|Just So Unnecessary
||[Jun. 3rd, 2018|10:18 am]
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.
Ah, don't think that needs to be "typically English".
Annoys me too - and I don't know about any connection to GB from my side.
Think it's more the brains which crave for intellectual satisfaction - and calling each other animals' names and pulling each other through the dirt isn't going to lead to that. It's more like bad skills in acting which want to indicate "you know, I'm a total idiot in this sector, but I can't admit that openly because I don't want to lose my privileges that I can't live without".
That for "perforating with facts" seems more like an enjoyable thing.
Let someone destroy his public image by denying things that all people can spot too on their own and by demonstrating his ecucational ignorance (because he doesn't know what you "insulted" him as at all)...
Our politics is distressingly tribal. We shout at people because they're wearing the other team's shirt and not because we've examined- or even know anything about- the opinions they hold and the work they're doing. I think this holds true of all Western democracies.
Yep, that pattern of just insulting each other beloiw the belt line, it pretty much emerged everywhere.
Especially a critical level it reaches if you find somebody going really down on on the subject matter who calls out subject matter which would deserve getting addressed.
Then it's suddenly "you believe in the wrong Gods, cite the wrong people, and, at all, that speaks for your misanthropic attitude, so shut the hell up".
While certain kinds of misanthropy - hostility against poor people, looking suspiciously at all people who don't believe in a super-peaceful mankind, calling somebody a "populist" over whatever shit he voices that doesn't suit, or talking somebody to a society-harming element when he starts to address the fact that the rich class took from society over decades, with giving less and less shit back to it in return - you can see, they're relatively accepted. Nobody calls that "misanthropy" or even deems to link a negative judging to this.
So you can just see it isn't about possible "misanthropy" at all, it's more one of these passive-aggressive psychological games in order to make the opponent look like a fool in public - to distract from the own forebearance to do something against the criticized circumstances.