----- Original Message ----- From: "Carrol Cox" <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
> Polemics: the writer openly blasts a position -- not a person, though
> usually polemics will, not for the better, incorporate personal attacks.
> Criticism: the writer points out to someone with whom he/she has
> fundamental unity that he/she is fucking up in some way or that such and
> such an argument is not consistent with the principles shared. Criticism
> always specifies its targets (proper names: persons or group), and
> always makes clear the fundamental unity of critic and criticized. It is
> important to maintained a principled stand in polemics. An unprincipled
> stand in criticism reduces the criticism to pure babble.
>
> "Polemics disguised as Criticism." I'll leave this undefined for now.
Don't forget Vilification! in which the writer openly or covertly blasts some other person or entity, not for the purpose of attacking any position, or for the purpose of 'criticism' as above defined (since no fundamental unity is assumed), but for the tactical purpose of damaging the other's reputation, disrupting the other's relations with others, disrupting the flow of conversation in which the other is engaged, and making it more difficult for the other to obtain a hearing.
Note: the vilification may be sincere or insincere, based on facts or on lies. If it is insincere, synonyms would be 'libel', 'defamation', or 'disinformation'. A term which would be neutral on the truth/falsity question might be 'contrainformation'.
(also: Vilification disguised as Criticism; Vilification disguised as Polemics)
lp