The Art of Verbal Self-defense

I have been extremely lucky over the years I have been writing online journals to have largely supportive, thoughtful, and kind people commenting on my various writings and ramblings. But it is a fact of online journaling with regards to comments, especially anonymous comments, that from time to time you will have dissenters show up and express their opinions. All it takes is a modicum of readership and an opinionated blog author. The vast majority of these few negative comments have been in the variety of ad hominem jabs. The option of commenting also seems to elicit a certain bravado when done so behind the veil of anonymity or in the indubitable Molly Brown’s case, a blog written by a human masquerading as a dog.

I long ago decided not to debate such comments or only fleetingly make a passing remark in a non-confrontational manner. These comments are written to elicit an angry response in order to get your undivided attention, in order to shut you down and silence you or put you in your place. I try to follow a simple set of guidelines in these circumstances I read on the web many moons ago called Elgin’s “Metaprinciples.”

A. Anything you feed will grow.
B. Anything you starve, smother, or neglect will fester or die.
C. Every language interaction is an interactive feedback loop.
D. The only meaning an utterance has in the real world is the meaning the listener understands it to have.
E. Mismatch is a warning sign; watch for it.

When commenting on other blogs I try to follow what Elgin call’s “Miller’s Law.”

"In order to understand what another person is saying, you must assume that it is true and try to imagine what it could be true of." (George Miller; 1980.)

Our tendency when we hear someone say something that strikes us as unacceptable is to assume that it is false and try to imagine what's wrong with the person who said it. (As in: "That's ridiculous! He's only saying that because he's stupid/biased/ignorant/trying to trick me/..." and so on.) This guarantees communication breakdown; instead, use Miller's Law. The proper response when someone says, "My toaster has been talking to me!" is to give the speaker your full attention, ask, "What has it been saying?", and then listen carefully.

Comments such as these are why I rarely express my opinions on modern politics, religion, or society. It evokes such a vitriolic response from certain people and I am content with my views on the world and its structure so do not normally feel the need to share them or to try to push my beliefs upon others. I was just having a hard time coming up with something to write today and that was issue that was pressing on my mind.

I have been reading a book lately titled Lila by Robert Persig and the below quote sums up my coping mechanism very well. Those of us with mental illness will greatly relate to this passage; thus my shyness with being expressive or pushy with my opinions on this journal.

The hardest thing to deal with was the righteousness of the sane.

"When you're in agreement with the sane they're a great comfort and protection, but when you disagree with them it's another matter. Then they're dangerous. Then they'll do anything. The sinister thing that struck the most fear in him was what they'd do in the name of kindness. The ones he cared about most and who cared about him most suddenly, all of them, turned against him the same way they had against Ellen. They kept saying, "There's no way we can reach you. If only we could make you understand."

"He saw that the sane always know they are good because their culture tells them so. Anyone who tells them otherwise is sick, paranoid, and needs further treatment. To avoid that accusation Phædrus had to be very careful of what he said when he was in the hospital. He told the sane what they wanted to hear and kept his real thoughts to himself.