Let’s say a person disagrees with someone. Perhaps she disapproves of something they did. She may be angry, and this anger may be on behalf of God, brought about by some sort of legitimate violation, or both. Or it may be personal. It may involve the former and/or the latter, mixed in with other reasons having more to do with her than with whatever incited her anger.
Such anger may find expression in a number of different ways, depending on many factors not the least of which may be who is present. In a public forum which sanctions such things, opinions and anger seem to hear a siren call to vent in a way that is not appropriate. There is strength and cover in numbers. A person can get away with a lot of nasty stuff by surrounding herself with like-minded people (or so I've heard, never done it myself. ha). Clearly, though, the sense of safety in such a context is false.
In an internet forum, people can get away with even more, due to the anonymity factor and lack of face-to-face contact. Slander, gossip, and ridicule abound. I'm not telling anyone anything they don't know, yet this knowledge doesn't seem to reduce its occurrence.
Mark Earley notes that anger is the predominant language of public discourse these days. As a contrast, he says,
Throughout His ministry, Jesus engages in conversation by probing people so that they examine themselves.
This is true, although to the Pharisees, He was quite direct. He called them fools and blind men. Serpents. A brood of vipers. But, is this insult, or truth? Jesus exposed and denounced the Pharisees but He didn't ridicule them, use sarcasm, or speak in irrelevant or demeaning terms (though the latter might be argued). He chose particular and accurate descriptors. Even more remarkable, He did not abuse the authority He had to speak of certain things, and to speak of them in ways that we cannot. How much more careful should we be, then, about what we say? We are merely men and women; He was the God-man.
There was outcry, several weeks back, over Ann Coulter’s words at the Conservative Political Action Conference:
Oh and, um, I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, um, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so (audience laughter) I’m – so – kind of at an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards...
Coulter was roundly censured by folks on both sides of the political fence, and rightly so. Her statement was sophomoric and inappropriate. But there are myriad instances of perhaps less crude, more clever, yet no less inappropriate slurs, daily, in commentary and on blogs throughout the conservative sphere as well as the Christian blogosphere that continue unabated, despite calls for civility. Perhaps some think they are being civil when they’re not. Or they may think that ridicule and derogatory sarcasm are appropriate in certain instances. Worse, this kind of speech might be overlooked merely because of ideological agreement.
Consider Michelle Malkin. She’s an astute conservative journalistic voice, a masterful user of irony. But she calls people low-lifes. She calls Harry Reid a loser. She calls France an economic basket case. Her commentary is often made at the expense of others, however descriptive it may be. Wit alone does not compensate for lack of good nature.
Should amusement come at the expense of someone or something else? Whom does its solicitation truly benefit (if anyone)?
At the other end of the ridicule spectrum is someone like Rush Limbaugh, who “uses absurdity to illustrate the absurd” and does his radio show with “half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.” I like Rush; I think he has some good insights. But he overreaches and oversimplifies. He makes pompous, self-aggrandizing statements, and can be unfair to callers. It's really too bad. Rush is very funny; he has a lot of good things to say. But he shoots himself in the foot.
Is it possible, really, to be entertaining, engaging, informative, right, and...non-ridiculing, all at the same time? Can it be done? (Is anyone doing it?)
Next up I have a few comments on debate etiquette (not that I’m an expert), and, after that, words on this post and comment thread at Founders.org on what Falwell said.
