HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Jan. 12, 2007 It seems that more and more of us have confused freedom of speech with the right to be heard. In the United States, we all enjoy the right to express our beliefs on everything from politics, to religion to the exploits of our favorite sports team. Too many of us have ascertained the incorrect notion that this freedom of expression also implies the right to an audience--even more, a friendly audience; nothing can be further from the truth. Similarly, none of us is above criticism, even if it is at times harsh, particularly when we express points of view that are clearly controversial. Those who scream that it is unfair they are being attacked are the same people who are putting forth the weakest arguments for their cause. The best way to silence a critical opponent is to use cogent arguments supported by facts and reason. Those who spew emotional epithets as if it is certifiable fact are opening themselves up for hardened criticism. Further, when one enters the arenas of politics or religion, given the intense feelings these topics induce, and spouts one-sided nonsense, there are bound to be repercussions, and those who disagree with you are under no obligation to be nice to you. Similarly, your audience is not obliged to respect what you are saying, not in the least. If a columnist writes an article expressing his or her extreme hatred for a racial, ethnic or religious group, are you or I supposed to accept and respect the position? I would hope not. I would hazard to guess few among us would be upset if a prompt and nasty rebuttal were issued against the author and the arguments posed. Most of us would applaud a rebuttal of this nature. We should not be required to calmly accept racial, ethnic or religious hatred. In fact, we should not be coerced into accepting any form of hatred, because hatred is an emotional position that is based upon empty arguments. Just as we should not be compelled to accept the illogical arguments of a bigot, we should also not be expected to quietly tolerate other emotional rants which offer little or no substantive support, particularly when those involve complex issues which the author oversimplifies for his or her own convenience. Controversial points of view which are weakly supported are begging to be harshly rebutted. It is one thing to express a personal opinion such as, "I don't like President Bush." It's quite another to state, "President Bush doesn't like black people because he didn't do enough to help after Katrina." I cannot argue the first statement at all. It's clearly and entirely personal opinion. The second statement is also a personal opinion; however, it is stated as if it is irrefutable fact. This statement does not stand on its own and it deserves to be crushed unless substantive evidence is put forth by its proponent. And stringing together several empty statements like this in a row does not make a stronger argument. Indeed, one could probably argue there is as much bigotry embedded in that second statement as there is in a racially oriented tirade. Certainly, writers and pundits are entitled to some hyperbole in their work. This is what helps create an interesting final product and we are all prone to, occasionally, making some wacky statements for the purpose of making a point. This is far different, though, from concocting an entire thesis supported with nothing but innuendo. The problem is there are too many individuals, from mainstream media pundits to Useless Knowledge writers, who make statements similar to the latter one above and expect those statements to stand unchallenged. These same individuals then cry foul when a rebuttal points out the inherent flaws in their arguments; they turn into victims, and we're not supposed to criticize "victims". This includes entertainment types from the Dixie Chicks to Michael J. Fox to Barbra Streisand. Rosie O'Donnell makes a disparaging remark about Donald Trump on national television and then is beside herself when he fires back. How dare he?! Now Rosie's the victim? Michael J. Fox enters the political fray through a commercial that endorses one candidate over another. In the process he made statements which were clearly incorrect. The media world went berserk when Rush Limbaugh accurately pointed out Fox's inappropriate statements. Again, Fox is the victim. Society is not served well when illogical nonsense is permitted to stand simply because we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. Those who foist shallowly supported positions on the rest of us often do not seem to care who they are offending. Finally, for those individuals who insist on playing with fire and then scream bloody murder when they get a little singed, I've got two words: Grow Up! ------------ About the author: Ed Abraham is a concerned citizen living in flyover country, U.S.A., who happens to be truly disgusted by the loss of common sense in our society and is doing all he can to try to reinstall it. Email: eabra@myway.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
