Skip to main content

Remaining silent on dishonesty does nothing to silence dishonesty

I often times find myself disagreeing with fellow progressives on the reporting of news or opinions I (we) may not personally like. If I report a story about the National Rifle Association (NRA), Fox News, Sean Hannity, or the Tea Party, I am often times greeted with comments like, "Don't give them a voice," "You're only helping their cause by posting that," or "Why should I care?" 

These comments rub me the wrong way, because no matter what our beliefs or how strong they are, it does us no good to live in a little information bubble or to turn a blind eye as others do similarly. The NRA is a powerful organization. Whether I post a story about them or not, they're not going to just go away. So what does it hurt to try and hold them accountable? ...to spread the full truth about their rhetoric and practices? ...to combat the extremely slanted and partisan bent the group tends to use to report their news? How can inaccurate claims be quashed if we remain silent on these inaccurate claims? Also, what good does it do for us to remain ignorant about conservatives' perspectives? How can we reach any person of a different political persuasion if we're not at all informed about what it is they believe? 

Look, I can't stand Donald Trump, the NRA, Fox News, etc., but it does me no good on any front to try and be ignorant about them. Sure, it might seem more comfortable to live inside our own little information bubbles, but the smaller that bubble is, the greater the impact when it finally bursts. What would we rather have, temporary discomfort in reading and hearing about perspectives drastically different from our own or ignoring them and increasing the odds of Donald Trump winning another election? I'll go with the former every time.

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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...
2 comments
Read more

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...
2 comments
Read more