any event, I really appreciate the fact that anyone reads my posts. I know that we all have a lot on our plate and taking the time to read my blog is taking time away from other things. I know how much time it takes to remain informed enough to formulate opinions on the matters that confront us with ethical and intellectual integrity.
So, while I did not appreciate the vulgarity of Russ's comments, nor his apparent lack of specificity in regard to my comments, I felt the need to respond to his effort to read my posts. Thank you, Russ, and everyone else, for reading my blog.
posted by Jim Downey at 4:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home