Bashing

Posted on July 18, 2004 in Culture Ettiquette

Sometimes the function of intimidation is to keep you fixated. This technique was exploited to great effect by critics of Bill Clinton — though the whole “blow job” issue was essentially empty, they kept the attention of the Left on it. Terrorism serves the same function as does the mere allegation that criticism of any kind is “bashing”.

What constitutes “bashing”? I would say any kind of nonconstructive attack. Most obvious of these are retorts filled with profanity and invective. Calling someone a jerk, an idiot, or a “fucking loser” all class as bashing. Then there are those retorts which disenfranchise. “You’re not a [fill in the nationality|religion|other identity group].” Or “It is not your place to comment.” Bashing relies heavily on falsehood, the telling of tales. It is often employed against those who bear legitimate gripes and it is not uncommon for a basher to label the victim as the aggressor.

In other words, bashing is bullying calculated to silence. Whether it is a Canadian who rejects a comment as coming from an “ugly American” or a insecure web site owner who just doesn’t know how to say “I hear your complaint, but I am overloaded right now”, the formula is pretty much the same. The bashers find that they cannot apologize and the problem isn’t so much that the other person will see them as an inferior, but they will have to change their methods.

Bashing is fundamentally fascist in nature. It holds that change can be affected by destruction and that to admit weakness is defeat. This is why the basher goes to such extremes of lying and denial. The torture comes mostly not from the accuser but from inside. To apologize or concede factual error is trivial, except in the mind of the basher where titans pummel one another with fists of stone. When I see profanity, I see pain and reason to pity. Not in the sarcastic manner of Mr. T, but genuine compassion for a struggling Buddha. The basher doesn’t yet get it: you can’t escape suffering. But instead of minimizing suffering, the basher keeps producing more. And when all is said and done, when the bashing fails to prevent new criticism from coming in, the mouth opens, the keys move, and the rage resounds.

The attacks may pour out either to cloak truly evil ends (e.g. the war in Iraq) or banal ones (e.g. I am overworked or feeling depressed). I don’t think it counts as “sinking to the level” of your attacker when you respond in equally strong, albeit truthful language. The basher intends to silence you, to equate his or her distortions with your facts. If I call a genuine liar such as Bush a liar, it is not bashing: it is a statement of reality. The wielder of aggressive falsehoods will often try to hide behind a “many realities” falsehood to justify real world harm and meanness. Or he or she may just be a frustrated, relatively powerless person who instead of voicing legitimate and civil retorts or making reasonable requests goes overboard, mostly because that is the lesson he or she receives from the mouths of the powerful.

This makes bashing an important issue when criticizing the actions of any religious, cultural, or political hierarchy. How that person responds and, equally importantly, how we reward or deny rewards to such people affects our relationships in much smaller groups. The best defense against mean falsehood is to describe it for what it is, to take pains to expose it, and, most importantly, to continue to enjoy life despite the basher’s best efforts to make you miserable and ashamed of speaking up for valid feelings and against oppression.

Whatever you do, avoid the fixation on the basher’s issues. Keep to the ones which are important, most fundamental of all how we live with each other.