George Rebane
"Marx and Engels never tried to refute their opponents with argument. They insulted, ridiculed, derided, slandered, and traduced them, and in the use of these methods their followers are not less expert. Their polemic is directed never against the argument of the opponent, but always against his person." Socialism (1951), Ludwig von Mises
Polemics – the art or practice of argumentation; especially countering the beliefs and principles of another person. I am heartened at the general progress we are making on the local blog posts and their attendant comment threads. The number and intensity of ad hominem ripostes is definitely going down. And often the comments are excellent and well written amplifications and/or redirections of the topic(s) introduced in the posts.
Also I have noticed that certain readers are beginning to make a difference between calling someone, say, an idiot, and calling their idea idiotic or referring to a general class of idiots holding such an idea – there is a difference. Unfortunately others still cannot distinguish between the arguer and their argument, but here hope springs eternal. To me it is a joy to read a churchillian retort whose entendres not only demolish the target argument, but in its more nuanced reading uncovers the camouflaged barb that encourages and even accomplishes a more penetrating mission – perhaps the essence of artful polemics and a joy to the attentive reader.
(As an example, my all-time favorite churchillian retort is said to have been given in Parliament to one of Churchill’s great detractors. In utter frustration the man shouted, ‘Sir, may you either die on the gallows or of a vile disease!’ To which the great Churchill immediately responded, ‘Sir, that will come to pass only if I embrace your principles or your mistress.’)
No doubt there are simpletons on whom such literary labors are lost. But let’s not lose heart when such encounters occur. For then it is an entertainment to watch them miss the point while still claiming its grasp.
There also seems to be more than a little confusion on the notion of what constitutes ‘name calling’. It is one thing to state that ‘John Doe is a (pejorative label).’ Clearly John Doe has been called a name and the caller seeks to attach to John Doe all the attributes, explicit and implied, that go with the pejorative label.
Then we have the case where a class of people is delineated with perhaps a number of spelled out attributes. The class is then appended with a pejorative label. No specific individuals are named in this exercise. Upon reading the described screed, John Doe sees that he possesses some or all of the enumerated attributes, enough so that he may claim or by others be assigned membership in the class in question.
At this point John Doe has neither been identified nor called a pejorative name by the writer/speaker. For one, John Doe might not agree that the pejorative label is a proper descriptor of the class, therefore there can be no attachment of the pejorative label to himself, no matter his membership. And even if John Doe does accept the class label, it is then he who pins that pejorative to himself in the process of an extended association. In any event, the original piece has attached no pejorative label to John Doe. As appropriate, that task is left to subsequent efforts.
rebanesruminations.com 
Leave a comment