![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sechan19As an addendum to the last post, I do want to go on the record as being rather tired of something that I've noticed in my various exchanges with the tea-partiers: that "socialism" is still the epithet de rigueur when it comes to dismissing a person's argument without either understanding or confronting it.
Consider the exchange on the subject of the Ground Zero mosque:
The exchange began when my friend solicited opinions from her "pro-mosque-at-Ground-Zero friends" on whether or not the denial of a series of ads decrying the building of the mosque was fair.
I responded:
This led to a series of back-and-forths between myself and one of her friends, who was deeply disturbed by my statement that the case ought to be judged by someone more qualified than I. For this person, no one is more qualified than the "common man" to determine anything and the usurping of the common man's power by elitists is at the heart of America's present-day struggles. For me, of course, the problem is that the common man is too much into things and prevents real progress through his staunch insistence on ignorance over learning and tradition over development.
After a bit of this, with it becoming clear that deeply disturbed was not going to make much headway with this, my friend chimed in with the following statement:
This elicited an outcry of "How sad!" from her friend.
I admit that I didn't go into the obvious problems of this device in my final response to them: the fact that it completely dismissed my comments out of hand because I am somewhat sympathetic to socialism - something that had nothing to do with the topic under discussion - and therefore not worth arguing with.
But talk about disrespectful!
And talk about ill-informed.
In my response to the post I merely opined that when two people have a dispute about whether or not something is free speech, it should be left to a judge who knows constitutional law to make a ruling on the matter. That is not a socialist view; it's a reiteration of the importance of checks and balances - a system designed by our founding fathers to prevent the dangerous phenomenon known as "tyranny of the majority."
You see, what my tea-partier friends don't realize is that the will of people is actually not always correct. There was a time when a large group of people thought that African Americans were entitled to less rights than Caucasians, that women didn't deserve to vote, and that child labor was acceptable. (There are, sadly, places where large groups of people still believe these things.)
A large group consensus does not make something correct, and the law exists to curtail the misguided impulses of humanity, impulses that the founding fathers intensely mistrusted.
But I favor a social democracy, and moderation, and, yes, rule by people who are more qualified than I am to run things - with their behavior monitored and held to standards of accountability, of course. (And what a crazy notion, hey? People who are qualified to run things actually running them.)
Clearly, nothing I say is worth listening to. ;>
But debunking these folks has really done wonders for my awareness of American history and law. It's skyrocketed lately, as I've thought about their claims and constructed refuting arguments that will be ignored because to really think about them would somehow violate one of the founding principles of America or something. Heh.
I'm really growing to love debating. I can't wait to do some more with folks who can actually argue back.
EDIT: I'm honor-bound to point out, in fairness to my friend, that she apparently did not mean to use "socialism" as a dismissal - merely to alert her other friend that I was on a radically different page, so that he might better understand my argument. I clearly misunderstood her.
She seemed to feel that my response was fair and that my point about the perils of defining hate speech was especially crucial. I'm feeling better and better about these exchanges. As I expected, they are growing into something very productive for both of us.
Consider the exchange on the subject of the Ground Zero mosque:
The exchange began when my friend solicited opinions from her "pro-mosque-at-Ground-Zero friends" on whether or not the denial of a series of ads decrying the building of the mosque was fair.
I responded:
Many of the protests over the issue of the mosque have taken the form of "a mosque at Ground Zero would cause traumatic pain to the survivors of 9/11." Consequently, I find it ironic that a group opposing the mosque would wish to do so by showing images that might well cause traumatic pain to the survivors of 9/11 if shown all over buses in the city. However, I appose the restriction of free speech in any instance. I may not like their opinion, but they have a right to voice it.
But the real question here is whether or not this ad constitutes legitimate free speech. The imagery in the ad is clearly intended to shock and dismay viewers. Furthermore, it draws an obvious metaphorical parallel between the 9/11 attacks and the new mosque. Subsequently, the ad might have been rejected on the grounds that it is actually a form of hate speech. (Of course, I freely admit that I have no idea upon what grounds the ad was rejected. I'd need to read more about the situation.)
I make no assertion as to whether this ad constitutes free speech or hate speech. I'd have to think about it deeply before I came to a conclusion. The tricky thing about telling free speech from hate speech is trying to judge the intention of speaker, and that is generally unknowable by an outside party.
Since the issue is going to court, people far more qualified than I will make a determination - which is as it should be.
Very interesting case here. Thanks for sharing it!
This led to a series of back-and-forths between myself and one of her friends, who was deeply disturbed by my statement that the case ought to be judged by someone more qualified than I. For this person, no one is more qualified than the "common man" to determine anything and the usurping of the common man's power by elitists is at the heart of America's present-day struggles. For me, of course, the problem is that the common man is too much into things and prevents real progress through his staunch insistence on ignorance over learning and tradition over development.
After a bit of this, with it becoming clear that deeply disturbed was not going to make much headway with this, my friend chimed in with the following statement:
J., you might have gotten the gist, but Teva believes in socialism as a good thing. Just so you know...
This elicited an outcry of "How sad!" from her friend.
I admit that I didn't go into the obvious problems of this device in my final response to them: the fact that it completely dismissed my comments out of hand because I am somewhat sympathetic to socialism - something that had nothing to do with the topic under discussion - and therefore not worth arguing with.
But talk about disrespectful!
And talk about ill-informed.
In my response to the post I merely opined that when two people have a dispute about whether or not something is free speech, it should be left to a judge who knows constitutional law to make a ruling on the matter. That is not a socialist view; it's a reiteration of the importance of checks and balances - a system designed by our founding fathers to prevent the dangerous phenomenon known as "tyranny of the majority."
You see, what my tea-partier friends don't realize is that the will of people is actually not always correct. There was a time when a large group of people thought that African Americans were entitled to less rights than Caucasians, that women didn't deserve to vote, and that child labor was acceptable. (There are, sadly, places where large groups of people still believe these things.)
A large group consensus does not make something correct, and the law exists to curtail the misguided impulses of humanity, impulses that the founding fathers intensely mistrusted.
But I favor a social democracy, and moderation, and, yes, rule by people who are more qualified than I am to run things - with their behavior monitored and held to standards of accountability, of course. (And what a crazy notion, hey? People who are qualified to run things actually running them.)
Clearly, nothing I say is worth listening to. ;>
But debunking these folks has really done wonders for my awareness of American history and law. It's skyrocketed lately, as I've thought about their claims and constructed refuting arguments that will be ignored because to really think about them would somehow violate one of the founding principles of America or something. Heh.
I'm really growing to love debating. I can't wait to do some more with folks who can actually argue back.
EDIT: I'm honor-bound to point out, in fairness to my friend, that she apparently did not mean to use "socialism" as a dismissal - merely to alert her other friend that I was on a radically different page, so that he might better understand my argument. I clearly misunderstood her.
She seemed to feel that my response was fair and that my point about the perils of defining hate speech was especially crucial. I'm feeling better and better about these exchanges. As I expected, they are growing into something very productive for both of us.
