“How to Know When a Pundit/Politician Doesn’t Believe What They Are Saying.”
Guideline #2: If one can not defend their position without resorting to name calling, chances are one doesn’t believe what one is saying.
For example: Two construction workers guiding a beam into place on a high-rise.
Construction Worker #1: Hey, did you know that hot dogs are the most popular fast food in
Construction Worker #2: Really? I would have thought it was pizza.
Construction Worker #1: Yeah, well, those pants make your butt look fat.
In that example, chances are the first worker isn’t confident that his position is true; hence he makes a fast food popularity debate into a personal issue.
And once it is a personal issue, it is no longer about facts; rather it is about emotions.
The great thing about name calling is that it redefines “win.”
Prior to the name calling, these two hard hats could go on the internet and check the facts; the “winner” would be the one that got the truth right.
But now that it is about emotions and not facts, the “winner” is whoever can hurt the other individual the severest by hurling the most hateful insults.
A practical experiment: Take a transcript of your favorite political talk show.
Erase every sentence that includes a personal insult.
If you have five minutes of programming left, you’re pretty lucky.
Sad to say, our media’s political discourse is mostly done through “yo momma” slap downs.
The politicians themselves have done the same – witness any campaign season. Or, dare I say, recent sessions in House.
So how do we solve this?
Some might suggest a call to a return of civil discourse.
Hee hee hee. Those "some" are so naïve.
No, the real solution is to elect more hip-hop artists to public office. They have mad put down skillz, yo.
Just my thoughts,
BONUS SHORTCUT TIP: If in a political discussion, someone compares their opponent to Hitler and they are not talking about a situation involving genocide, that person does not believe what they are saying.