"This is going to get ugly...."

first line of a long comment i didn't waste time reading at BlueOregon

I work on three things when I post here, at BlueOregon or at OregonforObama.net. First, of course, is becoming a better writer. I am a good writer, but I don't write enough — my inconsistency is the stuff of textbooks — so my skills are not developing as they could. I am working on being more consistent, on writing every day, and that will help the quality of my writing as I get more words under my belt, so to speak. (I also have to leave myself enough time in the day to be able to do at least one decent edit, but that's a whole other problem.)

Second, I try to make intelligent arguments. Yesterday on BlueOregon I stated clearly that my personal conclusion on the vote over SJR 4 was not rational, for very emotional reasons, but that sort of excuse is not going to be available very often. If I make any definitive statements (which I try to limit to expressions of opinion), I must either support my words with facts that have some strength or with a consistent philosophical approach. In other words, I'n not allowed to just pull stuff out of my butt.

And third, I try to be respectful. This is the biggest challenge at times. Today, in a comment to my BlueOregon post, someone attacked Sara Gelser's motives and morality — and it was all I could do to not call him (or her; they posted anonymously) a fool. Ok, "fool" is not exactly working blue, but it is a disrespectful word. At least it is in my book. It's not the kind of thing you call someone on a web post. My standard for respect is whether or not I would use the exact words speaking face-to-face with someone. A lot of people don't share that standard and feel free to post any kind of crap they feel like. I won't do that; I try not to do that.

So when someone begins a long comment directed at me with "This is going to get ugly," my response is "Nope, it's gonna get short. Adios." Why the hell would I read something promising ugliness? Especially from a guy who has already been unpleasant towards me today? (As opposed to Steven Maurer who liked both things I wrote! Yay Steven. If I was Stephanie Miller, you'd get a sound effect.) Why would anyone read that unless they enjoyed fighting and pissing people off, activities not known for being respectful?

What does ugliness add to anything? "Beauty is truth; truth, beauty." Keats was not talking about poetry. He was talking about the sum total of what humans needed to know, and that was it: beauty, truth, and their equivalence. I agree with him. The most powerful writers, including in politics and law, are those who speak truth and write well. Go read old Supreme Court cases and see what the power of eloquence can do for an argument, even a bad one. Compare that to the mean, raw, ugly scratchings of William Rehnquist; you'll understand part of what's happened in the modern world.

That's why goals number one and two are so important to me. I will never be right; trying to prove anything is pointless. Either people will agree with my opinion, they'll disagree, or they won't be sure. If I can convince, that's great — but it's not proving. I'm not on a quest for Truth; my truth is a personal possession. If others agree in some measure, wonderful. But, to toss out a cliche that has legs, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Truth, therefore, as well. If I can write well — literately, with a modicum of artfulness — then I'll be that much closer to truth. My truth.

And being respectful? Hell, it's just the right thing to do. Otherwise you're being ugly, and your words are not true. And we have enough falsity in the world as it is. I don't want to create more.