By Cady Stanton – Contributor
When this site first launched, I looked forward to contributing to it. That was only natural, given that I like to write and I enjoy political discourse. And I liked what the site promised: a place where reasonable disagreement could take place and, more importantly, where ordinary people of different political stripes could find common ground.
I put a good deal of effort into the posts that I did contribute. Because I loathe the name-calling, emotion-laden discourse that passes for politics in the mainstream media, I tried to be thoughtful in what I wrote, to craft informed opinions based on what facts are available to me and to appeal to reason rather than reaction. I assumed that people, if they so chose, would respond in like fashion, stating reasoned, fact-based points of disagreement, thus encouraging the dialogue that was envisioned with this site’s founding.
Alas, my assumptions were wrong and my goal was misguided. With a handful of exceptions, such as the post on “Atlas Shrugged” and a response to my comments thereto, I’ve witnessed here the same willingly ill-informed politics that exists everywhere else. What I’ve read here evidenced, to my great disappointment, that people don’t want substantive dialogue and debate; they simply want to spout opinions that make them feel good without any regard for facts, reality or the ignorance they choose to display.
To cite just one example, there was a comment about the so-called health care reform bill in which the commenter described the current administration and Democrats in Congress as “this bunch of Marxists”. Even the most casual understanding of Karl Marx reveals the ignorance of the comment. Whether crying or laughing, Marx, who advocated public ownership of property, would surely be spinning in his grave over the idea that a law that pushes some 30,000,000 people into the private insurance market is somehow attributable to his and Engels’ communist ideals.
There are plenty of other examples, not worth detailing here, but added to them is the smug superiority that A.C. and several commenters bring to this site. And it’s the worst kind of smug superiority because it pretends to have the imprimatur of no smaller authority than God. It’s almost like Jesse Peterson, who has proclaimed himself to be the judge of whether any person is or is not a “good Christian,” gets channeled here. Anyone with a thinking brain ought to be terrified by the litmus test required of Peterson and his ilk. History is replete with examples of the horror that flows from such a litmus test, which is, as many refuse to understand today, the reason our founders saw fit to ensure the liberty of faith in the individual, without fear of reprisal or persecution.
I could go on, but there’s no point. Except for Jamie, who exhibits a tendency in his writing to want to please too many people all at once, this site is little more than a pool in which the misguided malcontent might pointlessly tread water, all the while refusing to believe that he is about to drown in his own rhetoric.
I shall never drown in that pool and the reason is, quite simply, that I make it my policy to listen to and learn from others, including those with whom I disagree. “We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.”
Ms. Stanton, I’ve enjoyed reading your posts and have learned so much from them. How is it that I’ve actually increased my knowledge of politics, history and the law by reading blog posts? Because for every point you make on here, you back it up with substantiated facts. Being the skeptic that I am, I’ve actually cross-checked many of your statements by accessing more than one reference source. Each time, you had it right. I can’t say the same for those who have made opposing comments. In fact, none of their statements can be backed up with factual information. If I were posting on here, I’d make every effort to get my facts right. And if I were making a post in opposition to yours, I’d consult at least 3 different objective reference sources so I’d know exactly WHAT I’m opposing. Only then can I engage in an articulate discussion. I’ve seen very little of that on his site. Many of the posts have been nothing but glorified temper tantrums. Not only is that disappointing, it’s an insult to the very spirit in which this site was founded.
In addition to getting the facts right, our capacity for empathy does wonders for broadening our knowledge and deepening our understanding. We all have the potential to be empathetic, but many of us don’t nurture it. Empathy is neither liberal nor conservative, feminine nor masculine, and it has no religion. Empathy requires us to shed our own insecurities, judgments, and biases. It is, in my opinion, an open heart — not dramatic nor overly sentimental. It’s the ability to put ourselves in another’s place. We imagine another’s experience as if it’s our own. We have an “aha!” moment when we realize that we’ve been depriving ourselves of another perspective. I’ve had many moments like this, but only from stepping outside my comfort zone. I get to know people who are different from me, and I read about people who are different from me — in their own words. Am I completely selfless and charitable in doing this? Not entirely — it makes life a lot more interesting!
“There are plenty of other examples, not worth detailing here, but added to them is the smug superiority that A.C. and several commenters bring to this site. And it’s the worst kind of smug superiority because it pretends to have the imprimatur of no smaller authority than God. It’s almost like Jesse Peterson, who has proclaimed himself to be the judge of whether any person is or is not a “good Christian,” gets channeled here. Anyone with a thinking brain ought to be terrified by the litmus test required of Peterson and his ilk.”
I suppose it’s also possible that the little boy was smug when he was so rude as to exclaim that the Emperor had no clothes, but would it have made sense to focus on the smugness of the boy and remain oblivious to the nakedness of the Emperor?
Spot93, what a delightful reply. I don’t say that because you compliment my work but because of the high standards you expect of anyone who wants to persuade you on an issue. I’m humbled that you think I can pass that high of a bar. Thank you!
yguy…way to miss the point.
This is funny, I would have responded differently without reading the posts after.
Really? YGUY Really? Did you read anything she wrote, other than that of offense and stop. Honestly, you threw yourself under the bus. Showing us that indeed we all need to think before we post, and show some respect to facts. SPOT93 gave me a brand new perspective on how big of responsibilitie it is to think before we answer and use empathy with our Facts, in our posts.
Must be repeated by SPOT93:
“In addition to getting the facts right, our capacity for empathy does wonders for broadening our knowledge and deepening our understanding. We all have the potential to be empathetic, but many of us don’t nurture it. Empathy is neither liberal nor conservative, feminine nor masculine, and it has no religion. Empathy requires us to shed our own insecurities, judgments, and biases. It is, in my opinion, an open heart — not dramatic nor overly sentimental. It’s the ability to put ourselves in another’s place. We imagine another’s experience as if it’s our own. We have an “aha!” moment when we realize that we’ve been depriving ourselves of another perspective. I’ve had many moments like this, but only from stepping outside my comfort zone. I get to know people who are different from me, and I read about people who are different from me — in their own words. Am I completely selfless and charitable in doing this? Not entirely — it makes life a lot more interesting!”
Cady, you are correct that the objective of this site is to increase our knowledge and understanding of one another through respectful discourse, even though there is bound to be disagreement. That, I feel, is when we learn the most. And we will continue to strive to reach that purpose. You are probably correct that I try to please too many people at once, although it’s likely due more of my innate nature to reach out with a handshake rather than to point a finger even when, in fact, it’s more deserved (I’m not suggesting that you are a finger pointer yourself). Anyways, your contributions to this website are vast and valuable and I’m glad you’re here with us!
Spot93, I thought I had a good handle on charity and empathy until I read your comment. Millions of people all over the world memorize things from a young age, whether it’s The Lord’s Prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, their national anthems, etc. Well, everyone should commit your second paragraph to memory as well. It’s a good lesson for all of us. Thank you for such a great response and I hope you’ll continue to share your views in the future.
“Honestly, you threw yourself under the bus.”
Whatever reasoning there might be behind this pronouncement is not manifest, so perhaps you’d care to elaborate.
“Showing us that indeed we all need to think before we post, and show some respect to facts.”
And what facts specifically have I failed to respect that I ought to?