Quote:
Originally Posted by Knalus
To some degree I agree with this statement - BUT - ridicule as a tool is one of the biggest reasons the debate in this society has reached such toxic levels. To use a political example, ridicule by republicans of democrats and vice versa has lead to a very polarized public, one where people cannot agree with each other on some topics, and then disagree with each other on others, because the debate has become very personal, mean, and vicious. Ridicule also leads to attacking the method of the argument, instead of the substance of the argument, which is also not healthy. If someone who is not very good at public speaking has a good idea, or an interesting way of thinking of things, yet presents it poorly, all too often if it doesn't sound like what someone wants to hear, he then makes fun of it.
I used to argue with someone who would make a point, I would make a counter point, then he would push my buttons till I got flustered, then, because I got flustered, he would declare victory in the argument, without addressing the substance of my point - or even of his own point. That's not constructive, it just made me mad. He "won" because he was better at mocking, not because his argument was more valid. I don't think that's what you were advocating, but that's how it works.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't use ridicule, just that it doesn't work as well as many people think, and the side effects are very bad. If you want to change someone's mind, the last thing you want to do is to mock them - people aren't willing to listen to that. It tends to escalate things, which only makes the situation you were trying to solve worse.
|
That's a very fair point, and to a certain extent, I do agree. Honest political debate should be held through a process of clarifying each other's view points and identifying areas of agreement or disagreement. That doesn't mean you have to be "nice"--it's okay to illustrate clear contrasts between your opposition and yourself.
But in the case of Kirk Cameron and his ilk, he's made it pretty clear that debate is impossible, because he refuses to make any effort to understand the arguments of his opponents. Worse than that, he and his crew have shown a willingness to play fast and loose with facts when it suits them. To put it mildly, his ideas are laughable--and he himself is a drooling cretin.
To
not say these things--just because we want to be polite relativists accepting the possible truth of any viewpoint--is unproductive. There is such a thing as truth--and not just anyone can be the arbiter of it. If a person runs around saying "the sky is made of polka dot cheese!"--do we "respect their different beliefs and treat them as equal partners in debate"?
No. We say "that's insane. You're an idiot."
Kirk Cameron
is an idiot--and the interests of good political debate are best served by saying so. The marketplace of ideas dictates that the most risible ideas will sink to the bottom of the stew and be forgotten, but
only if we allow honest exchange to take place--even if not everybody likes the outcome.