I sometimes get frustrated with the manner of discourse and baited commentary in our public debate. More frustrating is when it comes from people on “my side” only to be followed by blind support. If not by the tendencies of pack herding marks, defense of this offense is also deemed acceptable because it is only a mirrored counter to the oppositions. “But they said this…” or “At least it is not as bad as when they said…” “They started it…” Well, I wish there was a teacher so I could tell on you. I think everyone can agree that baited, inciting comments are counterproductive to progress - not to mention how it corrodes the human spirit. And most frustrating is when calling “my side” on it, criticizing this counterproductive vitriol, the pack turns viciously on one of its own, railing “shame on your unpatriotic betrayal.” Yes, every pack has it’s own beat down squad.

I bring this up in regards to the Slate’s XX Factor commentary about a Dave Lindorff editorial by Rachael Larimore. In response to this critical review of the original piece, Juliet Lapidos begrudgingly agrees that Lindorff went a little too far, but then proliferates and supports the same inflammatory ideas that she just denounced. This type of tactic or reason in logic simply fuels the fires. Maybe it is not the centrist debaters that use this like a planned propaganda tool, but it is this tinder we spark that is engulfed as kindling by the far-winged camps and then offered to us again as ever-increasingly volatile charcoal. In no way did anyone in their posts turn on their own, but the spirit of the Lapidos defense was as if she was denouncing only in ceremony. As if on the playground the teacher scolds the child, “… Now go stand against the wall,” with a smile and a wink.
In response to Lapidos’ defense of the Lindorff piece, I don’t agree with her reasons. First, the comparison of Lindorff’s off color story is no way similar to ideas of the conservative preachers you identify. The deep held belief that ones soul will be condemned to damnation is much more offensive than some hypothetical suffering from a natural catastrophe. I would find a insult much more offensive if I knew the castigator truly believed, compared to the same insult from someone using it as just a sick joke. The difference between a fist and the middle finger. And what if the digs were equally offensive? See my playground reference in the first paragraph above.
Second, even if “there’s a kernel of truth,” if you think that we are on the “higher ground” in understanding the environment, we have to act like we are from the “higher ground.” What an heroic failure it would be to gain such an empty victory.
A simple statement in irony would have been appropriate and probably very funny. An epic tragedy of retribution is neither.