Carl Trueman cranks out another home run here. It is all good, but here is one part that I will highlight: Thus, to respond as this person did would seem to point to one of two possible explanations: she was a narcissist and thus incapable of understanding that articles written by another could possibly not be aimed at her; or (and frankly, more likely), she was clueless about controversial discourse and unable to separate critique of a particular viewpoint from a malicious attack on any person who might hold to said viewpoint. Whichever was the case, however, the use of the language of hurt and pain as primary involved both a trivialization of those concepts in themselves and a sidestepping of the real issue, i.e., was the argument I proposed right or wrong?
It’s the second option that seems much too common these days. I’d add that this shows up also when someone takes offense on behalf of someone else. You know, like when the quality of a decision is criticized and folks shift the subject to a defense of the person(s) responsible for the decision.
