POLITICAL DISCUSSION

I remember when people didn't spend so much time discussing politics. They did it mostly during presidential election years. In mid-term election years, the discussion wouldn't start up until late spring or early summer.

    Nowadays, the discussion is constant. This is mainly due to two factors: the growth of social media, and easy access to that media by the widespread use of personal digital devices, such as smartphones, tablets, and laptops.

    Before this, if someone wanted to spread his views beyond his circle of family and friends, he had to write a letter to the editor of the local newspaper, put it in an envelope, put a stamp on the envelope, address it to the newspaper, then snail mail it to the newspaper office, and wait to see if it was selected for publication, and to see if anyone would respond.

    Today, anyone with a digital device can post their views on social media, or respond to someone else's post, and instantly become a political commentator.

    However, becoming an instant cyberpundit does not give you instant credibility. I see this from the political posts I read on social media.

    Emotion, not logic, drives most of the political discussion I see. The logic I do see is faulty, filled with non-sequitors and ad-hominem attacks. This emotional venting often degenerates into political gossip.

    One common non-sequitor I see is the assumption that a vote for a particular candidate equals an endorsement of everything that candidate ever said or did. To show why one (the endorsement) does not follow the other (the vote), let's take a look at myself and Pythagoras.

    Pythagoras was an ancient Greek mathematician. His theorem about the relationship between the three sides of a right triangle is a well known principle used by mathematicians, scientists, and engineers for centuries. As the holder of a math degree, I accept the validity of his theorem. As a drafter, I might have used it a time or two.

    However, Pythagoras was also a philosopher. His philosophy outlines a mystic worldview that I cannot accept. So, even though I use might use his theorem, no one can assume that I endorse his philosophy also.

    When a person's logic breaks down, he will often resort to ad-hominem attacks – name calling. The name-caller assumes he can invalidate his opponent's arguments by questioning the opponent's character. But the name-caller seldom offers proof is his opponent's questionable character, and still has yet to prove his own arguments.

    Name calling is a form of gossip. Gossip consists of comments intended to make someone look bad.

    Gossip often starts with rumors. Someone sees, or thinks he sees someone else do or say something questionable, and then they talk about it. The “news” gets repeated, often with details left out, exaggerated, changed, made up, or added. The report changes so much, no one is able to discern the truth.

    Even if the report is true, it can still be gossip. What makes gossip gossip is a person's reason for telling it – to make someone look bad.

    Now, I hope you see why name calling in political discussion is gossip.

    I have seen this on both sides. Conservatives and liberals alike engage in this behavior.

    It generally produces no results. I could compare it to the spin cycle of a washing machine, but the spin cycle does accomplish something.

    Because of this, I avoid political discussion unless I can contribute something solid and positive. I wish others would do the same.