Dustin Harbin wrote a very good post about yesterday’s Scott Kurtz dustup and I wanted to respond to it, because Harbin constructs a reasonable argument and I try to respond to reasonable arguments with honest dialogue. And, in fairness, Dustin is not the only one to take issue with the tone I used in writing it.
In fact, most of the time I will try to respond to arguments with honest dialogue. I still, on occasion, will lose my shit with somebody. But arguments tend to fall into four categories:
1. A rational argument written civilly. Even if I disagree with this, I generally will try to engage it as fairly and civilly as possible.
2. An irrational argument written civilly. I will usually try to engage this civilly as well. Not always, mind you – if an argument is gratituously stupid enough I will backslide into mockery (witness my response to that “If I Was A Poor Black Kid” thing a while back). But even then I’ll usually try to direct my ire at the argument rather than at the person making it. I will not always succeed, of course. But I’ll try.
3.) A rational argument written uncivilly. I can go either way with these. Sometimes I’ll be civil to be “the reasonable one.” Sometimes I will write a civil response and then go back and throw in some insults. It really depends a lot on the original argument being made and the person making it. Some people, when they are uncivil, will drop back and apologize if challenged. Some want you to rise up and engage in a boxing match. (My sense for this isn’t perfect – nobody’s is – but I tend to think it’s not bad.)
4.) An irrational argument written uncivilly. Short version: fuck these people. Long version:
I understand Dustin’s point. An offensive response to an offensive post can turn off those who would potentially agree with you. And you know what, he’s not wrong. But here’s the thing: for those people, there is David Brothers’ logical sledgehammer of a post at ComicsAlliance about creator abuse, or Tom Spurgeon’s essay about “more Watchmen“, or many others besides (although those are the most important, I think). Those are both calm, insightful pieces that lay out the ethical and moral failings that have led us to this point in comics history. Both were widely read. And, if you look at the comments on Brothers’ article, a lot of people still didn’t get it.
When I first read the Kurtz article, my initial response was to say “just go read Brothers and Spurgeon and the others and they will show why Kurtz is full of shit.” But after a second reread of Kurtz’ post I decided otherwise, and this is where Dustin will likely disagree with me: I do think there is value in the expression of anger and disgust. Simply saying that Kurtz’ article is morally abhorrent and full of wind is not enough to convince some people; there are those who will be swayed by the expression of how horrible you found it, and I think viscerality plays a part in this.
The Overton Window is one of those things that has been bandied about far, far too often in the past decade, to the point where many people would prefer the phrase never existed in the first place, but the Overton Window gets shifted when one makes an outrageous argument on the far side of an argumentative spectrum. Kurtz’ post fell into this category (“not only was Kirby not that important, but the people supporting his side of the story are bad people”). When an argument like that comes around, I think it must be engaged and driven down as forcefully as possible. And at a time like that, there is value in scorn.
That’s my two cents on it, anyways.
Related Articles
15 users responded in this post
I consider you a humorist first, a dispenser of insights second. As a result, when you choose to be both funny and insightful I’m willing to grant you some leeway, even if you are ridiculing the people you disagree with.
At the same time I think Mr. Harbin is right that you are primarily preaching to the choir. Your wit might sway a few but for the most part your article speaks to people who already agree with your position. That may just be the way it is. The value of scorn in this case is simply motivating people who agree silently to be less silent by voicing what they are all thinking. In my experience, it rarely wins over new believers.
I am baffled both that Harbin apparently doesn’t know what fisking is, and that he considers it an illegitimate tool for commenting on somebodies work.
I agree viz a viz value in expression of anger and disgust. It’s a peculiarly internet chic thing to dismiss anything that shows emotional investment.
Note to self: post more “the whole thing should be in the public domain so we can all publish our own equally-privileged fanfictions in peace”-type comments in Before Watchmen threads. Must shift Overton window.
On topic, I think Brendan’s nailing it here. There’s value in unadulterated scorn as a tool of humour, but it rarely overlaps with it’s use as a tool of persuasive rhetoric.
…Personally, I’m fine with going for ‘funny scorn’ in this instance. As you pointed out, there’s intelligent rebuttals out there if people want to read those instead. Plus he’s in a higher Internet weight class (as measured in audience and online goon/white knight access), so it’s not like you can be accused of bullying him (which is the point at which bile becomes unacceptable).
People come up with lots of stupid reasons to tell themselves that assholes never convince anyone of anything, because people hate admitting to themselves when assholes convince them of something, because they’re assholes. But no, actually assholes are totally convincing, because they’re right and willing to strongly state that they’re right in a way that people who disagree with them can’t avoid or ignore, which is what makes them assholes and makes people hate them. But they’re still right, they still convince plenty of people plenty of times where people wouldn’t have otherwise been convinced, and every complaint about ~sinking to their level~ or ~preaching to the choir~ is denialism from someone who thinks their sense of argumentative aesthetics is more important than the actual issue.
You know what? Despite Kurtz’s tone, I think he’s right. Most of the more important aspects of most of the characters are actually not from Kirby. He deserves some credit but not the amount people are arguing for.
Dude, Dustin Harbin now knows who you are. *fangush*
Oh, scorn can be a powerful goad to the non choir, speaking from the first person xp….”Nuh-uh! Are not! UR the stoopid one! You just wait, I’ll prove it!oh, uh, wait a sec, i’ll get right back to you…”
(or what Dangermouse said)
Two things: unless I’m compleatly missing the point of Harbin’s post, the gist of what he’s saying is that MGK’s use of humor lowers the general level of societies’ discourse and we all should feel bad about. I respond by pointing to the Daily Show and it’s Peabody award and ask if he feels the same way about Jon Stewart? Because really say that your not allowed to make fun in adult conversations is pretty immature IMHO.
Two: Can you do anything about the Kurtz sock puppets? Really we all what he’s doing but can’t we flag them or something.
“Dustin Harbin wrote a very good post about yesterday’s Scott Kurtz dubstep[…]”
I think I spend too much time on the Internet.
Also “what dangermouse said”. People don’t get upset about someone who is an asshole and wrong.
The whole “you shouldn’t be an asshole” is more of the same “I hate fighting, so I hate people who fight, even when they’re good people fighting for the right reason” that motivated Kurtz’s post in the first place.
It’s a rhetorical tone argument, and as I said elsewhere, Scott Kurtz has been Scott Kurtz for so long that any attempt to engage in polite discourse with him will fall flat. Kurtz simply does not do respectful discourse. (I just came from a webcomic’s blog where Kurtz first told her “you have insulted me and we are no longer friends!” but then changed to “you have hurt my feelings and I am sad” moments later. That’s the best the guy can do.)
So what’s so wrong with a little insulting in this situation? You’re responding to a public post, on your own blog, in your own way, in a manner where others can comment, and without bullying or suggestions of boycotts or stern letter-writing campaigns.
Just because someone needed a fainting couch after reading your post doesn’t mean you were being particularly harsh.
Incidentally, it’s hard to accept Kurtz getting all high-horse about comics fans when he’s just presented us with a story where a troll clubs a Gelatinous Cube to death with its dick.
I mean, not that this isn’t hilarious, but it kind of gives the lie to any claim of moral authority through aesthetic superiority.
“is not enough to convince some people; there are those who will be swayed by the expression of how horrible you found it,”
Those people are human garbage and not worth anyone’s time.