Skip to main content

The reason so many progressives turn to sarcasm and satire

It's sad to think that a growing number of Americans can't seem to engage in civilized discourse with people of differing opinions. There are several reasons for this growing problem. 

1) Talk radio - This medium is mostly dominated by the far-right end of the political spectrum and tends to be filled with more opinions, fallacies, and false information than facts. Die-hard listeners, however, tend to take this false or misleading information as factual, which makes it difficult to debate them on the matter, even when sourcing fact-checking sites or the like.

2) Cable news - Of the three major cable news networks, CNN tends to be the most "fair and balanced" (sorry, Fox), yet it's often times the least viewed of the three networks. MSNBC leans to the left and Fox News leans to the right. So if liberals want to hear that their opinions are right, they can tune into MSNBC and conservatives can do likewise and tune into Fox News. 

3) Partisan written and online sources - Not only do talk radio shows and cable news networks tend to be partisan, so too do newspapers and websites. It's a wonder if there are any truly non-partisan sources anymore. 

4) More political pastors - It amazes me, with the "separation of church and state," how political many pastors and their sermons have become in recent years. Whether the message be about abortion, gay rights ("traditional" marriage), the Affordable Care Act, war, global warming/climate change, etc., pastors and their sermons have taken a sharp turn to the right in recent years, which has only aided to the divide, especially between the religious-minded and the science-minded.

5) Non-partisan sources not wanting to be seen as partisan - Sometimes news organizations go out of their way to show they're nonpartisan by showing both sides to a story even if facts support one side of it and debunk the other. No matter which side of the aisle facts fall on, facts shouldn't be seen as partisan, and treating them as anything other than facts does a disservice to the word and to the public's opinions and potential discourse about the issue in question.

6) Brainwashing techniques - If a person repeats something over and over again, no matter how ridiculous the statement may be, chances are he/she will start believing it. This is doubly as true and dangerous when thousands of people are constantly hearing this false statement. Whether a pastor at a church repeats the claim that God is against gays, a talk show host calls into question whether the president was born in this country and if he's actually a Muslim, or politicians resort to bumper-sticker slogans to label the other party, these comments and catchy sayings will catch on with a number of people, whom will sadly start believing them, no matter how outrageous the claims are.

7) Fact-checkers called into question - While talking heads on television and the radio mainly get paid to stir the pot and provide colorful (and often times inaccurate) commentary on current events, fact-checkers get paid to research politicians' and the news media's statements and grade their level of accuracy. However, certain politicians and talking heads have shot back at fact-checkers whom graded a claim of theirs as false by saying fact-checkers are biased, and unfortunately, many now call into question just how unbiased fact-checkers and their grades are.

8) The line between opinion and fact is getting increasingly blurry - Sure, everyone has an opinion and has a right to believe what they so choose. However, just because someone holds an opinion about something, that doesn't make their opinion in any way factual. Perhaps due to the increasing number of partisan sources, opinion has seemed to be mistaken as fact on a number of occasions, and vice versa, with facts being mistaken as opinions. This has been increasingly problematic when attempting to engage in civilized discourse with a person of a differing viewpoint.

All these reasons and more are why many progressives, like myself, have just about given up on engaging in civilized discourse with many on the other side of the aisle, and have instead turned to sarcasm and satire, so we can be provided with at least some form of cathartic release through laughter. 

For a number of years I tried to engage in civilized discourse with those whom held differing viewpoints than my own, and while once in a while I was able to engage in such a discussion, the majority of the time I was left shaking my head when I was greeted with comments like this: 

- "You believe in universal healthcare? That's because you're a socialist!"

- "Isn't Snopes.com run by a couple of liberals?"

- "Factcheck.org and Politifact.com are liberally biased!"

- "Why are you so concerned with gays' rights? Are you gay or something?"

- "Rush Limbaugh has never told a lie, ever!"

- "I only watch and listen to Fox News. Everything else is biased."

The list goes on and on... It's incredibly frustrating to read, research, and fact-check all things before I form an opinion about them, to approach a discussion with these facts and sources fresh in my mind (and my google search history), and to hear nothing but talking points and bumper-sticker slogans in return, while discrediting my "facts" as liberally biased. It reminds me of the following back-and-forth: 

Me: "3 + 3 = 6"

Joe Schmo III: "That's, like, your opinion, man."

Me: "No, that's a fact."

Schmo III: "Whatever... I bet you got that 'fact' of yours from some liberally-biased site, didn't you?"

Me: "The calculator"

Schmo III: "Yeah, that's what I thought. Along with the dictionary, that has to be the most liberally-biased book out there."

Me: "It's not a book..."

Schmo III: "Geez, you have a lot of crazy opinions. A calculator isn't a book? Since when? What are you going to tell me next, that beer isn't a meat?"

Me: "Jesus..."

Schmo III: "Jesus what? Did you just say the Lord's name in vain?"

Me: "No, I was just going to pray for you and the rest of this country, and I'm an agnostic..."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"