[lit-ideas] Re: Why lying may be unavoidable
- From: "John McCreery" <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:38:14 +0900
Paul,
Thank you for a thoughtful and well-intentioned chide. My impulse is to
agree completely with what you say. But we should, perhaps, consider the
possibility that the nation stands at one of those crossroads where civility
must yield to stronger verbal weapons.
After all, isn't it possible that, clinging to the hope of civility, we
become what our right-wing extremists like to call us: cowards who still
want to talk when clearly the time for talk is past, because we are afraid
to stand up and call a terrorist a terrorist, an enemy an enemy, a liar a
liar?
Yes, there is the Nietzchean dilemma: At what point to you become what you
are fighting? But personally, I have reached a moment when I am tired of
acting like an abused spouse, waiting trembling for the next blow, to which
I'm expected to respond with a whimper.
Yes, I am perfectly willing to talk with my antagonist. At the first sign
of, "I was mistaken when I said that" even if it is followed with "but...."
(expecting a change of heart or mind is going much too far), I will respond
in kind. Verbal or actual war are to me weapons of last resort. Sometimes,
it appears, they are necessary.
John
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:47 AM, Paul Stone <pastone@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John McCreery: Alan Wolfe has an interesting take on why McBush
> Republicans have to lie.
>
> This comment is not just directed at you John, but it strikes me that
> before true bipartisanship can occur, trite, childish nicknaming to
> show spite needs to be dispensed with.
>
> Sure, Bush is a rube and deserves all scorn, ridicule etc. And Obama
> appears slicker than he is. And McCain was caught smiling fakely on
> purpose for a camera op, but didn't quite hold it long enough. And his
> choice for a VP is truly Machiavellian; they are politicians.
>
> But the acrimony is fueled when the supporters of either side act just
> as silly as those they condemn on the other sides. It reminds me of
> how truly childish behaviour can come out in a strike situation.
> Chanting, calling each other names, singing dumb songs -- these are
> kindergarten strategies. But Robert Fulghum was wrong. Some things
> learnt AFTER the age of 5 are much more important.
>
> Anyway... just like someone said that 'diplomacy has never worked in
> the past, so why should it work in the future', I would say, using the
> 'neener neener neener' strategy is just as self-defeating.
>
> The kindest compliment I ever got from a former Phil-Litter was that
> he was impressed that I didn't attack him personally during a heated
> back and forth we were having. So... attack the permises, attack the
> actions, attack the personality, even attack their integrity and
> intelligence, but the name-calling is just childish and makes
> otherwise intelligent and locial people look like asses.
>
> p
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
--
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
http://www.wordworks.jp/
Other related posts:
