When Is Enough Enough?

“The ad hominem fallacy is the last refuge of the intellectual coward.” - Daniel Dennett

In theory, the question should be easy enough to answer. At what point during the course of multiple exchanges and debates in which someone reflexively retreats to ad hominem attacks against you (in lieu of substantive rebuttal) do you pull the eject handle and block them on social media and elsewhere? The answer is that it depends on your relationship with the person in question and the level of vitriol they throw at you. In my case, it took multiple occasions in which I was likened to Nazis to check out of the situation altogether.

I have no apologies for making the decision, but I still regret terribly that things took such an ugly turn. I’ve known the person in question since high school and reconnected with him several years ago. Like me, he is a retired military veteran, and on that count alone I took many more rhetorical spitballs and slanders from him than I would from anyone who had not served. He has, after all, earned the right to speak his mind, yes?

The challenge in this case stems from his inability to see anything at all without viewing it through a racial lens. There’s an old saying that to the person who only has a hammer, everything looks like a nail — except in this case the nail is systemic racism, white privilege, and the apparent belief that we’ve made no substantive advancement since the Civil Rights marches. I’m reminded of Jonah Goldberg’s humorous speculation years ago that if Rev. Al Sharpton went to a Sbarro’s and found they were out of ranch dressing, he’d say it was another Dred Scott decision and immediately organize a march.

Which was a huge reason why I abstained from ever commenting on his relentless, racially charged posts and re-posts. In a sense, I get it since I occasionally shine a spotlight on the human toll of the expulsion of Acadians from Canada that began in 1755 and resulted in the death of 50 to 70 percent of the entire Acadian population. But I don’t treat every day like it’s Cajun Heritage Day (or month), nor do I liken those who disagree with me to Charles Lawrence, the British governor of Nova Scotia, who ordered the expulsion in the first place.

Our first skirmish started when he dropped in on one of my posts that had something to do with Black Lives Matter. He asked what I would say was the mission of BLM, and I replied it should be something along the lines of actually standing up for black lives, and off we went. I was treated to assertions of ubiquitous racism running rampant throughout America, the targeting of African Americans by police, the rampant homicides of African Americans, etc. I responded with hard numbers that contradicted his assertions and was met not with counterarguments or contrary data refuting my points, but with the things I apparently had in common with Joseph Goebbels. I laughed it off at the time, but noticed that this became his signature response when faced with data and sources.

A few weeks ago he again dropped in on an article I wrote about the folks who marched here and there in the “No Kings” protests and how convinced they are that someone who is cutting red tape, rolling back regulations, standing up to foreign enemies and restoring the country to something a great deal more in line with what the Founders envisioned is actually an authoritarian. Again, this gentleman weighed in on my post, complaining about my having engaged in “what-aboutisms,” which is a sort of incantation that inoculates one against proof of hypocrisy. I asked if he had even read the piece, which he had before launching the USS Racialist yet again.

I had written about Donald Trump that, “He was elected to keep his promises and to the eternal astonishment and white hot anger of the political class, he’s really doing it.” To which he wrote, “The only thing that is 'white hot' is white people’s anger.” How he drew that inference from a description which I settled on only because “incandescent anger” didn’t quite describe the furious anger from the left as accurately as I would have liked, I’ll never know. I replied, explaining that I would no longer respond to his remarks on political matters.

Then, just a couple of days ago, absent any provocation from me, he wrote a blurb to his friends online, tagging me, and complained that I refused to debate him, that I had invited him to comment on my articles only to take offense, followed by the continued reference to Goebbels, etc. I thought to answer that I had never commented on one of his posts, let alone invited him to comment on any of mine…But I immediately reasoned that it wasn’t worth it. Instead, I explained that I had had enough of the persistent comparisons to Nazis, the everlasting view that everything person, place or thing has some racial connotation, etc. I wished him well and blocked him completely.

My wife commented on how she could see the stress I would be under while trying to argue from facts only to be answered with insults. Yes, the Chinese proverb that “The man who strikes first admits that his ideas have given out" rings forever true. And continuing to engage in such a futile endeavor as exploring important issues is impossible if facts are deemed inadmissible and good faith is met with ideological myopia and slander.

Maybe dialogue isn’t possible. Charlie Kirk tried, and they killed him. I like to think we turned a corner when we turned away from dividing society into oppressed/oppressor groups based on race or gender fads, and are moving toward a society where character matters most. Our progress is uneven, and the opposition has turned more violent and extreme. Even as Lady Thatcher advised George H. W. Bush that “Now is no time to go wobbly,” we should also remember that we aren’t necessarily obligated to engage every crackpot and malcontent out there. Our adversaries have the right to speak their mind, and we retain the right to decline their slanderous abuses.