The trouble with people

[fpb]

I recently had a private exchange with a BNF whom I like and respect, and that left me fuming. It was, to begin with, one of those weird experiences when a word leaves your mouth or keyboard as "water" and, along the way to the other person's ear or eye, undergoes some weird alchemical transfiguration and becomes "fire". Conversation of the deaf does not begin to cover it.

Worse still - the element that has gone on itching beneath the skin, till I was provoked to write this entry - was the usual and stupid reaction to trouble with other people: "Will you go on defriending anyone who disagrees with you?" Which, as far as I am concerned, is the fandom equivalent of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

Anyone who actually takes the trouble to look at my f-page would notice that the vast majority of denizens disagree with me on a number of major issues. I have maybe five Catholics out of twenty friends, with no guarantee that any of them would agree with me on anything else bar the rule of faith - in fact, Thepreciouss for instance had one or two quite interesting run-ins with yours truly. And I would like anyone to point out where the likes of Sergeant Majorette, Ashesofautumn, Kikei, Curia Regis or Private Maladict may be said, either to agree with me on much of anything, or to have the kind of submissive, cowardly temperament that the question implies. You know, BNF, you have insulted a number of people with the implications of your question.

Of course I draw limits. If you approve of murder under form of law, there are going to be certain obstacles in the way of understanding each other - for instance. But the real issue with people I defriended - apart from a couple of people who let me down badly on a personal level, and whom I felt I could no longer trust - is simply this: not that I want anyone to agree with me, but that I want my views taken seriously. I take yours seriously, even if I do my best to demolish them. If you have something against mine, then - as I said in another context - just ARGUE, dammit! Do not sloganeer; and do not get angry if you sloganeer, if you repeat empty phrases that mean nothing, and I point it out. I have had twenty years of politicians destroying our liberties while filling their mouths with empty verbiage about "choice", for instance, and any phrase that has "choice" or any similar pseudo-concept at its centre is not going to impress me. There is nothing either good or bad about choice in itself; morally, it means nothing - but it is made to sound as if it meant something, and something good. (And no, I am not speaking about abortion - at least, not about abortion alone.) So, use words for what they mean, and make up sentences that actually describe ideas. Look at whatever it is that is the issue on its own merits, and find reasons why you do not see it as I do. And let them be reasons, not justifications - not things that have to do with my corrupt personal motivations to be wrong, but things that have to do with the matter at hand. One would not think it would be so difficult, but to some people, it is.

Comments

[gunderpants.livejournal.com]

FPB, have you read Orwell's excellent article 'Politics and the English Language, 1946'? (Stupid question: you probably have.) Could I remember the link, I would post it for you, in the odd chance you haven't read it.

I think the Left in particular is guilty of such usage of empty language and sloganeering, and I think that his point that political speeches from anyone slightly left of centre have simply degenerated into a loosely-connected string of empty cliches and abstract nouns holds so much truth. Language has simply become passionless and devoid of meaning and colour, and whenever I read your writing, which is so pure and descriptive, it makes the stuff I read in the paper and hear from the mouths of politicians of any political leaning seem all the more banal.
Comparing your language to the empty language of modern left politics is rather like comparing Bach or Handel's music to modern Christian pop.

On that note, I do have to praise your word choice and writing style: it is particularly beautiful, and your academic background in etymology, history, linguistics and religion is so evident in it. I'm yet to read much in the way of Dante, or anything in particular of that ilk, but the way you write makes it evident that you are fluent in other languages, and that fluency makes you consider your word use and simile all that more, which is something I've noticed in some authors who speak English as a second language.

Arguments where sloganeering and empty phrases are thrown in aren't particularly good arguments, or ones that are good to get into. Might I suggest also, as a book choice, Don Watson's 'Weasel Words: Contemporary Cliches, Cant & Management Jargon'. It's a bit stinkin' pinko, compared to your particular political and social leanings, but the points and examples the fellow makes can't be understated.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Actually, I come from an old-fashioned Socialist background. Have a look at this: http://www.livejournal.com/users/fpb/13532.html. One of the many things I dislike about the so-called contemporary Left is how little it has to do with really helping the poor and the workers, especially those close to home.