"Godwin's Law" is an observation made by attorney and author Mike Godwin, which states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
I believe that the law needs a corollary to fit the Obama age: "In discussing any political issue the probability of anyone who disagrees with views held by the current administration being a racist is automatically 1."
Disagree with the Health Care overhaul? It's because you're racist. Disagree with the stimulus bill? You're racist. Disagree with the government take-over of the auto industry? You're a racist.
Those on the left are incapable of believing anyone could disagree with them, and they are afraid that anyone else might listen to those who disagree with them. Rather than admit disagreement can exist based on the logical, political, social, economic, or historical merits of an issue, the only possible reason anyone could have for disliking current policies or legislation is because there is a black man in the White House. They know it is a difficult charge to defend against, so they invoke it early and often to quickly drag any discussion away from the actual merits of an issue.
I am not saying there is no racism in America, nor am I saying that there aren't people who disagree with Obama solely because of race. I'm sure there is at least one person out there who would support the administration heart and soul if there just weren't a black man at its head. But people like that are the exception, not the rule.
Meanwhile, the real cases of racism in this country are being overshadowed by this pathetic excuse for a debate technique, which is in reality the same thing as wrapping up your opponent in boxing so they can't punch you with any effectiveness. It's illegal in boxing, and we should not allow it in discussion or debate.
In fact, it's time to strike back. Why do we accept the charge of racism as the end of discussion? Is this not America, where a person is innocent until proven guilty? Next time someone calls you racist you have every right to insist they offer proof. They can't, and they know it, so they will likely attempt to point out some latent racist leanings in your past or some other nonsense.
But don't accept that. Reframe the argument. Ask them if what they are really saying is that there is no other possible reason for someone to be against issue X. If they say yes then you may now accuse them of prejudice and ignorance. If they say no, ask them why they would automatically assume racism is your motivation when there is no proof that you are racist. Does that not prove that they themselves are prejudiced?
The argument is so easily turned on its head, but no one ever seems to try. One does not have to be racist to oppose the ideas of this administration. To assume one is a racist because they do is dishonest and morally bankrupt--and ultimately detrimental to the real fight against real racism.
Both sides should have a vested interest in removing this particular tactic from play as soon as possible before real damage is done.
Showing posts with label public debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public debate. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
John Mackey, Obamacare, and public opinion
Now that I've read the Op/Ed by Whole Foods CEO John Mackey in the Wall Street Journal I really don't understand what the big deal is.
Don't get me wrong. This is not about Free Speech. I uphold Mackey's right to say what he said. I uphold the right of the readers to boycott Whole Foods if they so desire. Freedom of Speech should never guarantee freedom from consequences for that speech. If you're going to say something that annoys your support base you should be prepared to take a hit, whether you're John Mackey or Natalie Maines (or Arlen Specter).
No, this post is about what liberals say and what they do. One of the main criticisms being leveled at those protesting against the Health Care Reform bill is that they are shutting down discussion and disallowing dialogue.
Mackey's article is a calm, rational discussion of alternatives to what is currently on the table. But just because he does not agree with universal health care it appears that the liberals are unwilling to read any farther than the second paragraph. I'll bet if they did they'd find they agree with him on at least a few points. Even if they disagree with everything, they would likely benefit from hearing what other people think.
Don't liberals espouse the value of differing viewpoints? Or does that only apply to ethnicity and sexual orientation?
To be fair, the political right is just as bad. Both sides seem to focus much of their attention on keeping people from listening to anyone from the other side. They aren't conducting a war on their ideological opposites so much as a joint offensive against moderation. They don't want anyone reaching over the wall they built. They have no interest in reaching across the aisle--they'd rather turn the aisle into a demilitarized zone where anyone who dares to venture will be shot on sight!
The sad thing is that if we we would take more time to listen we just might find we CAN find an answer that we can all agree on. Health Care reform could be possible. Universal Health Care could be doable. But as long as our politics allows for no middle ground we'll never accomplish anything that doesn't alienate at least half of the country.
The middle ground is where the answers can be found. John Mackey tried to take us there. No good deed goes unpunished.
Don't get me wrong. This is not about Free Speech. I uphold Mackey's right to say what he said. I uphold the right of the readers to boycott Whole Foods if they so desire. Freedom of Speech should never guarantee freedom from consequences for that speech. If you're going to say something that annoys your support base you should be prepared to take a hit, whether you're John Mackey or Natalie Maines (or Arlen Specter).
No, this post is about what liberals say and what they do. One of the main criticisms being leveled at those protesting against the Health Care Reform bill is that they are shutting down discussion and disallowing dialogue.
Mackey's article is a calm, rational discussion of alternatives to what is currently on the table. But just because he does not agree with universal health care it appears that the liberals are unwilling to read any farther than the second paragraph. I'll bet if they did they'd find they agree with him on at least a few points. Even if they disagree with everything, they would likely benefit from hearing what other people think.
Don't liberals espouse the value of differing viewpoints? Or does that only apply to ethnicity and sexual orientation?
To be fair, the political right is just as bad. Both sides seem to focus much of their attention on keeping people from listening to anyone from the other side. They aren't conducting a war on their ideological opposites so much as a joint offensive against moderation. They don't want anyone reaching over the wall they built. They have no interest in reaching across the aisle--they'd rather turn the aisle into a demilitarized zone where anyone who dares to venture will be shot on sight!
The sad thing is that if we we would take more time to listen we just might find we CAN find an answer that we can all agree on. Health Care reform could be possible. Universal Health Care could be doable. But as long as our politics allows for no middle ground we'll never accomplish anything that doesn't alienate at least half of the country.
The middle ground is where the answers can be found. John Mackey tried to take us there. No good deed goes unpunished.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Dogma Dogma Dog ma' Dog is Brown
The debate over god and religion is currently being waged on the sides of busses in London.
It started with an atheist campaign in which a sign on the sides of busses proclaimed "There's probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
Several religious groups and churches have responded with upcoming ads of their own:
"There definitely is a God. So join the Christian Party and enjoy your life."
...or...
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."
...or...
"There is a God, believe. Don't worry and enjoy your life."
What is most interesting, however, is the response from the head of the organization sponsoring the atheistic ads.
She misses the point--and her own hypocrisy. There were two prongs to the atheist's attack. The first prong, contrary to what she says, is only less dogmatic (to be truly "open" they might have said "there may be no god", whereas "probably" implies a statistical weighting that does not exist). While some religous persons might still get upset at this declaration, most would just shake their heads and move on. I'm sure most relgious people have entertained at least once the thought that there may not be a God.
No, it's the second prong that is likely to elicit objection, and is dogmatic and declaratory. It's the strong implication that religious people A) are unduly worried because of their belief in God, and B) do not enjoy their life as a result. Conversely implied is that atheists are not worried and do enjoy life. They don't seem to be leaving the door open for reason or debate on what causes this worry, even though the current economic climate, for one, seems every bit as likely a candidate.
Furthermore, what exactly is funny about calling a group of people fussy and depressed? It's only funny for people who agree with you. So the British Humanist Society ads are divisive, dogmatic, discourage reason and debate, and are intentionally insulting. Hence I also have reason to doubt Stinson's "openness...to new evidence" based on the dogmatism of her own statements.
In short, Stinson's belief seems to be "We are open-minded and clever. They are depressed, close-minded, and daft. End of discussion." She's a true humanitarian--in the culinary sense.
Now if open, respectful debate were the goal, I'd have kept the whole debate off of busses. Such advertising--on both sides--does not provide a forum for discussion. It thrusts inflammatory statements in front of people while giving them no means to respond. Other than buying an ad of their own, anyway, which excludes the average person lacking the $22,000 to splurge on legalized graffiti. This is bound to leave most people with any strong beliefs to the contrary feeling publicly attacked and helpless to respond. Neither of which is likely to endear them to one's cause or convince them to listen to you.
The BHS fired the first salvo. Stinson can defend the message of the ad all she wants, but she purposely or ignorantly fails to mention or defend the reason for the ad in the first place. What exactly were they hoping to accomplish? Funny or not, if I were to buy a bus ad that stated "People who wear red are probably covering for their own insecurity", I should not be surprised if people who like red get upset with me and ascribe uncharitable motives to my actions.
No, such unprovoked and insulting attacks (for that really is what it is) are little more than bully tactics: build camaradarie with the presumed majority who agree with you by putting down the presumed minority who do not. It is reinforcing unfair and unsubstantiated stereotypes in an attempt to establish them as truth by repetition.
So let's call a spade a spade, Stinson. You attacked a group in an attempt to demean and cow them. Your gracious support of their right to respond is both unnecessary and irrelevant. Your conceding them a right they already possess does not give you the high ground. That is only an attempt to both confirm your self-righteousness and deflect the issue.
What's more, you couldn't even support their right to a response without taking another potshot and implying that A) you won, and B) you're still right and better than they are. Why are you so insecure in your position? If you were at all secure you wouldn't have needed to buy the ads in the first place, let alone fell a need to defend them.
Unfortunately, Stinson saw, in her insecurity, a wrong that must be righted. Oh dear, oh dear! People are sad and uptight! It must be because of their belief in a god! I must save them from themselves! Quick! To the bus company! We shall win them over with a clever and carefully worded ad! Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that make Stinson the one who needs to stop worrying and just enjoy her life?
Would it have been so wrong to have the ad simply read "Don't worry! Enjoy your life while you have time!"? Leave it up to the reader to decide what it is they really shouldn't be worrying so much about. I fail to see how that would have made the ad less effective, unless it truly was meant as an attack.
And if it was meant as an attack, that doesn't speak well for humanists. We've got enough to worry about without dragging religion into it and turning us against one another. Or is she just trying to prove that humanism can be just as devisive as religion is reported to be? If so, who needs it? To quote from Star Trek, "We need no encouragement to hate humans!"
Au contraire, my dear Stinson.
It started with an atheist campaign in which a sign on the sides of busses proclaimed "There's probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
Several religious groups and churches have responded with upcoming ads of their own:
"There definitely is a God. So join the Christian Party and enjoy your life."
...or...
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."
...or...
"There is a God, believe. Don't worry and enjoy your life."
What is most interesting, however, is the response from the head of the organization sponsoring the atheistic ads.
Hanne Stinson, chief executive of the British Humanist Society, said the society supported the right of religious groups to post their messages but said the advertisements were "dogmatic and declaratory, leaving no room for reason and debate."
"Our ads were undogmatic and funny, with the addition of the 'probably' in line with the continuing openness of humanists to new evidence," she said in a statement on the British Humanist Association Web site.
She misses the point--and her own hypocrisy. There were two prongs to the atheist's attack. The first prong, contrary to what she says, is only less dogmatic (to be truly "open" they might have said "there may be no god", whereas "probably" implies a statistical weighting that does not exist). While some religous persons might still get upset at this declaration, most would just shake their heads and move on. I'm sure most relgious people have entertained at least once the thought that there may not be a God.
No, it's the second prong that is likely to elicit objection, and is dogmatic and declaratory. It's the strong implication that religious people A) are unduly worried because of their belief in God, and B) do not enjoy their life as a result. Conversely implied is that atheists are not worried and do enjoy life. They don't seem to be leaving the door open for reason or debate on what causes this worry, even though the current economic climate, for one, seems every bit as likely a candidate.
Furthermore, what exactly is funny about calling a group of people fussy and depressed? It's only funny for people who agree with you. So the British Humanist Society ads are divisive, dogmatic, discourage reason and debate, and are intentionally insulting. Hence I also have reason to doubt Stinson's "openness...to new evidence" based on the dogmatism of her own statements.
In short, Stinson's belief seems to be "We are open-minded and clever. They are depressed, close-minded, and daft. End of discussion." She's a true humanitarian--in the culinary sense.
Now if open, respectful debate were the goal, I'd have kept the whole debate off of busses. Such advertising--on both sides--does not provide a forum for discussion. It thrusts inflammatory statements in front of people while giving them no means to respond. Other than buying an ad of their own, anyway, which excludes the average person lacking the $22,000 to splurge on legalized graffiti. This is bound to leave most people with any strong beliefs to the contrary feeling publicly attacked and helpless to respond. Neither of which is likely to endear them to one's cause or convince them to listen to you.
The BHS fired the first salvo. Stinson can defend the message of the ad all she wants, but she purposely or ignorantly fails to mention or defend the reason for the ad in the first place. What exactly were they hoping to accomplish? Funny or not, if I were to buy a bus ad that stated "People who wear red are probably covering for their own insecurity", I should not be surprised if people who like red get upset with me and ascribe uncharitable motives to my actions.
No, such unprovoked and insulting attacks (for that really is what it is) are little more than bully tactics: build camaradarie with the presumed majority who agree with you by putting down the presumed minority who do not. It is reinforcing unfair and unsubstantiated stereotypes in an attempt to establish them as truth by repetition.
So let's call a spade a spade, Stinson. You attacked a group in an attempt to demean and cow them. Your gracious support of their right to respond is both unnecessary and irrelevant. Your conceding them a right they already possess does not give you the high ground. That is only an attempt to both confirm your self-righteousness and deflect the issue.
What's more, you couldn't even support their right to a response without taking another potshot and implying that A) you won, and B) you're still right and better than they are. Why are you so insecure in your position? If you were at all secure you wouldn't have needed to buy the ads in the first place, let alone fell a need to defend them.
Unfortunately, Stinson saw, in her insecurity, a wrong that must be righted. Oh dear, oh dear! People are sad and uptight! It must be because of their belief in a god! I must save them from themselves! Quick! To the bus company! We shall win them over with a clever and carefully worded ad! Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that make Stinson the one who needs to stop worrying and just enjoy her life?
Would it have been so wrong to have the ad simply read "Don't worry! Enjoy your life while you have time!"? Leave it up to the reader to decide what it is they really shouldn't be worrying so much about. I fail to see how that would have made the ad less effective, unless it truly was meant as an attack.
And if it was meant as an attack, that doesn't speak well for humanists. We've got enough to worry about without dragging religion into it and turning us against one another. Or is she just trying to prove that humanism can be just as devisive as religion is reported to be? If so, who needs it? To quote from Star Trek, "We need no encouragement to hate humans!"
Au contraire, my dear Stinson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)