“…On the one hand, it is, you can argue, generally the way of the meaner-than-thou blogosphere, with all but the most professional and intelligent and positive-minded of outposts seeming to suffer an undue percentage of reactionary chyme in their comment areas, hordes of Net-drunk twentysomethings and extremists and shut-ins who have way too much free time and merely chime in to see their sneers “published” and to prove how much more jaded and apathetic they are than the next person, while adding zero to the conversation.
“But maybe it’s worse than that. Because this is where it can happen, where you can get sucked into the vortex of whining and bitterness and where you might feel part of yourself wanting to wallow too, desiring to avoid doing the actual moral and spiritual work of dissecting and researching and analysing something as politically messy and morally ugly as torture for yourself, opting instead for the easy path, for closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears and going, nyah nyah nyah shut up shut up SHUT UP! Hey, it sure beats thinking. …”
I suppose he’s right, in principle, but he misses the point of his own column. The whiners are the people who complain but offer no solutions — precisely what he’s done himself on many occasions, including this one.
Outrage predisposes us to not look for the compromises that will lead to solutions. I prefer thinkers who look at the reality of the situation: that there are two sides, that there always will be, and that the answers will all be found someplace toward the middle, and not by painting the issues black and white.