Saturday, February 13, 2010

justified rudeness? and an apology

I've been watching a thread and observing the dynamics: the owner of the site belittles a commenter, the commenter responds in anger, the site owner's friends say that proves the owner's rudeness was justified.

My understanding of World War One has improved.

There's no such thing as justified rudeness. And because that's so, I apologize to the anti-racists whose actions I said were hissy fits. I will describe their deeds as objectively as possible from now on.

ETA: Revised post.


  1. I saw that same thread, Will. It troubled me, too.

    On the other hand, the commenter in question turned out not to be simply rude, but someone with a documented history of felonious fraud.

    On the gripping hand, the lapse in logic you note is undeniable.

  2. John, I've thrown away several drafts of a response. I'll go with yeah for now. I've been with the other hand. I hope to stay with the gripping.

  3. Your blog post is about justified rudeness and all I did was make a waggish comment about how UU ministers get away with all kinds of rudeness thanks to the UUA and MFC "justifying", or at least *rationalizing*, the rudeness of UU ministers. Would yopu like a few well documented examples of that Will?

  4. Robin, no, because you're inserting your obsession into the discussion. As a result, you're the one who's being rude now.

    Even if your opponents were rude first, being rude in turn is never justified. It's just being rude. It doesn't convince anyone that you're right. If anything, it makes it easier for people to ignore what you're saying when you say it rudely. Neither Gandhi nor Martin Luther King were big on insults. Heck, Malcolm X wasn't big on rudeness either. An important message has to be delivered objectively. Some people will take affront, no matter how objectively you speak, but you should never make it easy for them to dismiss you.