By Scott Hunter
editor and publisher 

What we have here is an inability to argue productively

 

Last updated 7/21/2021 at 7am



Productive arguments are those in which the two opposing participants actually listen to each other in order to learn what the other is saying, thereby enhancing the ability to refute it.

But the trick is that the act of listening requires understanding the other viewpoint. When that happens in most situations, stances get modified, even if only slightly. Humans are not omnipotent, and quite often someone else has at least one better point.

But today’s listeners only listen pre-emptively, plotting their next strike against the enemy argument. It’s a strategy encouraged and inflamed by the predominant medium for arguments these days — social media, whose business plans depend mostly on algorithms calculated to spike our emotions, the most potent of which is rage. That approach has infected other media, too, because, especially at a national level, if you’re not punching people’s buttons you just seem boring to them.

Liberal-leaning media like to say this is especially true of conservative blogs/posts/sites/media, but liberals are just as guilty. There was lots of disgust and moral outrage expressed yesterday on social media criticizing billionaires in space for building a space passenger industry for the world’s ultra-rich. No one I read remembered that Barak Obama’s administration was the one to pull the plug on NASA development, shuttering the shuttles, reasoning that letting private enterprise into the game would be healthy for space industry development. All you get is shaming and finger pointing, which algorithms love and promote.

Telling half the truth is another favorite strategy. Ignore the other side’s legitimate points in order score more of your own.

Like the state’s 37 sheriffs who yesterday bragged in unison to their constituents that they’d all signed a letter pledging to defend their constitutional rights, which is good. But to make their point the sheriffs quote less than half of the Second Amendment they want to defend, leaving out the important context in the first part of the one-sentence amendment that lays out the reason for even writing it. In their defense, they’re just mimicking the argument we’ve all heard ad nauseum for decades without that context that so annoys gun advocates.

So, here’s the whole thing with the first part of the sentence in place:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” You can’t have a productive discussion about the Second Amendment without including the whole thing. But you can inflame emotions by repeating over and over to people that their rights are being infringed.

And this, apparently, is where the social media algorithms have jumped from cyberspace into the brains of our sheriffs! We’re all doomed!

Too much? That’s the point.

Just remember, if a tweet, post, column, placard or podcast peaks your emotions, causes a little fear, outrage, or disgust, it may harbor a kernel of truth while hiding a lot in order to manipulate the audience. Take a breath, ask what’s missing, and move on to something more productive — and honest.

Scott Hunter

editor and publisher

 
 

Reader Comments(1)

STEVEN PHILLIPS writes:

Scott, this is in response to the 2nd Amendment argument imbedded in your Op-Ed on July 21. On the Federal level, the Supreme Court of the United States has settled the debate over the meaning of the 2nd Amendment in the landmark case ''DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER'', decision issued on June 26, 2008. In that decision, the majority ''held that the Second Amendment protects the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO POSSESS firearms and that the city's [gun restrictions at issue] violated that right''. The Court based it's finding on a very lengthy and thorough analysis issued with it's final decision. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the decision is irrelevant. This is settled U.S. law. With regard to firearms rights in this state, the State of Washington is governed and bound by Article 1 ''DECLARATION OF RIGHTS'', Section 24 ''RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS'', of the Washington State Constitution ratified in 1889. It reads in full, ''The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.'' The clear and unambiguous language of Section 24 should inform even the most casual of readers that the 37 Washington State Sheriffs who have pledged to defend our constitutional rights are doing exactly what we elected them to do.

 
 
 

Powered by ROAR Online Publication Software from Lions Light Corporation
© Copyright 2024

Rendered 03/22/2024 13:48