I'm sure that members of persecuted groups appreciate your wise words about how they just need to suck it up and grow thicker skins, because surely their life experience hasn't taught them that
Being a member of a "persecuted group" which rose above persecution precisely by doing that, I think members of other persecuted groups would be wise to follow our example. And it's hard for "their life experience" to "teach them that" if everyone is telling them "You were persecuted so you deserve specially nice treatment now and if you don't get it you should focus your energies on getting it rather than on succeeding personally."
In fact this was a major issue in black America -- remember the argument over the "talented tenth" versus "all the people?"
So according to you, if someone were to write a response in which they call Derbyshire a racist piece of shit while tearing into his argument, that person would be morally in the wrong because calling Derbyshire a racist piece of shit is rude, and Derbyshire wasn't rude.
Not only would that person be morally wrong, more importantly that person would be arguing INEFFECTUALLY. A neutral observer, who knew nothing of the facts at issue, would note that Derbyshire was making his points in a polite and rational manner, while the other person was impolite and arguing by insult, and would conclude even before considering the arguments that something was probably wrong with the other person's arguments, because he was unable to state his case CALMLY and LOGICALLY.
Note that I'm not talking about whether calling him a racist piece of shit is a great rhetorical strategy - it probably isn't.
Well, think about it. Suppose that Adolf Hitler calmly and reasonably outlines how Jews have had a negative impact on every known society, and a Jew then responds to his well-reasoned points by saying "You filthy Nazi barbarian! You molested your own neice!"
If you knew nothing about Hitler or the Jews, what would you conclude from this exchange about the likely merits of the two positions?
Argument by insult has the significant weakness that it will only convince someone who already agrees with the argument. And even then, if the person be fair-minded, it may cause him to doubt the argument, because of the tone of the speaker. This is true even if the argument is true.
This is more than theoretical. Look at how Austria gave credence to David Irving's Holocaust denial by answering his logical points by imprisoning him. And, as a long-time student of World War II, I can with authority tell you that David Irving was factually wrong.
Generally speaking, when someone feels the need to argue by invective, it indicates a logical weakness in their position. This is not always true -- in particular, politicians may employ invective to emotionally sway their audiences -- but it does beg the question why the person can't make the point more calmly.
The Problem With Argument By Invective or Force
Being a member of a "persecuted group" which rose above persecution precisely by doing that, I think members of other persecuted groups would be wise to follow our example. And it's hard for "their life experience" to "teach them that" if everyone is telling them "You were persecuted so you deserve specially nice treatment now and if you don't get it you should focus your energies on getting it rather than on succeeding personally."
In fact this was a major issue in black America -- remember the argument over the "talented tenth" versus "all the people?"
So according to you, if someone were to write a response in which they call Derbyshire a racist piece of shit while tearing into his argument, that person would be morally in the wrong because calling Derbyshire a racist piece of shit is rude, and Derbyshire wasn't rude.
Not only would that person be morally wrong, more importantly that person would be arguing INEFFECTUALLY. A neutral observer, who knew nothing of the facts at issue, would note that Derbyshire was making his points in a polite and rational manner, while the other person was impolite and arguing by insult, and would conclude even before considering the arguments that something was probably wrong with the other person's arguments, because he was unable to state his case CALMLY and LOGICALLY.
Note that I'm not talking about whether calling him a racist piece of shit is a great rhetorical strategy - it probably isn't.
Well, think about it. Suppose that Adolf Hitler calmly and reasonably outlines how Jews have had a negative impact on every known society, and a Jew then responds to his well-reasoned points by saying "You filthy Nazi barbarian! You molested your own neice!"
If you knew nothing about Hitler or the Jews, what would you conclude from this exchange about the likely merits of the two positions?
Argument by insult has the significant weakness that it will only convince someone who already agrees with the argument. And even then, if the person be fair-minded, it may cause him to doubt the argument, because of the tone of the speaker. This is true even if the argument is true.
This is more than theoretical. Look at how Austria gave credence to David Irving's Holocaust denial by answering his logical points by imprisoning him. And, as a long-time student of World War II, I can with authority tell you that David Irving was factually wrong.
Generally speaking, when someone feels the need to argue by invective, it indicates a logical weakness in their position. This is not always true -- in particular, politicians may employ invective to emotionally sway their audiences -- but it does beg the question why the person can't make the point more calmly.