joyboytoy79
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Posts
- 3,686
- Media
- 32
- Likes
- 61
- Points
- 193
- Location
- Washington, D.C. (United States)
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
We agree on most things that I've read and I think this topic suffers from a lack of clarity in regards to the subjects it is targeted at. So before you lampoon my attempts at being playful (not trying to be condescending, certainly not to someone who posts with the quality that you do) let me... re-posit the initial sentiment.
Everyone has a right to an opinion. Certainly, everyone should take some vested interest in the political system in the United States, and no one is really an "expert" on politics, but rather on the subjects that constitute the label. That being said there are people who are extremely vocal that fall into one if not all of the following;
1.) They aren't interested in politics deeper than the surface. Think of it like reading the headline of a newspaper and not the actual article.
2.) They aren't informed due to their lack of actual interest. (The Inquirer example isn't uncommon. I hear things like that in line at the grocery store all the time. Actual political commentary being made based on the headlines of what is basically science fiction.)
3.) They don't actually engage in debate (if they did they'd be exposed) because doing so might force them to learn something about the other side.
If you fall into one of these three basic examples and are still extremely vocal about your disdain for... let's say George W Bush or Barack Obama, my question is why? Where does that comfort come form? These same people (again, the limited populace I'm referring to) wouldn't do that in regard to anything else (or at least they seem not to) so what is it about politics that makes it alright?
I'm not talking about elected officials or people who have opinions that I think are wrong, or people that aren't "scholars" on the subject but people who obviously have no information upon which to base an opinion, being extremely vocal on what said unfounded opinion entails specifically.
This portion of the population seems like its growing... and if the intent is to remain uninformed and get louder, my response is... shut the fuck up. If that doesn't clarify the original post... I don't really know how to make it any clearer. I'm laboring under the assumption, at some point, everyone who has watched a television or attended a rally has said to themselves "Who gave this nutbag the mic?"
JSZ
Well, JSZ, I agree that there are too many people who know nothing of the political process, yet prognosticate profusely about its imminent collapse. I agree that they have the right to shut up. I disagree when you say that there are not same-such people in other arenas of discourse. As a geneticist, I hear a lot of people talking about the horrors of GMF. These same people eat cornflakes on a daily basis. Knowing that you're not a geneticist, I bet you are unaware that over 90% of the corn grown in the US is genetically modified. Then again, I don't really have a way of assessing your knowledge until I get to know you better.
Likewise, I meet many people who have never read an actual scientifically sound medical journal, yet pontificate about the dangers of vaccinations. I hear people who are not well-versed in law insist that taxes are illegal. I see people posting articles about how pesticides are over-used on farms, although they've never set foot outside a major metropolis. Therefor, I conclude that your argument is unsound. This phenomenon is not limited to the political realm. It is widespread, and it highlights a profound disrespect for education within a large proportion of our populace. People "know in their hearts" that the facts learned people have worked decades to decipher are untrue. This "heartfelt knowledge" is more important to them than any book learning could ever be.
Politics is a complex beast. The topics of debate within politics touch on every aspect of the human condition. Most people feel they have a right to participate in all levels of the political process, regardless of their level of understanding about the topic being discussed. I tend to agree that they have a right to participate, but disagree that they don't have to know something about the topic at hand. But then again, I want to work with stem cells, one day... and if we limited that debate to only those who know something about stem cells, we'd have never had a ban on such research.
And after all of that, I think I buried my point: Politics is not unique with its armchair experts, and the answer is not to shut them up, but to calm them down long enough to get them to learn something.