Whenever someone self-identifies as a life coach or motivational speaker, be wary. Most often, you're dealing with someone who props up their fragile self-image with the psychological need to pontificate about the character of others. There are exceptions, but they are rare.
Put them on Twitter where they can denigrate whomever they like, and the awkward buzzword 'cyber-bully' suddenly gains sparkling clarity.
I've been at the receiving end of a diatribe by just such a person. The first word of disagreement with one of my opinions was 'arrogant!'
I can't recall whether the Pecksniffian fellow ever got past the insults to the substance of what I had written. I stopped following him. I stopped short of blocking him, because I didn't want to give him a reason to crow.
Yet, every few weeks, another South African on Twitter joins the exclusive club of people who have been treated to this fellow's sanctimonious judgement on their failures and inadequacies.
In a recent example, the bully decided to take issue with someone's blog post. To set the tone for civil debate, he began by describing his victime-du-jour as "living in cloud-cuckoo land" and being "angry and irrational". The opinion, he wrote, was an "utter embarrassment", "a poor posting", which "shouldn't have [been] written". If there was a point of fact or logic he disputed, it was hard to pick out among all the hissing and spitting: "If you want to be taken seriously, proof seriously".
What? You found someone on the Internet with whom you disagree? You found a blog post, the punctuation of which does not pass professional muster? Stop the presses!
As an example of puerile, ad hominem flaming, it was as good a case study as the bully said the blog post was a case study in bad writing. As an example of the considered opinion of a reasonable man who respectfully disagreed, not so much.
What? You found someone on the Internet with whom you disagree?
ITWeb contributor
The man's unctuous diatribe continued at length. He accused his target of illogic, when some of his own comments flatly contradicted each other. The personal insults came thick and fast. Once he was done on Twitter, he turned to his blog to write a smug piece on criticism and self-esteem. He added an excerpt from his positive-thinking self-help book for good measure.
One quotation is flush with irony, and not only because it is grammatically inept: "Critics are usually unhappy, unbalanced people. Generally trying to make themselves stand taller by trampling on the self-worth of those they crush underfoot."
The target of his venomous attack displayed courage under fire. She asked others, privately, for their opinion on her post. She modestly conceded at the outset that she does not presume to be an experienced writer.
Mine, honest as usual, was accepted with grace. I disagreed with the opinion, but did not think it irrational or illogical. I agreed that the writing could have been better, but that's a minor quibble and quite beside the point. In short, I thought the full-scale public assault launched by this bully from behind the safety of his keyboard was petty and vindictive.
It is one thing to hold opinions and express them with conviction, or to attack the opinions of others because you passionately disagree. This is grist to the social media mill. This is what makes the online world rich and variegated.
Mudslinging is the province of trolls, bullies and maladjusted teenagers. In a short, bald, middle-aged man, who professes to coach others in life skills, it is a symptom of an inferiority complex cowering behind an overbearing, bombastic ego.
Of course, I wouldn't dream of telling him so. After all, mudslinging is the province of trolls, bullies and maladjusted teenagers.
Also, I've run out of demeaning adjectives for the pompous windbag's smarmy conceit.
Share