Anyone else tired of the shouting matches and name-calling? This healthcare debate has created a flea market for misinformation that has attracted hot-tempered patrons in record numbers. It is a debate that must be had, but it is nearly impossible to have it in the current environment.
Someone needs to call timeout and get back to an intelligent, rational, respectful discussion. My recent article, Incivility Muzzles Interactive Debate, published in the Atlanta-Journal Constitution asks us to do just that. Take a look and let me know where you stand. Fed up with the insults or madder than Sean Hannity?
Jonathan Merritt
Follow Me
| "My article on CNN: "Is Prop 8 fight the culture war's last stand?" http://bit.ly/99f3hc" 2 hours ago |
Stop the Shouting
robert fortner said:
Nothing to argue about, there. Who could be against a more civil discussion?
Posted: August 22, 2009
tmamone said:
Great article, man! Doesn't the Bible say something about being slow to speak and quick to listen? I think that's what both sides of the issue need to do.
Posted: August 22, 2009
Jonathan Merritt said:
Good comment, tmamone. The problem is that both sides have gotten into a Hatfield-McCoy cycle of slapping each other.
Posted: August 22, 2009
tmamone said:
I think part of it is because it's much easier to let emotion take control, rather than being calm and rational. Trust me, I can be the same way sometimes!
Posted: August 22, 2009
mandreas said:
Excellent piece in the AJC. Nice work. Good examples of the shout-downs and incivility. I also wish our modern day talk-radio and cable TV networks didn't shout constantly with incivility praising and giving this example to the rest of us. The Olbermans or Maddows or Hannitys of the world are awful role models, yet are praised on both sides of the aisle and get great ratings. What does that say about our country?- Marc Andreas
Posted: August 22, 2009
I am Ravenna said:
In any forum on any topic, there cannot be effective debate without civility.
Posted: August 24, 2009
Justin said:
I'll argue that civility is overrated and worse, that it can be counterproductive in some contexts. To enter into some debates or discussions in a respectful manner lends legitimacy to the opposing view point. There are some points of view, should not be hard to think of some, that should be ridiculed. They are savage and should be treated as such.The rub is that we all have our own ideas of what is within the acceptable range of debate and what is lunacy. Having said that, I am still not prepared to pretend that some view points deserve to be treated with respect such as Holocaust deniers, or more relevant, people who liken a national health care system to a neo-Nazi like Pogrom.
Posted: August 26, 2009
Jonathan Merritt said:
Justin,What happens when your objection to one's objection is considered worthy of ridicule? In other words, what happens when society ridicules the things you find ridiculous? It seems the only outcome in that situation would be a shouting match like we've experienced in America over the last 30 years. I think Demoss put it best when he said it is a matter of effectiveness. Thoughts?Jm
Posted: August 26, 2009
Jim said:
I agree that entering into the discussion with a conduct of common civility allows for a more productive exchange of ideas. If that is your purpose.However the recent events at meetings on health care shows two things. One is that some are not willing to listen to a counter argument to the health care debate. The second is that they are parroting the mantras of those that influence them.That then leads to another discussion of where do we get our information from. If it soley from one political leaning, then have we have given ourselves over to the control of someone to do our thinking?Still another question is have WE, as a society, adopted the mob attitude and actions? If so what does that say about us?
Posted: August 27, 2009
Bill Beahan said:
On the surface you are correct but Christians are commanded to oppose evil with every fiber of their being. A great counter example is the Van Jones case. The main stream media did not report on the revelations about this vile person until he had to resign from the "green jobs" White House czar job. Prople like Glenn Beck had to shout and shout to get the evidence against Van Jones. Evidence which was videos of Van Jones saying some pretty evil things as well as a petition he signed saying the US govt was behind or knew oh beforehand the attacks on 9/11. Another is seniors at town hall meetings having to make a sepctacle to draw attentions to some of the evil provisions in the ObamaCare bill, provisions which once know have turned the vast majority of Americans against the bill.
Posted: September 7, 2009
Dave said:
I think it's sad that both sides, as we see in the public debate, can't discuss their views without spreading lies about what the proposed solutions do or don't do. We do live in the same country, and I think everyone agrees that our current system isn't working well at all, so something needs to be done. Jim, on Aug. 27, pointed out part of the issue: everyone is listening to what some politician or other "expert" on what the bill proposes or doesn't propose. Have we read the bill? No, it's 1,000 pages or more. I can't read that! Obama is seriously trying to get something done about the healthcare situation in the U.S. I support that. But I think it's ridiculous that our Congress can't deliver a bill that we can all actually read, and understand for ourselves, instead of having to rely on someone to interpet (or misinterpet for political gain) for us. I think that's part of why people are so short-tempered on this. 1)I pray that this bill doesn't go through too fast...this is a complicated issue that should take more time to get right. 2) I pray that the right bill does get passed to help those in desperate need of health care reform. 3) We should all contact our Senators and Representatives and demand they deliver a bill that the average American can read and understand, and isn't 1,000 pages long!
Posted: September 9, 2009
Bill Beahan said:
I wish there was a way to get a copy of Jonathan's piece to Obama after that nasty partisan speech full of lies and half-truths last night.
Posted: September 10, 2009
Jonathan Merritt said:
Bill,
I didn't get to see the speech, but I am sure it had its share of political spin. That's par for the course with political speeches.
Posted: September 10, 2009
Justin said:
Zombie threading...
Jonathan,
It took awhile to get back here as I have been busy (thankfully).
I think our disagreement is really a contextual difference (to be honest I didn't quite understand what you wrote above.) I still think I could readily find examples of opinions that you do not think should be given any respectful consideration - i.e. Holocaust denial, racist speech, etc. My point is that to even enter into a respectful debate about these things is to give them a false legitimacy. There are some topics that we probably all agree are not worth discussion, what is interesting is when we get to the topics that not all agree are not worth discussing.
It's just my opinion, but I think some monstrous ideas are taken seriously because the message is polished and comes from polite and serious looking sources and are not rebutted with the scorn and mockery they deserve, but treated as legitimate. It's the Overton Window concept, and I am not going to get into my personal opinions as that would distract from the point here - I am sure you can think of personal examples.
Anyway, that is just my two cents.
Posted: September 15, 2009