9 votes

The cult of “wrongthink”: How a generation of pundits ruined “debate”

1 comment

  1. Cananopie
    Link
    I think this article does a good job at articulating some of the feelings I have about the problems with conservativism today. I don't use the terminology that this article references in quotes...

    I think this article does a good job at articulating some of the feelings I have about the problems with conservativism today. I don't use the terminology that this article references in quotes and honestly I had to look a couple of them up but people I see tending to the "right" in my life tend to rally around the angst of political correctness or gender identity terms (or guns, always guns).

    But behind this immature frustration there lacks substance. A discussion about race is never begins with a recognition of real racial problems, a discussion about gender and sexuality never references the science on these issues, and supporters of guns never acknowledge appropriate gun restrictions that gun owners can agree on as good. They're disingenuous from the start. My favorite paragraph from the article is:

    No one is scared to debate Singal, Shapiro, or Sullivan; they are, in most cases, simply annoyed. No journalist, no activist, no person of any persuasion wants to argue with a bad listener; no one wants to match against yet another rationalist champion only to find him retreating immediately to backchannels, whining about how many people are retweeting his opponents when they could be celebrating him. Routinely, the rationalists and the “wrongthinkers” disgrace the distinctions between provocation and trolling, between playing the devil’s advocate and presuming oneself to be the Twitter messiah, between begging for nuance and clamoring for attention. If this is “debate,” if this is discourse as ideally envisioned by the web rationalists, then there’s no wonder why a generation of journalists and activists might turn to other modes of opposition.

    8 votes