The question is... "are you cool"? He answers this way:
I only write about this now, because lately I've been getting hit with coins -- figuratively anyway -- whenever I write something on the web. After a few years of blogging, I've hit on one essential truth: there are millions of cowards willing to say things about you online that they'd never say to you in a bar. That's the baseline definition of snark: catty words spewed on a screen but never uttered to a face. Blogging has created a chorus line of cowards -- coin-throwers who would never take the stage or put themselves in the line of fire. The World Wide Web has revealed, sadly, that as a country we're losing the will to fight real wars, preferring instead to be nonproductive wusses, incapable of delivering anything more than a snide aside to the outside world, via the "send" button.
These two lines of thinking reveal the key differences between the left and everyone else on earth. Normal folks are willing to take the risk and appear stupid. The left cannot fathom why anyone would do such a thing.
Why? Because it's uncool. And that's the only thing that matters to the left. They claim to be concerned about tolerance, but really they are concerned about how cool they appear to others. They need to be admired. The left will never stand up for anything, because doing so undermines the protection necessary for their fragile egos. And it also requires balls, which they sorely lack.
And that makes them all cowards. Because, in order to prevent evil, you have to take a risk-not of death, but of embarrassment.
The bravest response for all of us? To have the balls to appear stupid -- at any and all times.
The article in full is a must read. I can barely do it justice by excerpting.
I see what Mr. Gutfeld speaks of, regularly, and lament, too. I see youngsters using MySpace and YouTube to pretend to a type of character which in fact is not evidently manifest in real-time.
I see the coarsening of debate, harsh, ugly language used to pretend to a type of character -- when in fact it reveals a cowardly nature bearing the chimera of "harsh language".
Seven years of coarse, cowardly language sets from the left has, IMO, made their target goal -- to coarsen language and debate overall. This is not to say there is no room for valid, constructive, if not harsh, language sets. Constructive use, civil use of debative language is in dire need.
Calling someone an a**hole as a debate tactic is simply a 2001 Space Oddyssey monkey clunking someone else over the head with the bone of a dead arse. And, this language set is on the rise.
Some argue that being civil to such luddites will bring them to reason. Hasn't quite worked with the Islamofacists, has it.
The logic of employing rhetorical fire-fighting "backdraft" approaches ultimately will fail unless used very sparingly, and at points. If only then to highlight the contrast between civil and uncivil discourse.
What matters is DEEDs. Acts. Being civil to a person while exacting a perfect revenge, served cold, is best. :)
They never know what hit them.