Is tossing insults ethical? Is toeing the PC line intelligent?

January 8, 10:34 AMDC Ethical Issues ExaminerLaura Harrison McBride

Previous Next

2 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the DC Ethical Issues Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Hope springs eternal (freefoto.com)

In another galaxy, far, far away, human beings debated issues by using arguments constructed on two bases: facts and logic.

They actually debated issues; they did not just say, “You’re stupid.” 

“No, you are.” 

“No, you.” 

“Nah-uh, you.”

“Na-na-na-na-na-na.”

Currently, I have noted that personal insults seem to be the stock in trade of those who would disagree with the opinions of others. I admit to noticing this when I have been attacked, as a result of this column and others, rather than refuted.

I would welcome refutation. After all, every one of us has his or her own biases, which often prevent our casting our informational nets as widely as we should. (A very few commentators have constructed refutations, and I thank them, and appreciate their time and trouble, and will consider their points.)

I also welcome corrections of fact. While the Internet is a wonderful tool for finding information, it is sometimes less accurate than the old method—phone, personal interview, major university libraries--partly because of its inherent nature, and partly because we are all whirling through our universes too fast. We out-goggle ourselves. We have more to synthesize than time alloted to synthesize it in. Abundance is sometimes more than we need.

While most writers use the old-fashioned tools to gather information on occasion, the speed of information transfer these days makes it incumbent upon writers to use the faster tools available more often than might be ideal. Theoretically, word crafters should enjoy more time for checking and re-checking than the talking heads on television, but in fact, the opposite is the case. Because of the economics of the thing, television presenters have staffs to check their information; writers, except a few working for very well-financed print journals, have to do it all—every last bit, from concept to research to writing to editing—themselves. It is probably a miracle that more errors don’t creep in.

As for me, the only thing I can do is to own my errors when they are pointed out, correct them, and apologize for them.

We all make errors every day, factual and judgmental, but writers’ errors are on display for all the world to see. Errors made by non-writers are generally exposed only to those immediately involved—a boss or co-worker, family, friends.

Still, if one writes for a living, one knows from the outset that one will be exposed to an airing of one’s mistakes now and again, and to criticism, fair and foul.

What I don’t think any of us bargained for was the vitriol and personal attacks that seem to be the way Americans express disagreement these days. Maybe shock jocks started the downward slide of intelligent discourse; maybe political correctness put the last nail in the coffin of reasonable disagreement over issues.

Shouting people down or slamming them is easier than constructing an argument, but is it ethical?

Refusing to see another viewpoint that isn’t politically correct is easy, but it is intelligent? That raises the question: Who decides what is politically correct? And, to bring up a phrase from my New York City childhood, “Who died and left them boss?”

I will say, right now, that I have utterly no use for political correctness, because I am unable to determine who, in fact, has a position exalted enough to be in charge of deciding what is or is not politically correct. That being the case, the universe is fair game. The universe of Washington DC presents, as it happens, a most interesting and diverse game preserve, a veritable unending supply of “game’ to hunt.

So, while occasionally having to apologize for a factual error, I shall not apologize for mistakes of opinion; there can be, a priori, no mistake in an opinion. I shall, however, invite refutation of those opinions, based on facts and logically constructed arguments. Such things would help the readers and me, as well; as noted, we none of us cast our nets as wide as we might. Such things as calling my work (or anyone’s) a load of “bs” reflects more on the author of the remark than on the work itself; if it is “bs”, it is incumbent upon the person offering the opinion to support it. Otherwise, it’s just mean-spirited and helpful to no one, not to me, not the readers—and, if one puts any stock at all in “what goes around comes around,” not to the flinger of the epithet, either.

Therefore, in appreciation of a kindness I am most grateful for, I shall thank a commentator named Gary, who posted his remarks on my “What is travel writing in America?” post on examiner.com’s travel channel. On January 4, Gary wrote:

“He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself, And he who reproves a wicked man gets insults for himself.” – Proverbs 9:7

”I’m not a Christian but I live by this proverb. If you are trying to build something (writing is an act of construction), you have to ignore the haters.”

I shall try to remember that next time a response to something I write is not reasoned, but rather refers to me as “you people,” or my work as “bs”—although I would rather have a reasoned refutation instead.