Those who have helped the poor the most have not been those who have gone around loudly expressing "compassion" for the poor, but those who found ways to make industry more productive and distribution more efficient, so that the poor of today can afford things that the affluent of yesterday could only dream about. - Thomas SowellWhat an interesting contribution to the political dialog about solving poverty. Whereas moden political poverty solutions based on FDR's New Deal have wrung hands, made grand gestures and distrubuted trillions of dollars only to create a multi-generational dependent underclass, advances in lowering industrial costs has given most of the poor running water, efficient transportation, relatively comfortable housing, and large TVs (among other comforts and luxuries). This is a valuable observation worth constructive analysis in a bi-partisan atmosphere.
But this rant is not about Sowell's comment, but instead a liberal athiest's reaction to it.
In my office area is a liberal athiest who is deeply passionate (to put it politely) about his beliefs. I was surprised to get an unsolicited comment from him about Sowell's observation:
Blah blah blah.At first, I felt insulted, as this individual (let's call him CC) has repeatedly made rude comments on my political beliefs. Should I respond or ignore it? Bouncing it off a couple close respected friends, I decided to largely ignore it for - by distributing such a crude response to the entire software department (probably unintentionally) - he has managed to embarass himself and once again show his true colors, those of an intolerant leftist.
And furthermore, blah blah blah.
To recapitulate, blah blah blah. - some right-wing windbag
Some time ago I decided to make a distinct point of learning from political opponents. They sincerely believe things for a reason, and by examining comments I may understand others and perhaps improve myself. So...what about the "blah" comment? What can be learned?
CC did bother to read the lengthy quote. That reinforces my belief that adding quotes to one's email signature is a worthwhile endeavor. It's nice to get people to think about ideas that they normally would not be exposed to. There is value to soundbites. Sure, the soundbite likely did not have a great impact, but like an advertisement it did get into his mind and the meme will do its work.
The comment challenged his views enough that he felt motivated to respond, even if out of blind anger...blind enough to (based on previous experience) not realize that he was about to embarass himself before a couple dozen coworkers.
This response shows that he sees no value in the views of others. Opposing opinions are only worth insulting, even if the quote in question is from a respected pundit and viewed highly enough by someone who appreciates the quote enough to extract it from a widely-published article and uniquely and regularly attach it to one's own messages. Rodney King asked "why can't we all just get along?" This is a prime example of why: rather than engaging an opponent in a meaningful exchange of ideas and trying to learn from the dialog, many instead simply discount and insult and embarass those who think differently.
Another point is the quality of the insult. While certainly better than "you suck", it sure reflects badly not on the object of the insult but on the provider. Consider Cyrano DeBergerac's response to one who insulted his ample nose:
"Ah no! young blade! That was a trifle short! You might have said at least a hundred things By varying the tone. . .like this, suppose,. . ." and proceeds to insult his own nose with numerous clever comments, ending with "Such, my dear sir, is what you might have said, had you of wit or letters the least jot: But, O most lamentable man!--of wit you never had an atom, and of letters you have three letters only!--they spell Ass! And--had you had the necessary wit, to serve me all the pleasantries I quote before this noble audience. . .e'en so, you would not have been let to utter one-- nay, not the half or quarter of such jest!"Sometimes observes that another's views are indeed foolish and worthy of insult. Reader, if you are inclined to insult someone, apply your experiences and do so with a meaningful barb worthy of this and other great insults recorded in history. "Blah blah blah" just doesn't cut it. Even an insult may, well phrased and properly applied, benficially advance society.
Should I directly respond to CC? I could go to him and say "please don't insult me" or "why do you feel compelled to treat me that way" or "so, this is the kind of constructive polite dialog I should expect from a liberal athiest?" Probably not, for as he has repeatedly behaved this way before, methinks it's unlikely that he will change unless he figures it out for himself. Time and the silent observation of dozens of others may have greater effect than an expected whining from the object of his insult. Kindness will do more than a returned insult; as observed in the Bible:
"If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the LORD shall reward thee." - Proverbs 25:21-22Despite this in the latest string of insults (of which all have backfired), I will be kind and polite to CC.
CC, if you are reading this, let me reiterate that I would much like to understand and learn from you. Unfortunately, you seem far more interested in raging against one who has thoughtfully come to a different conclusion. I'd like to know what you think is wrong with Sowell's comment; surely you have something more constructive to offer than "blah blah blah".
Is this rant overkill for what prompted it? Maybe so...but I sure got more out of it than simply ignoring an insult, and hopefully - now that you're reading this closing sentence - you did too.
- Carl Donath 6/12/99