So...what do you think?

Friday, October 15, 2010

What Comeback?

I'm not a fan of the movie 'Patton'. I think George C. Scott played the general magnificently, but I find the film hard to enjoy and the main character harder to respect. That being said, one of my all-time favorite quotes actually comes from his performance. When the general is watching the battle rage below he laughs to himself and yells that perfect one-liner on strategy-

"Rommel, you magnificent bastard! I read your book!"

If you ever want to know how or what someone else thinks, and this someone else is in any way your opponent or opposite, don't read material written by your friends, compatriots, or allies for you. Instead, take a serious look at material by or for your opponent. Listen to what they listen to. Watch what they watch. Don't fall into the habit of becoming part of the choir that gets preached to- get out and spend some time in the other side's shoes.

I've noticed over the years that conservatives and liberals tend to treat each other differently when they butt heads. Conservatives tend to treat liberals as if they were stupid. Spend a good amount of time on sites like Real Clear PoliticsTownhall, or Right Brothers and you'll see article after article referencing figures, quotations, interviews, ideas, sources, and other generally useful information one would load an argument with if one views his or her opponent as being ignorant of the facts. Go watch Glenn Beck and see how many dozen books, articles, interviews, speeches, web pages, blogs, and phone calls he quotes and cites per episode. It's like watching a 400 level political science course on the "news".

Conversely, liberals tend to treat conservatives as if they were evil (here's a column by Charles Krauthammer explaining the evil vs stupid comparison). Instead of Real Clear Politics, Townhall, or Fox News, spend any amount of time watching Rachel Maddow or Keith Olberman, or read The Huffington Post or blogs like Gus DiZerega's and you'll see vilification of folks who don't agree with the liberal strand of thought. Mr. DiZerega especially likes ad-hominems and demonization. Anyone who blatantly refers to conservatives as "evil" and Christians as "Sauronic demon worshippers" falls squarely in the camp that views opponents as more than just ignorant. Now, I'm not saying conservatives don't slander and liberals don't use facts; I'm just pointing out an observation that each side tends to favor one tactic over the other.

It's easy to compete against someone who thinks you're stupid. Come armed to a discussion (or be quick on your feet) with facts, figures, and quotes and be able to synthesize information as it flows through the discussion while thinking critically and you'll not only hold your own, you'll probably win.

But how do you handle someone who is so quick to use character attacks, especially unfounded ones, and has no qualms about name calling and baseless demonization?

I got into a debate/argument with an acquaintance the other day over Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT). I posed 5 hypothetical scenarios/questions that the military would face, in a specific setting, if it were to revoke DADT. The 5 questions all dealt with close quarters living.

The woman with whom I was debating (quite the liberal) asked me why I was afraid of gay people. When I responded that I said no such thing, she quoted my own questions back to me and then accused me of "gay fear mongering".

My jaw actually dropped. That doesn't happen often.

She then went on to play the female/ethnic minority card and made a few more comments about people like me who engage in spreading the unfounded fears. I was shocked. My questions were not only not intended to offend, they were genuine scenarios I bring up in every DADT conversation I have because I'd like to know how they would be handled. Instead of giving me logical answers, this woman labeled me as someone who engages in said fear mongering because I was clearly "afraid" of gay people.

Look at bumper stickers before California's Proposition 8 went to ballot (and even after). Stickers for the proposition (against gay marriage) had a picture of a stick man man and stick woman and read "Yes on 8" or "Vote for 8". Stickers against the proposition read "Stop the H8" or "NO H8"...a slogan so poignantly referenced in images of people whose mouths have been taped shut (these people are clearly the epitome of kind, caring individuals). Even here the conservatives stickers were simply saying vote yes, and the liberal stickers were labeling conservatives as people who were guilty of discrimination. Are you for traditional marriage? Then you're a hater. Are you for progressive redefinition of marriage? Then you're a tolerant free-thinker. Makes sense, right?

Why bother persuading either your opponent or your audience? Just vilify. It's a much more desirable option to make your opponent hated than it is to make your position attractive. Why? Because it's easier to fuel anger than it is to logically get behind something.

How do you counteract this? What comeback can you give someone who blindsides you or counters your argument with statements or slogans like this?

Here's a video of Bill O'Reilly on The View talking about 9/11. I've personally never seen the show- the thought of half a dozen loud, liberal women preaching to each other's choir is not my cup of tea.

When O'Reilly said he believes the Ground Zero Mosque would be a bad idea, due to insensitivity, he was asked why. He responded by saying that Muslims committed the 9/11 hijackings/attacks.

"This is bullshit!" Goldberg said. "Extremists did that!" She and Joy Behar then walked off stage a moment later. The other women then attacked O'Reilly for slandering an entire religion by making the factual statement that extremist Muslims committed the 9/11 suicide flights and proceeded to demand his apology for offending them.

I was again floored by this response. These women believed that Muslim extremists, not extremist Muslims, committed the attacks; and because the two words are in that order Islam had nothing to do with the killings.

Syntax is important here- if they were Muslim extremists, then they would be first and foremost extremists who happen to be Muslims. That is not the case. They were first and foremost Muslims, who did what they did BECAUSE they were extremists.

How do you answer such a statement? Someone minces words so finely, then argues something so absurd that perhaps the only possible way to counter would be to say something just as ridiculous- or, in the case of my DADT story, to come back with my own absurd ad-hominem.

No matter the case, you can't let yourself slip. Resist the urge to give in to the name calling, the personal slandering, the negative absurdities, or the emotional rhetoric. Not only will you walk away with your personal integrity and honor intact (assuming you had some to begin with) you'll be able to let history show that you relied more on reason than gut reactions and emotional hype to carry your message.

Does this mean you'll lose the argument? In some cases, from the standpoint of the audience, yes. Our society, and our generation, seem to favor catchy phrases, eloquent blurbs, and emotional speakers. What does it matter if you push the nation trillions of dollars in debt or create programs bound for failure that our children will have to pay for? As long as what you preach brings emotional comfort and is backed by the logic of morality, even if one uses twisted logic and twisted morals, people will follow you. With so much emphasis on data and so little push for true understanding, it's easier to feel than it is to think nowadays. Why should we actually take the time turn that data into information and that information into knowledge? It's quicker, less difficult, and more satisfying to attach an emotion to a snippet we heard somewhere and use that as the basis for our preferences and the foundations for our arguments.

And hey- if you lose face or lose ground, just make the opponent seem more dangerously full of bias or hate and less caring than you. It works, doesn't it?

If anybody can come up with a way to fight the down and dirty emotionality that people today are so apt to use, I'd love to hear it. Until then, I'll just sit quietly and hope that somewhere out there exist Americans who still think from their heads before they scream from their hearts.

No comments:

Post a Comment