Reply #11: People Magazine culture

[welshTerrier2]

the remarks below are NOT intended to comment on other posters in this thread but rather are general remarks about our culture and, perhaps, the greater DU community:

I really worry that we have become a People Magazine culture. If those we disagree with and those we have little respect for promote an idea into the public discourse, we should easily be able to rip it apart. In fact, I see that as part of DU's mission. When arguments are endorsed, especially by our political enemies, it's important to really deal with them and put forward the best counter-points we're able to make so that others here might learn from them. Some counter-arguments are weak; some are very strong and effective.

That's one of the key reasons I post, and read, on DU. I contribute and I learn. When I talk politics in the real world, I'm that much stronger.

So, take this thread as an example. And take all the Nader bashing threads too while you're at it. Imagine arguing with a republican about Hillary Clinton. They say "how can you accuse Fred Thompson of being a big lobbyist. Hillary gets millions from the health insurance industry." Maybe that point would be worth discussing BEFORE she gets nominated. But nooooooo. What is the response: Gravel sucks. Well, what if he does? Is that the answer I should now give to the republican I'm talking to????? Should I just say: Thompson sucks and leave it at that? The real point is that standing listening to me debating the republican are five or ten undecideds. "Thompson sucks" is not what I would call an influential, well articulated position.

We see the same idiocy from the Nader haters. Frankly, I don't give a damn about Nader. The guy does have some great ideas though. The "I don't want to talk about anything Nader talks about" rules out discussion on almost every issue there is. It's the child with an index finger stuck way down in each ear screaming lalalalalalalalalalalalalala so they don't have to hear anything they don't want to hear. All we're left with is: Nader sucks.

That's the problem I see. It's all ad hominem. It's all about the messenger and we fail to understand the universality of all messages. Ideas "walk on their own." If you shoot the messenger, the idea remains behind. It either has merit or it doesn't. And some try to address this foolishness a little differently. I saw one post in a Nader thread the other day that said something like "it doesn't matter what he says because he doesn't really believe it." I loved that one. Let's accept the hypothesis that he doesn't believe what he's saying and that he has an ulterior motive. But what if I believe it? Does it mean just because it came from someone who isn't sincere that it automatically isn't a good idea? That's crazy. Again, it's failing to understand that ideas either have merit or they don't. The quality of the messenger or the sincerity of the messenger doesn't affect that.

And my grand solution to fix this mess: no idea ... it sure does lead to a lot of DU noise though ... we really have to do better ...