|
it will create flame bait.
Do others have that same sort of feeling, that there are simply some issues best left untalked about, because your opinion of an issue would make you unpopular or enrage others?
While it seems, for the most part, that people are mostly tolerant of almost every single topic of interest, in practice it isn't quite that clean-cut. The primaries were a very clear point of showing this polemic and the uproar it caused.
And then there is the concern for political correctness--there are too many people who are sensitive to some issues and opinions, and often those of us who feel a certain way are challenged by those who are looking for references to certain phrases, cliches, what have you, and will become belligerent no matter how innocent something might seem to the person who says it.
Sometimes, I want to rant and shout about something, but I hesitate, and often find myself editing my writing to eliminate anything which might offend someone. It takes away some of the spontaneity of my writing, though, and in the end, I have to wonder if what I say even approaches the full intent of my comments. Do certain axioms and comments have loaded meanings? Of course they do, but sometimes that's the point--to say something in an outrageous way to spark discussion and debate. Instead, some people simply attack the author of a piece without "getting" what the piece is about in the first place.
A couple of times, to be sarcastic, I have posted a "disclaimer" on my work, simply to make it completely clear that I'm not trying to offend anyone or any group in particular, and that the words and tone are intentional in order to get the ball rolling. But I decided some time later that posting a disclaimer implies that some of the people reading the post are halfwits--if someone can't get the tone of the piece without a warning, they shouldn't be here, trying to answer such a post. Rhetoric can be a powerful device in the creation of writing, but unless people are aware of and familiar with it, then it serves no purpose other than to be loud and offensive.
I know the Humanities in college and high school have been short shrifted for some time now--hell, in some places, basic biology and evolution are so volatile as to be rendered useless--but if we could introduce different styles of writing used throughout history, we should be able to make it easily apparent what style of writing is being utilized, and then the words used will become part of the argument, not the argument itself.
I would love to see more engaging discussions, without the flames thrown on what is perfectly good writing, just because someone doesn't understand the purpose of the piece. Hell, in one example, I could even imagine someone taking a historical piece of writing such as "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift (a satirical piece if you aren't familiar with it) and taking it at face value.
Toning down a piece of writing to make it appeal to the lowest common denominator often weakens it, and certainly makes the thoughts in it as bland as possible, fully removing the bite, the wit and the spirit of something. Trying to be so politically correct that you lose your edge in writing begs the question of whether the writing is even worth the effort. There are times when perceived insults make true debate impossible, when every single word is weighted as to its meaning and tone, instead of examining the writing as a whole.
The impact of such writing is forever lost, and while some people will be happier and cozier in their beds at night, believing that they are helping to abolish narrow-mindedness, they are helping to abolish a mode of writing which goes back over 3000 years, and which has been highly effective many times in history.
Hey, the next generation has, across the board, helped to wipe out grammar and spelling already, so what do they care about understanding literature?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
