Sleazy innuendo cleverly couches personal attack, and what was accomplished? (letter)
For only the second time in 16 years of commentary writing, I’m taking issue in print with someone writing a letter rebutting one of my commentaries. Today, I read the letter to the editor from Mr. Kent Lupberger (“A response to ‘A complex issue,’ by Butch Mazzuca,” Tuesday, March 20).
Lupberger is entitled to his opinion and his ideology, but I am truly surprised that the Daily allowed him to include a sleazy innuendo cleverly couching a personal attack. To wit: “Maybe I’m imagining things, but is ‘bourgeois culture’ Mazzuca’s euphemism for “traditional white culture?” Not at all surprisingly, Luperberger plays the race card a second time the next paragraph when he writes, “So is Mazzuca’s conclusion that these shooters’ loss of bourgeois status misleading to their desire to kill (mostly) other white people?”
I’m compelled to ask why it was necessary for Lupberger to inject race into the matter? What did he hope to accomplish? What purpose did it serve? Did it further reasoned discussion or debate? In all 539 of my previous commentaries, I have never once written about or injected race into an issue — never! So I find it despicable that this type of unsupported innuendo can make its way onto the commentary page. But I am not surprised.
Support Local Journalism
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User