search
top

Hate Mail is Fun

We don’t often get hate mail. Actually, this is probably the first piece of hate mail I’ve ever received. This one actually comes to us courtesy of a manager at a major consumer products company in New Jersey:

From: Mr. Hater
To: Sebastian
Subject: Guns for Kids

HI:

A big “Hi” from NJ. I was hoping you could help me. I need a gun for my 4 year old and can’t find a “where to buy guide” on Cricket’s web site. He really wants a gun and I figure it is his right to own one (and kill his sister – by mistake of course ) when we leave the gun loaded in the house ( or the double wide ) and then just leave “for a minute”. And the “parents” say – oh what a horrible accident.

I can only hope your family goes through the same trauma as mine and maybe you will change your opinion on this matter. Guns are for losers – and you my friend fit this description very nicely. No increased background checks… No limit on the number of bullets in the gun – no nothing… You want to take over the government? Just try – the US armed forces will kick your ass. Just a hint – it is no longer the 1700’s – it is 2013. Get it …

Have a nice day,

Mr. Hater
Born and raised in NJ and Dam proud of it.

Let me just offer a piece of advice on hate mailin’. If you’re going to hate mail someone, don’t do it from your work e-mail and use your real name. I have redacted the name and employer, because I’m a softy, and don’t want to see anyone get in hot water or lose their job over what could have been a moment of poor judgement after hitting the sauce particularly hard.

There is no family trauma that would change my mind on this matter, because I don’t make a habit of placing blame on inanimate objects for bad things that happen. If a loved one were killed by a drunk driver, would you still drive? Would you abstain from all alcohol? If it were my negligence, I would blame myself. I might question whether I’m really responsible enough to own a gun. But I certainly wouldn’t blame the rest of you, and advocate for taking your guns.

The deodand is certainly alive and well in our society, isn’t it? This kind of ancient and mystical thinking comes from someone who has the nerve to be condescending to the rest of us. The other side keeps wondering why there can be no dialog. This is why. I have nothing to say to a person like this. Nothing. The only thing we can do is work to politically destroy them to the greatest extent we are capable.

87 Responses to “Hate Mail is Fun”

  1. Instinct says:

    Guess he doesn’t realize that most of the people in the military are pro-gun and conservative.

  2. I’ll give him this, his spelling and grammar is better than most anti gun hate mail. The hate is just the same though.

  3. The Jack says:

    Funny how this man demands laws that would have done nothing to prevent or address the tragedy he’s blood dancing in. He could at least huff about a law banning the ownership of guns if you have minors in your house. He didn’t even gripe about safe storage. Talk about missing the low-hanging fruit.

    So not only does he go big for the deodand but he’s also big on mandated collective pennance. See we must pay for the sins of others.

    Meanwhile this rabid anti-gunner fantasises about a military coup and occupation. I guess guns are only bad if the commoners have ’em. In the hands of agents of the state they’re heroic tools of social justice!

  4. chiefjaybob says:

    I think it’s a mistake to withold his name and employer. One of the reasons these dirtbags have pulled this alinsky-style crap for so many years is that no one on our side has ever called them out and made them account for their hateful, libelous comments. We should give no quarter. If nothing else, this person’s employer should be given this email, as court cases have determined that emails and other correspondence sent from company computers, servers, and email addresses are property of the company. You make no mention of this type of action in your post. You didn’t ask for my advice, but I gave it anyway, because I’m good like that. Your mileage may vary, void where prohibited, prices slightly higher in Alaska and Hawaii.

    • Sebastian says:

      Eh, I wouldn’t classify this as alinsky-style crap. It’s just sad. I don’t think this guy is any kind of operative, that I’ve been able to discover.

    • Bryan S. says:

      I agree. Perhaps he left his name on there because he is willing to stand by his words? Perhaps his employer is willing to do the same.

      • Sebastian says:

        I can pretty much guarantee his employer would be unhappy, given their size. All of you likely use their products.

        • Dave says:

          Then the copy of the email should be forwarded to his HR department.

          • mike says:

            +1. He wrote that letter as a representative of the company – it might as well have been on their official letterhead. Chances are, he sends others similar emails.

            Again, you’re not protecting the sender, you’re allowing more liability and potential damages to accumulate for the company. You’re an “enabler”, Sebastian.

          • Thomas says:

            That, and if he was using work resources for non work related things, that could run him afowl with HR as well.

        • If he is so stupid to have used his corporate email address, I think his company has a right to wonder if he is smart enough to be their employee.

          I work for a division of a mega-company. I know my boss can read my emails and I know they are kept by law/regulation for 3 years. I am extremely careful about what I say using their system. I can’t count the times that I’ve responded to a client’s question by calling rather than emailing a response. I just didn’t want my reply to be misunderstood or taken out of context.

          The hater in NJ doesn’t deserve to have his stupidity protected. Moreover, if he works for a company where we are likely to use their products, what is to say that his ineptitude doesn’t put us all at risk?

          • Bitter says:

            Moreover, if he works for a company where we are likely to use their products, what is to say that his ineptitude doesn’t put us all at risk?

            Because you’re not likely using their veterinary line. :)

    • dirk diggler says:

      exactly – F**K this POS! Out his ass. let’s see how his employer feels about his lack of judgment – i promise this is not his first time and they probably want a reason to fire his sorry ass. Man up and b!tch slap him across the internet

  5. Andrew says:

    I admire your charity but do kind of wish you’d posted contact info. If he’d been subject to adverse employer action, it might have made news. What Uncle refers to as “why are anti gun activists so violent?” deserves some coverage.

    • Daniel says:

      Pretty sure any “news coverage” would look more like: “Gun Activist Overreacts to Criticism – gets critic fired for speaking out”

    • dirk diggler says:

      Sebastian, he would have shown you no mercy if the roles are reversed. never forget

  6. RKflorida says:

    Quit being a softee. Hammer them first time, every time.

  7. Rob Crawford says:

    Note: there’s no “tragedy” behind this email. He’s lying. Notice how the verb tense and the subjects are all over the place — subjunctive to past, his kids to someone else’s kids, etc. Then the obligatory insults and threats.

    The email is from a liar, from start to finish.

  8. Dayid Alan says:

    That took an odd turn when he mentioned our armed forces – ya know, those folks who all swore an oath to uphold the Constitution – the very document he speaks out against…

    • Zermoid says:

      And mentioning round limits when talking about a single shot rifle that has no magazine…….

  9. Phigmeta says:

    F*ck this c*nt

    Give us his name and email, screw the hot water, I want that sh1t boiling.

  10. Jim says:

    I love how anti-gun folks simply do not grasp the extent of the imbalance in the fervor of the convictions between the two sides of this issue. Many of them will espouse liberal platitudes like “no one should have guns.” They may truly believe that, but they will never be prepared for what it would take to accomplish that vision. Unlike them, many of us are ready, willing, and able to defend ourselves to protect our convictions. It is often one of the reason we exercise our RTKBA. Their side always has had to rely on the “goons” to implement their vision. A Instinct noted above, what they fail to see is that many of the so-called “goons” they would rely on to carry forward their beliefs are actually on our side.

    Someone made an observation the other that I thought was pretty spot on. After Heller and McDonald, the antis are going through the 5 stages of grief. First there was denial. They continue to write op-eds about the collective militia RTKBA, and CA wants to ban all semi-autos. Now there is Anger. Even after Aurora, Tuscon, and Newton, their side was unable to get anything passed. On top of that, the 7th Circuit has ordered IL to create a CCW framework. They are absolutely livid, and they just can’t believe that this is the country they live in. It goes right to the core of Sebastian’s great culture war piece.

    If we are able to continue to beat them both at the ballot, in the legislature, and hopefully at the Supreme Court (I would love to see them affirm Posner’s opinion, and strike down the state AWBs), then we will see the next stage – Bargaining. All of a suddent, we will be invited at the table to negotiate, in earnest this time (not like Uncle Joe’s joke of a sitdown with the NRA). This is when we will know that we have them beat. We will have to resist their sensible offers, because the whole cake will be awaiting us. Then will come the antis’ utter depression. Finally, they will accept the fact that the RTKBA is a civil right, and opposition to it will go the way overt racism has gone. It will always be there, but it will no longer be polite to discuss such things in public.

    That’s the way I hope it goes down, because the alternative is not going to be very pretty.

  11. Sebastian says:

    What purpose would it serve hanging this guy out to dry? Would it advance the cause any? Certainly, it would feel good. If I thought it would advance the cause any, I’d have published it email, name and all, but it won’t. I don’t want to bring ruin on someone just for a little emotional satisfaction.

    • Jim says:

      I agree. We certainly don’t have to elevate him to martyrdom. It is a nonsensical emotional email. This is not the work of a lying operative. It is the work of a very confused human being.

      • Rob Crawford says:

        Sorry, but the way it’s written, it’s the work of a liar. That he’s emotionally screwed up and intends to harm people calls for him to be exposed, not protected.

      • broken says:

        It seems to me that by redacting his name and address you are shielding him from the natural consequences of his actions. He used his real name and address. As a result I can only assume he intended to have his identity known. The fight for our rights is just that, _a fight_. Giving slack to an avowed enemy in _a fight_ is a self defeating tactic. Are gun owners serious about _fighting_ for their rights? There are times I really doubt it.

    • Rob Crawford says:

      He wants to punish people for exercising their inalienable right to self defense. That deserves a “minor correction”.

      There’s a reason shaming was once used to punish crime.

    • WhiskeyWasOnceMoney says:

      The sentiment is commendable, but I guarantee he would not hesitate if your positions were reversed. A whiff of “play stupid games, win stupid prizes” grapeshot would not be out of line.

      As for what it would accomplish: It’s not about emotional satisfaction, it’s pour encourager les autres.

      Put another way, “Sauce for the goose, Mr. Saavik.” One of the reasons they’re so apoplectic about the failure of Manchin-Toomey is that instead of taking their blood-dancing lying down per usual, we gave them the finger and rolled up our sleeves. Reinforcing success is sound tactics.

      It is, however, up to you.

      • Sebastian says:

        I agree they wouldn’t offer me the same courtesy and in many cases haven’t. But I won’t stoop to their level unless there’s something to be gained from it. If this guy were a MAIG mayor, or tied to a gun control group, or there was the ability to embarrass someone prominent in their movement, it might be worth it. But I doubt this guy is anyone. I also don’t know his circumstances. What if the cards falling where they may includes this hitting the press, and it turns out his kid was just killed in a gun accident? Think I’d get fair play in that in the media? It’s just not dice I’m going to roll to ruin someone who, as best I can find out, isn’t anybody in this issue. There are plenty of others out there like him too.

        • Stacy says:

          That might be a reason to show him charity, but you’re just guessing — and that email is just this side of a threat. I’m with the people saying that if the tables were turned he’d have forwarded the email to the press and your employer in a hot minute. It’s up to you, of course, but I think you’d be justified in going that route.

        • Patrick H says:

          Yeah exactly. It happened to me- wingnut out in California emailed my boss and his boss about my pro gun conditions. Luckily they were fine with it. But its terrible to mess with somebody’s life. Even if it feels good.

        • chiefjaybob says:

          This man said this to you:

          “I can only hope your family goes through the same trauma as mine and maybe you will change your opinion on this matter. Guns are for losers – and you my friend fit this description very nicely.”

          The only way to force civility on these miscreants is to make them suffer for their boorish behavior. We must make these hard-core haters feel the same heat as if he had sent a similarly worded letter slamming African-Americans to a black man. They must learn that this sort of talk is unacceptable, and to claim, “Aww, jeez, I was just drunk,” should get the shame shove off if the guy had called you a dirty n*****. It’s really kind of the same, and they should be treated as such.

    • Scott Connors says:

      Pour encourager les autres. They need to be reminded that it is their behavior that is not socially acceptable, not ours. At the least it will make the rest of the cretins think twice before polluting the blogosphere.

  12. Dave says:

    Oh, come on. Out the idiot and let the cards fall where they may.

  13. Ben Moser says:

    Why would a person give into his inner hate and write the letter unless it was a cry to be heard apart from the rest of the idiot progressive crowd.

  14. KCSteve says:

    I agree that you might want to forward a copy to his HR dept with a note that they may want to remind him these sorts of things are better sent from home.

    If HR chooses to do anything more (and being in NJ they may just agree with him) then that’s up to them.

    But this way they are aware that he’s sending out emails from his work address that could wind up being bad for the company. What if his next one winds up being aimed at a high-ranking official or something?

    But I agree with you that there’s no need to publicly shame him for being a bit emotional. Letting him read the replies here should provide sufficient feedback.

  15. wizardpc says:

    “Punch back twice as hard.”

    He has wished death upon you and yours. His employer has a right to know they have a psychopath working for them.

    • Are we all voting to name and shame him because he deserves it? Or are we just so damned angry about how we are treated that we want to treat them the same?

      If this was someone with a name instead of a random person, I’d say we should destroy him. As he is apparently a random jerk, I’d keep his name private.

      Now, if he’s stupid enough to come here and shoot off his mouth further, it’s on him.

  16. Andy B. says:

    Not that I’ve always followed my own advice adequately, but be sure to record somewhere this guy’s identity. He may turn up years from now in some public position or debate when your knowledge of where he is really coming from may prove useful.

    His mimes are not original and are common ones lately. I saw a clip of MSNBC’s Larry O’Donnell attacking Keystone Firearms as “merchants of death” because one of their Crickett rifles was involved in a very sad accident of a five-year-old shooting his two-year-old sister. I gather that making pink guns is very, very evil. (Guess I’d better respray that one SKS fiberglass stock?)

    And for the mime “you can never stand up to a modern standing army with your measly shoulder arms” I have three words: “Irish,” “Republican,” and “Army.”

    Hell, make it five: Add “Undefeated” and “Army.”

    • Ian Argent says:

      An excellent (if rather tragic) point, the last one. But the line between guerrilla action and terrorism is a very blurry one.

      • SDN says:

        I can promise you George Washington was never referred to as “The Father of his Country” in Lord Cornwallis’ officers mess.

        Terrorism, like treason, is only called that if it doesn’t prosper.

  17. mike says:

    He hoped your family goes through horrible, devastating tragedy.

    And you don’t publish his name and email? Really? If I was working with this guy, or employed this guy, I’d sure want to know about it. He’s unbalanced, and you’re not protecting him as much as you’re endangering his co-workers. You might want to rethink protecting him.

    • Sebastian says:

      This is the Internets. I see crazy and unbalanced things all the time. Hell, Joan Peterson can get this bad. If he had made a threat, that would be different. Wishing horror of me seems to be SOP for Internet arguments these days.

  18. Spade says:

    Another vote for “name and shame”.

  19. Spade says:

    Oh, and I want him to lose his job. Less money he can donate to anti-gun causes and such.

    • mike says:

      I wonder, given his email, if this guy would hesitate for a second to protect an act of bad judgement from any of us.

      This is why we lose. We allow the other side to walk all over us, and expect that they’ll be nice.

      • broken says:

        Yeah, wouldn’t want to seem unreasonable to the enemy, would we? If we always fight a defensive battle we will always come in second. Seems to me that basic human rights are a cause worth fighting an offensive battle over. The gun owner obsession with being _reasonable_ will doom us (and our human rights) in the end. Better to be feared than loved.

  20. LCB says:

    As a former Exchange admin for a mid sized company…this would have been a termination offense. Yearly, we made our users aware that email was for company use only and to NOT send anything in an email that they wouldn’t want to see in the newspaper. Sending vauge threats from a company email…serious stuff. It opens the company up to all kinds of legal liability.

    I don’t think you should out him Sebastian…but I do think you should send a copy of his email to his HR department.

    • Scott Connors says:

      I think that a name and shout is justified, along with a referral to HR for termination. If this doesn’t happen, and with him being in Joisey it might not, identify the employer as a co-conspirator.

  21. Ian Argent says:

    I’m for letting it go. An unbalanced political rant isn’t worth destroying a livelihood (as might happen if he was fired); at least not on the first offense.

  22. Carl from Chicago says:

    Sebastian, your reaction to that mail is reasoned, mature, and appropriate. These are some of the qualities I admire in you.

    • mike says:

      See, I have the opposite reaction. I don’t respect softies or pushovers. Maybe Sebastian should buy him an ice cream, so Mr Hater can have something to eat as he laughs at all of this.

      • Sebastian says:

        I’m willing to play hardball if I we have something to gain from it, and I’ve done that in the past. But there’s nothing to be gained by outing some random asshole who got a little carried away on the Internets. I’ve seen worse in my YouTube comments.

        • Andy B. says:

          “I’m willing to play hardball if I we have something to gain from it.”

          Excellent. Let that always be your guiding philosophy! I believe Sun Tzu had several entries about not allowing emotion to guide your battles.

          I find that hard to stick too, usually aching for the self-satisfaction of “really telling/showing them,” but in this case the practical value of crushing an insect is very doubtful. An insect can spend five minutes of their own time, luring someone of substance into spending a half-hour to accomplish nothing in response.

          I also think of the metaphor, of a lone guerrilla exhausting a company of his opponents troops by probing their defenses; when the most they can possibly accomplish is to kill that one guerrilla.

  23. Andy says:

    He vented. Such was an incident that made everyone angry on all sides, but for different reasons. We blame the parents, not some object. Simple negligence, and they (and the son, something he’ll forever live with) paid the price for it. It’s no different if he had grabbed car keys and ran her over.

    Letting it go is the best, mature response.

    • mike says:

      Here is a truth that will give you an edge in life.

      You have to speak to people in their own language.

      If someone kindly disagrees with you, the best way to level with them is kindly explaining your differences. If someone comes at you with a baseball bat, you’d better grab a rake, or one of Biden’s shotguns. People only understand their own language. So Mr Hater will just laugh about this and it won’t change a damned thing, except maybe he’ll use Hotmail next time. Forwarding the email to HR would force him to recognize that some behavior isn’t acceptable, and he’d think twice next time and decide if it was worth is.

      You don’t buy the guy coming at you with a bat an ice cream. This is why the GOP fails so much. They try to fight dirty tricks with press releases. Losers, lose.

  24. Richard says:

    He not only would not offer you the same protection, he is aligned with those who would send you to Gitmo. Out him.

  25. Robert says:

    Just the act of threatening to disclose his info will cause him to shit himself in terror, probably. You should do that just for the entertainment value.

  26. JC_VA says:

    You made two errors in your handling of this issue;

    1) You should NOT have published this online. That was the wrong thing to do, but there’s no way to take it back now. You should only have published this incident after getting a response from their HR Department.
    2) You should NOT respond to it. At all.
    3) You must forward this to the HR Department of the company, politely expressed your shock and dismay at the content, then brought to their attention that it was sent from a work email address and carried no corporate content disclaimer. You would then politely ask if they could clarify their policy on such emails, and respectfully request a reply at their earliest convenience.

    This is horrendous behavior, and like all such, “what you permit, you promote”. You still should be submitting it to their HR Department as explained above. You wouldn’t ever have allowed this kind of treatment on any other matter of Customer Service you might encounter. You shouldn’t be accepting it now, and by doing nothing, *you are accepting it*.

    We spend worthwhile time emailing Senators when our rights are in danger, but we won’t spend even less time taking appropriate action when this happens? Doesn’t make sense. Someone else is likely to be subject to this same treatment, and it’ll be your fault for not stepping up. This is why some Posters here have said your handling of this was weak. It was. But you can change that for the better.

    Get it to their HR Department, be polite but firm. But do it.

    • Sebastian says:

      Someone else might get flamed on the Internets? The horror.

      • JC_VA says:

        What makes you think it stops at that? What makes you think the next person he does this to might not also be someone more vulnerable than you? What makes you think his behavior might be limited to this topic alone? You don’t know. We don’t know. But we certainly embolden him when such behavior is consequence-free.

        Aren’t we supposed to be the ones who expect decency and civilized behavior? What good is that when we won’t take even the simplest actions to respond to this? Are we not then “stooping to his level”?

        • Sebastian says:

          If he had actually made a threat, that would be quite different, and I would agree with you that reporting it would be the responsible thing. But this strikes me as run of the mill Internet douchbaggery, per the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.

          It’s true that I don’t know what he’ll do next, but that’s just it. I don’t know. I also don’t know that the person spitting on the sidewalk who I fail to report to the police won’t go on to rob a bank tomorrow. All I know is he spit on the sidewalk, and it’s not something that pisses me off enough to go running to a cop.

          • mike says:

            Thanks, Sebastian, for looking out for the anti-gun douchebag trying to take away my rights. Are you a Republican member of Congress as well, by any chance?

          • ecurb says:

            LMAO, very appropriate citation of GIFT.

  27. Sebastian says:

    I don’t know… when you’ve been blogging for 7 years you tend to develop a pretty thick hide. I get more amused by things like this than really offended, so I didn’t take it as any great threat or affront.

    • JC_VA says:

      With respect, it’s not about your hide. It’s about whether it’s right or wrong for someone to be doing this on the company time and dime. Your own personal opinion of the person does not excuse their behavior.

      What’s the point of a blog to speak out when you won’t speak out in a situation such as this?

      It’s time we started getting offended at the things that are directed against us as offensive.

      • Sebastian says:

        I didn’t really have a point. I thought it was kind of amusing, in terms of how pathetic the person was in flaming me from a work e-mail.

    • Thomas says:

      I’m assuming that the email header was check and it is not spoofed?

  28. I would definitely purchase the find upstanding individual an NRA membership, or maybe a NJ state rifle association membership.

    He did, after all, ask how he can buy a Crickett. I’m sure those fine organizations can help educate him on the process.

    I would also consider a short, to the point response: “Sir, I do not desire any future contact with you. Any further messages will be forwarded to the appropriate law enforcement agencies and your human resources department.” After that, it is on him if he keeps digging on company time.

    • JC_VA says:

      You don’t engage these kinds of people. If you want results, engage the organ grinder, not the monkey. We know who the “organ grinder” is in this case, and it should be forwarded to them to handle appropriately. There are systems in place to deal with this kind of behavior, we need to use them. Any engagement in this specific situation would be enabling, so we don’t stoop to their level. Use the process designed for these situations.

      They are the end result of our decades of smiling and moving on each time the threatening, name-calling and accusations got worse. This happens because we allow it far too often. And it’s *easy* to do something about it on this occasion. Easy.

      • Eh, I think a single warning is appropriate.

        If a coworker came up to you at the water cooler and said something anti-semitic, or sent you a racist email, would you immediately go to HR? I’d consider giving the individual a “really?” look, make it clear that behavior will not be tolerated, then go to HR next. Hopefully the doofus learns that the behavior is unacceptable and thinks about their decisions. If not then there is always an option to elevate.

        • JC_VA says:

          The guy at the water cooler’s not doing it to a member of the public, using company technology. Guess what would happen to the guy who sent that to a customer using his employers email system?

          This is NOT cooler talk.

          • Sebastian says:

            I agree it’s not cooler talk. It’s pretty typical of the behavior common through the anonymity of the Internet. Even though this guy either intentionally or mistakenly used his business e-mail with his real name, he still didn’t have to look anyone in the face to say what he was saying.

            With that said, it still strikes me as pretty typical for Internet discourse between people who disagree, and maybe you do have a point about how tolerating it won’t ever help fix the problem. But to the extent it is a problem, it’s widespread, and goes far beyond just this issue. Generally, for better or for worse, and I would generally agree with for worse, the Internet seems to make people think they have a license to be jerks.

            So again, to me this whole thing just never rose to the level where I feel the need to lash back by trying to get the person fired. In a way, I would consider that adding to the nastiness of Internet discourse. I would tend to agree that Internet discourse leaves something to be desired, but I also think people are way too quick to take offense these days over disagreements, and I’d be a very bitter person if I get worked up over everyone who was a dick to me on the Internet.

  29. Adam says:

    Put me in the category of forward to HR and out him. Then give us the company name so we can help destroy him. Look, my feeling is this is total war. I want those that oppose us out of work, unable to contribute financially to our enemies and unable to spend the effort rallying when they’re just trying to scrape enough together to feed their pathetic offspring. Never miss an opportunity to hurt your enemies, whether big or small.

    • JC_VA says:

      I agree, but even if our right was not at stake here, this is behavior that we must not allow to become acceptable in ANY interaction. It’s the reason we’re treated as taboo and they are not. Because we allow it to be so, in fact we facilitate it.

      As the Japanese say, “When a nail sticks up, bang it down”.

  30. JC_VA says:

    There’s a reason why “faggot” is no longer socially acceptable, and it’s because the gay community took direct steps to *make sure it was seen as socially unacceptable*.

    Every time a gay man was insulted, he knew that when he responded, he wasn’t just doing it for himself, but for his entire community. He wasn’t just thinking of himself. And THAT’s why they win.

    You want to win the culture war? THAT’s what you need to be doing. In EVERY interaction. No more acceptable silence. No more letting it pass. Treat this kind of behavior just like its analogues in the gender and race arenas.

    Is “Stand and fight” just a slogan, or a modus operandi? We talk so much about the failings of history yet ignore the successes, and the methods by which they came about?

    This is why we lose. We’ve made it acceptable for this kind of behavior to exist in polite discourse.

    • Andy B. says:

      I’ve been generally agreeing with Sebastian, but I admit your argument has changed my mind a bit.

      The only thing that concerns me, is that we are becoming a society based on everyone shouting down everyone else. I don’t know how far that can go. Just thinking aloud here, perhaps the best way to deal with the situation is simply not to allow yourself to be shouted down, while not engaging your attacker with like behavior. Sebastian does not show any signs of modifying his positions, so the attacker has accomplished nothing, and his attack was trivial. The attacker has only won if what he’s done changes your behavior. If it has no effect, he by definition has lost.

      I would also introduce that there might be a different conclusion had it been a public attack, where the ability to shout it down might carry some political importance.

      • Andy says:

        When viewing two people argue over a topic that I don’t have a particular vested interest in, which can be found on the usual Sunday political talk shows, the side that remains calm and rational gets more of my attention. Mouth foaming antics are never a positive when dealing with the undecided in the populace.

  31. Spade says:

    Name and shame! Name and Shame! Name and Shame!

    Shame is a valuable tool, you know. One missing from our society.

  32. Neon says:

    You are much nicer than I am. I would send a letter with a copy of the email to the CEO of the company in a heartbeat asking if his company condones such behaviors. I had the same thing happen to me where a nasty girl, a bull…. well anyway, professor from USC Medical School tried to slander me using USC’s e-mail system. I responded by asking the question I stated above to the Board of Regents and the President of the School. It ended immediately. I could only hope she was fired but alas she was only censured.

top