November 2, 2006Reacting Personally to These Attacks is Pointless
Rush Limbaugh accused Michael J Fox of exaggerating his symptoms of Parkinson’s disease in a stem cell ad. Fox’s response was:
- I don’t want to react personally to these attacks. It’s pointless, it’s silly. It’s like getting in a fight with a bully. You’re not going to change his mind. You’re just probably going to get a nose bleed. So why bother? But make no mistake, it hurts.Fox has continued to speak his truth without compromise, and he sets an example of how to respond powerfully to attack without giving your detractors much fuel to build a fire from. Perhaps if the Dixie Chicks had followed his lead they might not have become quite as attractive a target as they did.
4 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
| TrackBack URI
You can also bookmark
this on del.icio.us or check the cosmos
You assume that Fox and the Chicks are indeed speaking the truth. The Chicks are espousing an opinion as are the people who react to their comments. I would say the two are even. Fox is saying what he says is the truth. Is it? Prove it. Rhetoric aside, look at the facts. In Maryland Michael Steele is not against stem cell research as Fox says. Fox can say what he wants. Limbaugh can react. It appears your mind is made up as to who is the truth-teller based on the names and political bent. Shame. I had much respect for your opinion before now. Now I’m not so sure.
Comment by Mark Cook — November 2, 2006 @ 8:05 pm
Tactics are rarely a one-size-fits-all solution. Not that I have any idea what a good tactic for the Dixie Chicks would have been. But it seems clear to me that even in our so called modern world, and our so called progressive country, there are differences in how people react to men who speak out versus how they react to women who speak out. I think the reasons why are not simple, and are multi layered; and are not all without merit. I think it is a simple, if not happy, truth that women who speak out and who want to be taken seriously, must employ additional skills and instincts in deciding what to say and when to say it.
Comment by Kathleen — November 3, 2006 @ 7:36 am
I don’t assume either were speaking the truth, I assume they were speaking about their own beliefs. I believe that Fox is in ernest since he once stumped for Spector, but I don’t have enough info to be conclusive about that.
If Fox falsely claimed Steele was against stem cell research, I’ll say he erred or was out of line. My quick review gets mixed results regarding Steele’s stance, but I am open to the possibility that his views were misrepresented. That is, however, beside the point I made regarding how Fox responded to Limbaugh’s mockery of his symptoms. His response was exemplary of how to deal with that kind of attack, and if he is making false claims it doesn’t invalidate the appropriateness of his response to Limbaugh.
Comment by merylrunion — November 10, 2006 @ 4:55 pm
While many may disagree with Fox, it is not “speaking strong” to mock him. It implies to me that Limbaugh was unable to come up with a defense of his own position, so his only alternative was to attack the messenger of a different position. This seems to be the tactic of some people on both sides of many issues and only contributes to the polarization of our society and the difficulty in making informed, rather than emotional, decisions. Our own opinions feel like “truth” to each of us, but it is important to maintain open lines of communication in order to learn and grow. SpeakStrong aims to serve the goal of improving rational, intelligent communication — something which most of us could stand to learn more of. I, too, applaud Michael Fox for not falling into the trap of responding in kind to Limbaugh’s attack.
Comment by Keyspearl — November 13, 2006 @ 11:33 am