'I Hope You Get Cancer' (and Other Thoughtful Critiques)
I've been writing quite a bit about Planned Parenthood and the media campaign on its behalf that we've been subjected to in the last week or so. Over at CNN, commenter Teddy N. kindly wrote in response to my substantive critique:
"Karma will hit and Mollie will be struck with breast cancer tonight and have to have a double masectomy [sic]. That's what she gets for being against the poor being able to have mammograms done. May her Chemo be very painful."
I have long joked that my spiritual gift is not backing down in the face of strong resistance (in a way, it might even fuel me). But still, I recognize that this incivility is problematic.
Another media critic, the highly respected NYU journalism prof Jay Rosen, has been attempting (but largely failing) to defend the media campaign on behalf of Planned Parenthood. Biblical Studies professor Denny Burk politely engaged him in the comments to a post he wrote and Rosen responded poorly, ending with "Have a nice [expletive] day." Burk responded politely again and Rosen told him to leave.
Conservative columnist Cal Thomas told a crowd at CPAC earlier today that Rachel Maddow was a good argument for birth control. How utterly vile.
Yesterday Philip Klein pointed out that if you Googled "Santorum," you got a paid ad and then results of him winning 3 contests. "That's victory," Klein said. I pointed out that for a country that decries bullying, this is something we could all support no matter our personal views. See, some people had tried to sully the Senator's family name by comparing it to a fecal byproduct that results from sodomy and then ensuring that this definition is what showed up when you Googled his name. It made no sense but far from being decried, it was celebrated. The New York Times even ran a fawning profile of Dan Savage, the man who led the bullying campaign, and his view that monogamy was a bad norm.
But a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, someone whose work I admire, defended the practice as simply being rude. I pointed out the damage to his children, who are also affected. He justified the campaign because he was under the impression that Santorum, in discussing Lawrence V. Texas, had wished to make this fellow's sexual practices a crime. Santorum has said he doesn't think it's in the state's interest to intervene but that sodomy laws existed for a reason. Anyway, I pointed out, the best way to disagree with someone's politics is to disagree with their politics as opposed to resorting to juvenile behavior. If your views are rational, they'll compete well. Name-calling, on the other hand, suggests you can't rationally fight the reasoning. My interlocutor seemed surprise that I'd encourage him to be polite when discussing sodomy and marriage law.
Finally, New York magazine's Jonathan Chait has a piece in which he attempts to defend his general incivility. He writes that someone he disagrees with is so stupid (she's not) that "this is why I am forced to be so mean."
Really now. Many years ago I was a peer counselor and I remember the many pamphlets we distributed about domestic violence. One of them was headlined "Don't Make Me Hit You," or something like that. It was all about how no one forces you into domestic violence, even if they have upset you. You have to be responsible for your own behavior and rhetoric. Period. Nobody makes you hurt anyone else.
Perhaps we need similar pamphlets for folks engaged in political discourse these days.
Don't get me wrong. We must speak truthfully and forcefully and these things are difficult for targets. But there's a difference between speaking clearly and descending into assaults and slurs.
And now a few questions: is there some underlying reason for all of this incivility? And how do we curb it? I've decided to just encourage friends to be nice in disagreement and also to do a bit of shaming when people are not nice. Sometimes a quick reminder is all that's needed (it works for me!). What else can be done?
- Comment (35)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jan '11
Re: 'I Hope You Get Cancer' (and Other Thoughtful Critiques)
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
I agree that there are some people who hold views that limit their ability to be civil, but in my experience, it is most definitely possible to have civil conversations on this topic. Many of my best friends support abortion rights and they, of course, know my position, too. We are not always able to discuss it but when we do, we remain civil. It is possible.
One thing to consider is whether the ideology itself leads to a coarsening of thought and rhetoric. I can imagine that possibility. · 42 minutes ago
I wish I could believe you, Mollie, but supporting the killing of another human being must take a toll on a person's psyche, and anyone pointing out the horror of what that person supports must incite a highly emotional state. The reality must be difficult to rationalize, particularly when apart from the reinforcement and comfort of a madding crowd.
I understand the necessity of incivility in such circumstances, I imagine it helps one get through the madness.
Dec '10
Re: 'I Hope You Get Cancer' (and Other Thoughtful Critiques)
I remember when I was banned from Little Green Footballs -- I know, I know, nothing about that makes me special, dangit -- for refusing to bite my tongue after the second straight week (or was it month?) of unending tirades against stupid Christians who refused to swallow the whole evolution thing (or was it, swallow the evolution thing whole). The LGF thugs came after me with all manner of vile and profane insults. My Bible-study lady friends (all over 60) were kind of impressed and thrilled by the abuse I'd taken... something about "blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake..." ;-)
On one occasion on my blog, I got a heated comment from a young woman in New Zealand about a little fit I threw over conservatives supporting same-sex marriage. It was "bloody" this and "bloody" that (I can say that as an American without violating the CofC, right?). I was able to surprise her by looking up her profile and explaining some things she didn't know about her own "bloody" culture in a very civilized way. She responded quite positively, but I never heard back because the exchange occurred right before the "Christchurch" earthquake!
Edited on February 10, 2012 at 3:35amNov '10
Re: 'I Hope You Get Cancer' (and Other Thoughtful Critiques)
Bravo Mollie! You have inspired me!
Apr '11
Re: 'I Hope You Get Cancer' (and Other Thoughtful Critiques)
As for the question of civility, we're taking about an ideology with an emotional foundation on a collision course with reality. They have no answers to conservative challenges to their fantasy world, so they react with rage. In almost any comments section you see 3 types of comments from the left:
1. The more civil insist that leftist policies are actually not that extreme, and dismiss any specific example of government intrusion as an isolated and/or necessary special instance.
2. Attacks on straw man conservative positions - "conservatives want to eliminate clean water!"
3. Last, but certainly not least: childish insults, name calling and snarky dismissals of opponents as SIXHRB.
Unfortunately, there are plenty of childish conservatives who show up and feed right into the leftist cliches, so debate descends into uninformed banter.
How do we counter this? The same way you deal with petulant children. Always remain composed and never let them drag you down to their level.
Be sure others reading/listening see how a true conservative behaves. Be a shining citizen on the hill. Also, as Mollie admirably did with Cal Thomas, don't hesitate to call out fellow conservatives when necessary.
Edited on February 10, 2012 at 4:13amMay '10
Re: 'I Hope You Get Cancer' (and Other Thoughtful Critiques)
It's the oldest diversionary tactic in the book. When you cannot logically attack the premise, attack the person. Why debate when you can call names. The left excels at this tactic and we take the bait by expending energy defending our character rather than debating the position. Until we begin rejecting the premise and stop allowing the left to set the rules of debate (and allow them to change them at will) we will continue to lose the public debate.
Mar '11
Re: 'I Hope You Get Cancer' (and Other Thoughtful Critiques)
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Sometimes a quick reminder is all that's needed (it works for me!). What else can be done?
As Rush often points out, this is the way liberals are, there's nothing we can do about it. It really shouldn't come as a surprise by now.
As to what else can be done - annoy a liberal, vote Santorum...
Edited on February 10, 2012 at 4:44amApr '11
Re: 'I Hope You Get Cancer' (and Other Thoughtful Critiques)
Please, don't for a second however think that they are the party of hate. That's us, ok?
Also, I really hope you don't get cancer. No cancer in general. For anyone.
Jan '12
Re: 'I Hope You Get Cancer' (and Other Thoughtful Critiques)
It seems to me that most people get rude when the feel that either they themselves or one of their most deeply held beliefs has come under attack. Putting aside the media, which has quite sensibly tapped into the latent outrage and ratcheted it up for ratings and profit, insofar as the public discourse in this country has become less civil it may well be because people feel more strongly about specific policy stances, or have come to identify their own selves with particular ideologies. Politics suffuses our culture -- and youth culture in particular. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are the most visible politicizing agents, but it's hard to believe that over a decade of campaigns like "Rock the Vote," "Vote or Die," etc. and high-profile mass movements like the Promise Keepers, Tea Party, OWS, etc. haven't impacted the way individuals (especially young individuals still going through the fraught and inconstant process of identity formation) view politics and policy. It certainly seems as if the expansion of politics into common culture and personal identity would lead people to be rather touchy when the topics came up. After all, you're not talking about abstractions anymore.
Jun '10
Re: 'I Hope You Get Cancer' (and Other Thoughtful Critiques)
The Planned Parenthood radicals did not care that their protests hurt Komen Foundation which was actually working to cure breast cancer, whereas all PP does is breast exams -- not mammograms -- and kill babies. Where was the outrage over that?
The new calls for the board of komen to be cleaned out is similarly an attack on breast cancer research, designed to kil more women, right?
Dec '10
Re: 'I Hope You Get Cancer' (and Other Thoughtful Critiques)
Very observant comment, Adam. Welcome to Ricochet.
Let''s not forget the public seminaries -- I mean schools, of course, where all the subsets of leftism aren't so much studied (that would require reasoning and thought) as reinforced: environmentalism, racialism, socialism, etc.
I think you're right that young people lead particularly politicized lives. However, I'm finding that older folks, sensing something askew in the nation, want very much to be involved, but are nearly as ignorant as the youth. I spoke with an older couple this week who went to the Colorado caucuses and didn't know that Rick Santorum is Catholic with seven children, is a foreign relations expert, and wrote the Partial Birth Abortion ban. And the couple is Catholic! I think the technology overwhelms them.
It's the first time I've realized how big a responsibility we middle-aged folks bear to keep this experiment running.
Re: 'I Hope You Get Cancer' (and Other Thoughtful Critiques)
It's worth noting how calmly and rationally Veronique de Rugy responded to Jonathan Chait, the man who said he was "forced" to be mean to her. She shows that he's the one who (yet again!) was wrong about his assumptions and does it without ever uttering an unkind word.
Aug '11
Re: 'I Hope You Get Cancer' (and Other Thoughtful Critiques)
Hi Mollie,
I've puzzled over similar situations for many years and received substantial relief when I learned the "disarming" technique advocated in cognitive behavioral therapy. In that model, you should find something to agree with in the offending statement followed by a deflecting comment. You need to practice it to use it naturally, but I've found it works very well.
In a situation like this where the arguer makes such a personal and ugly comment, I use a variant. The trick is to confront the person with his or her own egregious behavior, using mild surprise to throw it into stark relief. For example, "I was quite surprised ("startled" also works ) to read your last comment wishing me physical illness and suffering. Generally speaking, I don't think such statements advance the argument, but perhaps you find them to be effective?...." If you want to continue the dialog, you can add something like: "To be sure, we both agree...." or you could add a veiled barb at the end: "Thank you for your interesting contribution to the conversation!"
If you are a fan of Maggie Smith, it helps to envision the delivery by Lady Grantham of Downton Abbey!
Aug '11
Re: 'I Hope You Get Cancer' (and Other Thoughtful Critiques)
Yes, I've been wondering about this Jonathan Chait/Veronique de Rugy kerfluffle too, to the extent that I googled the CVs of each. de Rugy, of course, has her CV available and it appears that she received her masters in economics at the University of Paris IX – Dauphine and her doctorate at the Sorbonne. I could not find a CV for Mr. Chait anywhere--his bio at The New Republic and NY Magazine simply state that he is a graduate of the University of Michigan. The discipline is not listed.
Of course, education level does not necessarily correlate with intelligence, so I spent some time reading Amazon customer reviews of Chait's 2008 book "The Big Con" which were very enlightening. Sometimes I use the cost of a used copy as a proxy for value--Amazon marketplace lists it for 39 cents.
Re: 'I Hope You Get Cancer' (and Other Thoughtful Critiques)
EasternShoreGirl:
In a situation like this where the arguer makes such a personal and ugly comment, I use a variant. The trick is to confront the person with his or her own egregious behavior, using mild surprise to throw it into stark relief. For example, "I was quite surprised ("startled" also works ) to read your last comment wishing me physical illness and suffering. Generally speaking, I don't think such statements advance the argument, but perhaps you find them to be effective?...." If you want to continue the dialog, you can add something like: "To be sure, we both agree...." or you could add a veiled barb at the end: "Thank you for your interesting contribution to the conversation!"
If you are a fan of Maggie Smith, it helps to envision the delivery by Lady Grantham of Downton Abbey! · 18 minutes ago
I am a fan of the Dame and that's great advice!
Feb '11
Re: 'I Hope You Get Cancer' (and Other Thoughtful Critiques)
Mark DeMoss, a conservative, started something called the "civility project" with a simple pledge to agree to be civil. He was disgusted by the bile spewed against President Obama on the eve of his inauguration, much like Bush had been vilified before him. He wanted to do something about the problem, so we wrote a small pledge, got Lanny Davis (a prominent Democrat) to endorse it, and sent it to 585 congressmen and sitting governors. Here's the whole thing.
1. I will be civil in my public discourse and behavior. 2. I will be respectful of others whether or not I agree with them. 3. I will stand against incivility when I see it.
How many were willing to sign? Three. After two years, DeMoss gave up on the project. You can hear a forum address he gave on the subject here if you're inclined.