Dana has written a post, "An Apology to Donald Douglas":
There are times in which my sense of humor covers things which other people do not find humorous, and I’ve run up on a couple of those instances. The first, which our friend from as far away as it’s possible to be, New Zealand, has mentioned frequently, was a snarky comment that said it would be better for Republicans to win elections through cheating than for Democrats to win elections honestly. The Phoenician upbraids me both frequently and often for that one, but I’d point out here that it was just snarkiness.That's very good of Dana to apologize. But I'll just make an observation: Snark is generally designed to go beyond playful ribbing, and sometimes when folks snark, especially with those on the same side, they put little a "snark alert" in parentheses to avoid misunderstandings. I read David Denby's Snark about a year ago. As he notes there, "some of those who professionally attack others intend their words to be strong enough to 'make their victims disappear - go away, give up, even kill themselves'."
Dana's a good man, and for that reason I was all the more surprised at his snarky comment at the post. I accept his apology and I'm glad this was a misunderstanding and not something worse.
Settled with honor. No more need for a duel.
ReplyDeleteIt is so refreshing when one can apologize when appropriate.
When an apology is disingenuous it smacks of political maneuvering. For example, I believe it would go a long way for the president’s image if he were drop the humility towards our global foes and instead apply it to the U.S. congress and the U.S. Supreme Court, each one of who have many, many more years experience than Obama.