“You’re racist, sexist, this-and-that-phobic, intolerant, bigoted, hateful, prejudiced, privileged, I’m offended, that’s hate-speech, etc…”
None of these are real arguments. Just personal attacks.
If there’s any silver lining in regards to Donald Trump winning the presidency, I hope that maybe, just maybe, it’s a sign that the effectiveness of these sorts of attacks is already beginning to diminish. We should be capable of having civil conversations about our disagreements without assuming that the opposition is just bigoted and hateful, naive and stupid, privileged and racist, etc.
Eh, maybe it’s only a fool’s hope. But it would be nice.
2 Comments
LanthonyS · November 10, 2016 at 12:02 AM
Well, in the case of that candidate, there’s no assumption involved — and when electing a president, the personal character does matter. But as for the 47.5% who voted for Trump, agreed, assuming their motives is impossible and unwise. Each half of the country has another half waiting to be understood, and that’s a very pressing obligation. The two sides don’t appear to be living in the same world as far as values or even facts go at the moment. Extremely worrying.
S P Hannifin · November 10, 2016 at 1:18 AM
“… and when electing a president, the personal character does matter.”
I’d say it matters a lot less when the “personal character” of both major candidates looks so bad, and when the issues themselves are so divisive.
“Each half of the country has another half waiting to be understood…”
That’s the thing… using attacks like “you’re racist / sexist / intolerant, etc.” prevents any understanding from going either way. It’s tempting to think that for some issues, that’s really all it is: it’s just an emotion that some belief is evil or not and there’s no foundation underneath to explain why.