More on "New Anger"
Plus a clarification on my pledge not to indulge in New Anger this year.
New Anger, as author Peter Wood coins the term, is a recent trend based on the premise that anger somehow enhances the legitamcy of one's aruement. That sheer nastiness is required to prove one isn't half-hearted. New Anger says self-restraint is an overrated virture, and that politeness is for losers. New Anger says that wimps who can't take the heat, must be deficient on their merits, too.
Sad to say, I bought into that for awhile. I will not, in the future, indulge in the practice out-angering an opponent to win an arguement. It's self-righteous, self-serving, and ultimately, unflattering to yours truly.
That doesn't mean I've sworn off disagreement. That doesn't mean I've sworn off nuanced labeling of people or ideas. Liberals are still liberals, Democrats are still Democrats, and Charlie Rangel is still anti-military (and proved it again today.) It doesn't even mean I've sworn off sarcasm or name calling, though I'll try to make my insults clever.
Most importantly, this pledge of mine doesn't mean that I consider all opinions and ideas and cultural institutions, etc, to be morally equal. No. What it means is that I no longer consider my anger to be a moral boost to my position.
And that's all.
For example, this post I wrote last year:
Whoa! Now that's New Anger. Yesterday I wrote this:
Same sentiment, different wording.
I'm not looking for any congratulations on this epiphany of mine. I'm just happy to have experienced it. Would that it had come to me sooner... seriously. I wish it had come much sooner.
New Anger, as author Peter Wood coins the term, is a recent trend based on the premise that anger somehow enhances the legitamcy of one's aruement. That sheer nastiness is required to prove one isn't half-hearted. New Anger says self-restraint is an overrated virture, and that politeness is for losers. New Anger says that wimps who can't take the heat, must be deficient on their merits, too.
Sad to say, I bought into that for awhile. I will not, in the future, indulge in the practice out-angering an opponent to win an arguement. It's self-righteous, self-serving, and ultimately, unflattering to yours truly.
That doesn't mean I've sworn off disagreement. That doesn't mean I've sworn off nuanced labeling of people or ideas. Liberals are still liberals, Democrats are still Democrats, and Charlie Rangel is still anti-military (and proved it again today.) It doesn't even mean I've sworn off sarcasm or name calling, though I'll try to make my insults clever.
Most importantly, this pledge of mine doesn't mean that I consider all opinions and ideas and cultural institutions, etc, to be morally equal. No. What it means is that I no longer consider my anger to be a moral boost to my position.
And that's all.
For example, this post I wrote last year:
... The Associated Press and most other international news agencies don't regard themselves as reporters, but comentators. As Citizens of the World rather than of any one country, they see it as their duty to help America feel the sting of that "valuable lesson," as Michael Moore puts it, delivered on 9/11. Nothing gives them greater pleasure than to see the racist, imperialist United States taken down a peg or twelve. And if that means inoccent people have to die as a result of their reportage, well, it's somehow the fault of America for forcing them into their role as watchdogs.
Elitest, arrogant, fear mongering propoganda artists. And they call us bloodthirsty...
Whoa! Now that's New Anger. Yesterday I wrote this:
That the mainstream press is jealous of it's adversarial role, and would sooner compromise national security before risking its independent image? Not news. That an old media employee said so on CNN? That's something.
Same sentiment, different wording.
I'm not looking for any congratulations on this epiphany of mine. I'm just happy to have experienced it. Would that it had come to me sooner... seriously. I wish it had come much sooner.