As I said, tough language is appropriate, and both sides engage in it. The examples are too numerous to even begin to list.
This is not academia, where calm discussions are allegedly the norm. You've got your contexts mixed up. There is considerable rabble-rousing, hype, etc., in the world of politics, and it is up to the reader to choose. The internet has to some extent made this kind of catfight more accessible, but to suggest that it didn't exist before the evil right wing started using these horrible tactics is a bit of a stretch.
I submit it is healthy, normal, the historical norm, and otherwise appropriate. And there is no loss of "substance" in the process.
I think you're simply expressing a preference for calm discussion while suggesting that only the evil right wing engages in the kind of discussion you don't care for, which is a bit disingenuous [actually, not a "bit disingenuous" but hugely disingenuous]. You desire for calm will never be fulfilled outside of an academic or think tank context because political discussions are by nature heated free-for- alls. Especially if widely-read and biased pundits are the warriors.
And, no, you don't have to suggest that I don't get your point, or that I distort it, or whatever right wing pundit mirror behavior you want to improperly assign to me. Your point is too simple for anyone not to grasp. |
