Perhaps I'm a glutton for punishment, or maybe I just like swimming upstream, but for whatever reason, I enjoy walking into the lion's den to debate hot-button issues with those who I know from the outset are not natural political allies. Nearly every day, I engage others on their Facebook profiles, Twitter accounts and other forums to debate serious issues that tend to divide Americans along religious, ethnic, cultural or sexual divides. I do this because of a hope that I can appeal to the intellectual honesty of anyone participating in such a conversation so as to find some sort of common ground. All too often in our partisan, "us vs. them" political discourse, we listen only to those who validate and reinforce what we already believe to be true and ignore all those whose points of view differ. I truly enjoy the challenge of doing just the opposite because, frankly, I find conversations only with people who agree with me to be exceedingly boring.
In my various conversations with those who I would consider to be part of the religious and regressive right, I’ve noticed a number of disturbing patterns in their argument styles that I believe to be at the core of our political gridlock and utter lack of bipartisanship in America today. I wish I could say that such patterns are just a byproduct of simple, easily-cured ignorance, however, the more I engage in political debates with those on the far-right fringe, the more I’m convinced that these argument styles are the intended effect of years of indoctrination by the religious and regressive right. It’s a lot easier to continue to peddle your failed ideology and ridiculous religious beliefs if your target audience is completely ill-equipped intellectually to challenge any assertions made by those who purport to lead them.
First and foremost among these disturbing argumentative patterns is the tendency to regurgitate statements from ideologues and demagogues without bothering to process the information first. Those who simply parrot Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh don’t stop for even a moment to consider the veracity of the statements or the context in which they’re made. Rather, what Beck and Limbaugh, among many others in the right wing echo chamber, have to say on any issue is accepted as absolute, indisputable fact and then simply repeated in the course of a debate on that topic. Just as Beck and Limbaugh do with such expertise, the rank and file of the religious and regressive right seem to believe that repeating something over and over, regardless of truth, somehow lends credence to the assertion being made. In any other context, it would be absurd – I could claim the sky is green ad naseum, it would never make it true. Nevertheless, repeating the verifiably false assertions over and over that President Obama wasn’t born in America or that he is a secret Muslim, to name but two examples, to the regressives, somehow makes those assertions true.
Beyond non-stop repetition of falsehoods in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the regressives also tend to reject any form of evidence that doesn’t comport neatly with the text of the bible. While I try my best to be respectful of others’ religious beliefs, I find it more than frustrating that modern, verified, duplicated scientific evidence is so casually rejected by those who cling to the belief that the earth was created 6000 years ago. Rather than consider the possibility that the bible might not be a literal account of history, science or even creation, the scientific evidence is discarded and no attempt is made to reconcile the bible’s inherent inconsistencies with the indisputable and overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. Carbon dating, astronomical observations, fossil records, ice core samples, seabed samples and archeological evidence notwithstanding, they’d prefer to believe that counting the number of “begets” in the bible is a more accurate way to determine the age of the earth. Therefore, rather than consider that the bible’s account may be incomplete, we get abominations like the Creation Museum where cavemen are depicted as having lived with dinosaurs.
Another tried and true method of regressive debating includes what I like to call the “I’m-rubber-you’re-glue” strategy of argument. Instead of addressing issues head on with an open mind and a modicum of intellectual honesty, the regressives will accuse the opposition of doing precisely what they’re doing in a pathetic attempt to hide the obvious lack of knowledge behind their beliefs. Take Fox “News’s” obsession with the New Black Panther Party, for instance. Instead of addressing the very real issue of racism within the ranks of the tea parties and the GOP, they try to obfuscate the deserved accusations of racism by referring to other, usually inconsequential, always incongruent, instances of bigotry and stupidity by some on the left in a curious attempt at shirking responsibility for their own words and actions. Anyone who dares call them out on this tactic is called a racist, as if calling someone out for making bigoted remarks is the same as actually making bigoted remarks. It’s not.
When all else fails, rather than considering the possibility that they might not have all the answers, they then stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes tightly and wait for the conversation to go away. With a click of a button, a political opponent is simply erased from the regressives’ universe by blocking anyone with whom they have a disagreement. Any and all conversations posted on their profiles that include even slightly divergent points of view are whitewashed to remove all evidence that a critical thinker with contrary opinions ever paid a visit and tried to come to some sort of common ground.
How pathetic.
FOLLOW LINK TO VIEW COMMENTS ON THIS POST
http://www.robertapplebaum.com/content/how-dumbing-down-america-plays-out-online
No comments:
Post a Comment