(no subject)
Mar. 4th, 2010 07:47 pmI hate the fact that when it comes to public debate, the argument turns nasty. As in the ubiquitous personal attacks.
I derive a great deal of enjoyment from reading editorial columns and those Letters to the Editor (and honestly, some of them are superficial it's laughable) but they attack the writer - the writer of the original column or letter, not their ideas.
Um. I'm pretty sure that the best way to convince people is to not say things like: "So-and-so is showing her age..." and proceed to tell the rant that the "40-somethings" were the only ones that had a problem with the Winter Olympics closing ceremony. I raised my eyebrows at this, since nothing that the original writer wrote had any reference to her age. Other letters often begin: "[name omitted] is obviously not a blah-blah-blah and is ignorant of this-and-that", starting off their salvo with a personal attack.
Dissect, refute, turn-inside-out-and-backwards their argument, but stop attacking the writer themselves. Or if you must, take it off of the public newspaper.
I derive a great deal of enjoyment from reading editorial columns and those Letters to the Editor (and honestly, some of them are superficial it's laughable) but they attack the writer - the writer of the original column or letter, not their ideas.
Um. I'm pretty sure that the best way to convince people is to not say things like: "So-and-so is showing her age..." and proceed to tell the rant that the "40-somethings" were the only ones that had a problem with the Winter Olympics closing ceremony. I raised my eyebrows at this, since nothing that the original writer wrote had any reference to her age. Other letters often begin: "[name omitted] is obviously not a blah-blah-blah and is ignorant of this-and-that", starting off their salvo with a personal attack.
Dissect, refute, turn-inside-out-and-backwards their argument, but stop attacking the writer themselves. Or if you must, take it off of the public newspaper.