Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Sticks and Stones

There’s been a lot of tweeting about the controversy stirred up by victim-blaming Nir Rosen (regarding Lara Logan).  He’s apologized and resigned from his job over tweets that intimated that Lara’s attack might have been warranted.

Remember just a short time ago when the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords prompted calls for less incendiary rhetoric?  I’m disappointed in us, that only a month later a journalist’s attack could be used as fodder to make someone’s political point.

Why is it that we tend to feel so strongly about politics?  Why do we get (let’s admit it) angry when we strongly disagree with someone’s political stance?  Why do we agree with and applaud rhetoric that we would punish our children for—as long as it is for us and against our opponents?  Why do we repost incendiary articles that call names, sensationalize, quote out of context, and otherwise mislead?

I don’t know – but I’m making a commitment not to participate.  No matter how strong my feelings are (and they’re quite strong), I won’t:
  • Call names
  • Make ad hominem attacks
  • Quote out of context
  • Retweet or repost information that violates these guidelines
If I break these rules, call me to account.  Just don’t call me names.

1 comment:

  1. "No passion is stronger in the breast of man than the desire to make others believe as he believes. Nothing so cuts at the root of his happiness and fills him with rage as the sense that another rates low what he prizes high. Whigs and Tories, Liberal party and Labour party - for what do they battle except their own prestige. It is not love of truth, but desire to prevail . . . " Orlando by Virginia Woolf p. 149