It doesn't take any sides, but rather speaks to the polarized rhetoric, or even polemic, that seems to characterize much American discourse, both online (I say, having witnesses such things in a microcosm in listservs since just after 9/11) and in the mainstream media.
It also reminds me of a scholarly book by Gilbert and Mulcay, a chapter on "Accounting for Error" in the book listed below, where scientists attempt to deal with scientific theories based on different models than the ones they are using (think Kuhn, think Newtonian vs Einsteinian vs Quark physics, for instance).
In the book, they document these highly rational beings using the same polarized rhetoric to account for their colleague's disagreement on things that to them should be obvious, or foundational, or at least not up for debate.
Gilbert, G. N. and M. Mulkay (1984). Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Here are some quick and pithy excerpts from this terrific column:
Don't talk while I'm interrupting
Edward Cone
News & Record
8-22-04
On television and the Web, talk radio and the pages of newspapers, multiplex screens and the Senate floor, the art of persuasion has given way to bluster and tirade.Well, if you're going to do it, you might as well do it right, so I'm offering up this guide to modern political speech. It's a bipartisan, multimedia template that works for any point of view on the partisan spectrum, in any venue. Forget talking points -- these are shouting points. Repeat after me:
I am right, and you are wrong.
You are not just wrong, you and those like you are intellectually insufficient and morally suspect. Why do you hate our country? Think of the children. God said to tell you that he is not pleased.
Stop interrupting me while I'm shouting. Feel the crushing weight of my arguments, which are built on logic and constructed from facts that are sturdy and sound. You just whine about how you feel.
Your information is flawed because it came from a source I know to be aligned with the forces of darkness. I am able to parse the media and edit what I see for bias and spin, while you are a gullible sap who believes everything you see on the TV or read in that wholly discredited rag you just quoted.
[...]
My candidate is a hero. Yours is a zero. One cannot compare the youthful hijinks of my guy with the youthful wantonness of yours. My guy makes mistakes, yours commits sins of the worst kind. And likes it. My guy was misquoted, or simply misspoke, while your guy was caught on tape saying exactly what I expected him to say.
[...]
Read the Constitution. It clearly shows whatever it is that I want it to show. Context, schmontext. A nugget, a morsel, a soundbite plucked from any source can serve to make my point. Your copy of the Bill of Rights is missing a few. The flag waves for me; tremble in its shadow.
[...]
I disagree with what you say, and I will defend to the death my right to tell you so. Jerk.
Recent Comments