Ill-advised retorts

The danger of defending one’s honor often outweighs the benefit

My column is a personal reminder that actions create consequences, intended or not. I responded to someone in a chat group yesterday who posted about an author whose work I have not found compelling over a quarter century. I dismissed his argument, adding that I wondered whether people listened perhaps only because of his ethnic origin. I did not malign him or his ethnicity but I certainly made clear I did not think his prediction had much validity, based on what I have read over the years.

I got a response this morning calling me uncivil, if not racist and intellectually lazy. To say that stung, with the effort to write this column to explore various ideas and views, is definitely true. I acknowledge that as a professor, I often pushed people out of their comfort by stressing hypotheticals they likely would never have considered. I also acknowledge that I can definitely be tart with my words but I genuinely saw my initial response as neither racist of intent nor uncivil. I did not think I was lazy as I read the article but did not see evidence supporting it.

My second retort, unfortunately made in the wee hours out west before coffee, was definitely ill-advised as I should have let the matter go. But none of us like our reputations questioned by someone we think misinterprets our motivation. We tend—at least too many of us—to see our honor besmirched as if it were something cataclysmic rather than an exchange among a group discussing national security. My second response, thus, was surrendered the power to ignore something that I did not find compelling but that should have been my exit point. I was wrong determined to be right.

I now realize anew how harshly everyone on any political side is assessing others’s motivations, concerns about race, and every other attribute. That makes the need for listening, thinking, rethinking, THEN responding if you think it will advance the conversation rather than always having the last word. Pause is our superpower right now yet we often discard it.

Put another way, as the one and only Susan the Dog Whisperer Extraordinaire teaches us all, positive reinforcement means responding to something. By doing so leads to a greater probability of an action being repeated rather than deterring the behavior. We tend to focus on deterrence as a concept but what does a sharp retort really advance? I forgot that long-known lesson so I failed on that score this morning.

I genuinely, passionately, utterly believe we need measured, civil exchanges which is what I most seek. I don’t want to be intellectually lazy, either, so I want to hear from others. I did read the initial post that got me into this pickle but didn’t think much evidence supported the argument but that was me. Dialogue is the most foundational of needs in a society with 340+ million people, much less an even grander world.

So, I welcome your thoughts, criticisms, and extended questions on any topic we discuss. I thank you for your time on this Sunday in late October. Thank you to those who read and subscribe. Without you, I would shut this down for lack of meeting its purpose.

Be well, vote, and be safe. FIN