The Internet, Reason and Ridicule August 28, 2008
Posted by Stewart in All posts.Tags: discourse, discussion, internet, name-calling, rhetoric, ridicule
add a comment
Exploring the internet and other forms of media, one finds a vast diversity of public opinion expressed and a variety of ideas circulating throughout discussion, being both professed and debated in a sphere of information. It is the exercise of one’s freedom of speech, which allows one to contribute ideas for conversation and further permits one to proclaim their own view on a particular topic or issue. In this liberty, we are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts, and each individual is responsible for the style in which they construct their arguments. There are are many ways that one may formulate an argument or approach another individual’s argument; and one such method is name-calling.
Ridicule describes the subjection of someone or something to mockery or derision. In debate, it most commonly takes the form of name-calling, which often results in a stream of vile vitriol that transforms once hospitable discourse into an uninhabitable sewer of drudgery with swift exchanges of harsh and biting words, often directed towards the proponent of the argument rather than the content of the message itself (ad hominem). What I wish to draw into scrutiny is the value of ridicule in public discourse.
Wikipedia notes that name-calling is a logical fallacy which appeals to cognitive bias. It further states that name-calling is used:
“to incite fears and arouse prejudices in their hearers in the intent that an invoked bad name will cause hearers to construct a negative opinion about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish hearers to denounce. The method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from an impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When employed, name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits.”
Ridicule is cheap and easily generated when one cannot construct a coherent, consistent or substantial argument or counter-argument using factual evidence or reason, and so simply resorts to derogatory terms, attempting to appeal to any cognitive bias that the audience may possess.. The assumption – a valid assumption – that is generated from this employment of name-calling is that the proponent who engages in it does not possess any substance to formulate an argument along the lines of reason, and so instead engages in a “method [that] is intended to provoke conclusions … about a matter apart from an impartial examination of the facts of the matter.”
An argument that is founded upon ridicule rather than reason is also not very persuasive. I hypothesize that it has the reverse-effect of a persuasive device in that it may likely reinforce one’s opponent to believe in the primacy of their own opinion without modification. This is because the individual in the debate who has been subject to ridicule has received no substantial reason to modify their own opinion, other than to avoid further derision. The person would be better convinced to alter their opinion if they were presented with a reasoned counter-argument that appeals to their sense. Ridicule may thus lead an individual to become defensive, and not contemplative or open to another view that contrasts with their own.
As noted above, name-calling is a distraction from informed analysis and reasoned discussion. It directs one’s energies away from the content of the argument and focuses them into emotion and a battle of words where insults fly. Think of all the wasted web-space on the internet that has gone into these tussles of verbage which have ultimately resulted in no clear victor by the virtue of the fact that ridicule is cheap and easily generated upon command.
It is often difficult to avoid engaging in ridicule when it seems to be becoming a norm in some forums, and one may ask why I am writing this since it does after-all, it seems so obvious doesn’t it? I am actually writing this as a response to the frequent encounters I have had with baseless ridicule upon the internet – in the forums and on blogosphere throughout the web. In my experience, at various times I have been labelled both a ‘bleeding-heart liberal’ and a ‘right-wing nut’, sometimes even a ‘moonbat’ or various other derogatory and yet empty terms. This written piece has resulted as a response to such inane name-calling – highlighting its empty value and its utter futility in the face of reasoned inquiry.
Questioning 9/11 Myths June 17, 2008
Posted by Stewart in All posts.Tags: 9/11 Truth, labels, name-calling, ridicule
2 comments
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” - Mahatma Gandi
Those who have the audacity to question the truth of a well-accepted public myth are quite often the subject of ridicule and accusations of blasphemy. Similarly, those who have the audacity to question the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 and call others to critically examine their own perceptions of this complex and deeply mysterious tragedy, are also either ignored, laughed at, or ridiculed as lunatic ‘tin-foil hatters’, moonbats and unpatriotic, anti-American conspiracy nuts – blasphemous traitors even. What crime have they committed to merit such an accusation of heresy? Simply questioning the orthodoxy of the widely-held faith. David Ray Griffin perhaps puts it best when he writes, “If some people have the bad taste to raise the question of the truth of the sacred story, the keepers of the faith do not enter into debate with them. They ignore them, or denounce them as blasphemers.”
Contemplate, however, the numerous other apparent ‘blasphemers’ and ‘heretics’, who while proposing ideas that ran counter to popular and widely-held beliefs, turned out to be true. They too were at first ignored, then laughed at and ridiculed, even publicly shamed for questioning the established order and status quo. Numerous individuals throughout history have stood for ideas that have challenged popular public myths, and these individuals have endured ridicule for their skepticism and inquiry. What we must learn, however, as difficult as it may seem, is to persist in inquiry enduring whatever ridicule may come.
Galileo Galilee, a Tuscan physicist, mathematican, astronomer and philosopher, advocated the theory of heliocentrism, contending that the Earth revolved around the sun. Heliocentrism, which Galileo supported, ran contrary to the popular and widely held geocentric theory, which contended that the Earth was the center of the Universe and that all celestial objects orbited the Earth. Galileo was ridiculed by many for advocating such a belief, even called to stand trial under suspicion of heresy. Several centuries later, evidence appears to suggest that the vastly unpopular theory which Galileo supported, is true. Despite the ridicule Galileo received, the theory which he supported is the factually accurate one.
Martin Luther King, Jr advocated rigorously for an end to segregation and racial discrimination. The ideas that Dr. King vividly supported ran contrary to the popular beliefs held in society at that time. For challenging popular myths and social attitudes, King was ridiculed by many. No doubt that at the time many thought of him as a traitor as well denounced him as a heretic for his opposition to the inequalities of the established order. Despite this ridicule, King continued his non-violent course in advocating for civil rights, even unto his death.
English naturalist Charles Darwin, who publicized the theory of evolution via natural selection in The Origin of the Species, is still criticized to this very day for having supported evolutionary theory. If Darwin had advocated such a theory in the medieval era, one could assume that he surely would have been denounced as a heretic by the Inquisition.
Another victim of accusations of apparent heresy is Joan of Arc who was convicted and burnt at the stake in Rouen as a result of a politically motivated trial, despite there having been no guilt found as a later review would attest.
Reason is superior to ridicule, for ridicule is quite often baseless or a poor reflection of reality. It is, furthermore, weak as a persuasive device, for when ridicule is employed one can safely believe that the individual engaging in the ridicule does not possess enough insight into the facts in order to construct an appropriate argument along the lines of rationality.
The Wikipedia entry for Name-calling notes that:
“Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears and arouse prejudices in their hearers in the intent that an invoked bad name will cause hearers to construct a negative opinion about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish hearers to denounce. The method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from an impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When employed, name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits.”
Labeling someone as a ‘heretic’ or a ‘traitor’ or denouncing them as a blasphemer is a strategy of ridicule employed to incite an emotional response from an audience in order to catalyze the formulation of a negative opinion of a certain party or their views. Name-calling, such as labels, appeals to stereotypes, accusations of heresy and ridicule function only to incite fear or arouse prejudices; they offer no substance and serve as a diversion from rational analysis and informed inquiry.
Despite whatever ridicule may come, inquiry must persist.
