This week's Friendly Fire debate: September 2009 Archives

I've been mostly absent from this site in recent weeks, while finishing up some outside writing projects. But I've bantered a bit with one of our regular commenters, Diane, here.

Diane wonders where she may have been "uncivil" in her own discourse, as she seeks to hold the feet of Friendly Fire writers to the proverbial fire. I believe it's usually a matter of perspective. When I criticize someone, I find my candor and bluntness to be refreshing, while others find me to be a jerk.

In that same sense, Diane probably thinks she's being bracingly candid when she responds to some FF writers and their arguments thusly:

you definitely need to take a Valium or something... calling you a "political analyst" is rather overstepping... you are practically foaming at the mouth.. Your mis-statements regarding government healthcare plans are mind-boggling... laughable... and pathetic.... racist ranting... stop being Enablers of Stupid... why don't you just stop your whining until you at least find something worthy to whine about.

If you watch TV "news", you see that it has degenerated into a Theater of Controversy, where boxing gloves are more mandatory than decency or intelligence. But we are a fame-based culture, and those who want to be on TV learn to adjust to politics-by-punching. For their trouble, they get money or at least notoriety.

But we don't get that here. We try to sound out our arguments, we think out loud, we test our ideas, and we occasionally get a response. But if we're told that our ideas are pathetic and laughable, or that we need Valium, please forgive us if we attempt to move on to the next issue without stopping to engage you.