Vox Populi 8 – Positive or Negative Language
I’ve been doing this blogging thing for just on a year and a half now. I’ve written over 200 articles here and there doesn’t seem to be any sign I’ll give up soon. Over that time I have used a variety of approaches, some sharp and with an intended sting, and some more gentle, hoping that the beauty of reason will prevail.
I have noticed that with different approaches I get different types of comments back, different numbers of comments, or even seeming apathetic responses (i.e. nobody reads it). I am not sure what my voice is, but whatever tone I use I try to be as honest as I can, honest to myself and to you, dear reader.
There certainly are a lot of writers and bloggers in the circles of atheism, rational thought, free-thought and reason that write either with an intended sting, or even with an intention to ridicule the people they are talking about. There are others, like myself, who think that the easy target, the obvious target, is far too juvenile to attack (mind you I love reading a good rant).
I wonder, from your perspective, what is the most effective writing style for making some sort of progress in this world? Do you think that the obvious and sometimes scathing attacks against religion etc. are effective, or is it just like screaming at a brick wall, that nothing gets through? Or do you think that a more measured approach, one that uses logic and not emotions as a weapon will prevail in the end? Which do you think has more power psychologically?
Also, which atheists are your favourite speakers/writers? I particularly admire the style of Sam Harris, and the fervour of Hitchens, though I doubt I could ever be as good as either of them.