I read Michael Goodwin’s article “Why it’s time for a Trump Revolution”, was dismayed and disappointed, and then tried to move on. It stuck with me, though. There are so many half-baked justifications for supporting Trump, and this article captures a few of them. The problem with these justifications is a lot of the logic doesn’t actually follow through. Continue reading
This is no revelation: people on social media are incredibly polarized when debating social and political issues. Many debates on my feed begin when someone posts a meme. I often wonder how much thought people put into re-sharing these vaguely evocative images overlayed with simple rhetoric in block text. Once it hits their feed, though, comments follow in one of two modes: vehement disagreement or unwavering support.
In my own feed, I’ve been noticing a particular–and awful–type of rhetoric in these memes: the false equivalence. These are typically expressed as support for some social construct or idea, with the unstated implication being that any criticism of that construct is tantamount to a denouncement. Thus the false equivalence: Continue reading
Several days ago, a friend posted on Facebook in support of Hillary Clinton joining the presidential race. One of her family members then posted the following response:
[Clinton’s] agenda is what scares the shit out those of us who would like to retire. Work 45 years and now we get to pay for the deadbeat lazyass folks who prefer to sucktit rather than pay their own way.
Other than general right-wing fear that liberals are trying to establish a socialist welfare state, I had no idea what they were talking about. So, I asked for clarification. I asked the responder to be more specific and to provide some evidence that people, in general, aren’t working as hard as people once were or, at least, aren’t working as hard as the responder is.
Then it occured to me, I have evidence to the contrary, actually. I’ve read a number of articles recently, which cite studies, that completely invalidate the responders expressed objections to what they saw as Hillary Clinton’s agenda. So, I wrote the following response:
So, the US military now has the ability to detain any of us, so long as they can paint us with a wide brush as a “terrorist”, in an undisclosed place for an indefinite amount of time.
Next, our government wants to create the first restrictions on our most powerful free and open communication technologies. And they want to give the power to squelch those communications not only to our elected officials, but to CORPORATE entities.