My Guidelines For Online Political Debate

I have qualms about posting political screeds online, and I'll often play a contrarian role when left-leaning friends, who generally match my political views, get political on Facebook. To the friends who think I'm just trolling, here's where I'm coming from.

Generally, I argue with people who I agree with more than I argue with people who I disagree with for two reasons; I have few reasonable conservative friends to debate, and I believe that fairness and honesty should be prioritized over politics. The left doesn't have a monopoly on truth and fairness, but I feel like we can and should win arguments without stooping to exaggeration, histrionics or outright lies. A little fact-checking and introspection can go a long way, and I try to play the role of ombudsman for people on my side of the aisle. Please, speak up without shouting down, keep an open mind and play fair,  do the research and ask questions.


I try to play by certain rules when wading into political discussions, which I generally enjoy. 1) Don't judge people online, because you rarely know all the facts and you often come across like a bully 2) Don't waste your time responding to fools who say stupid stuff just to get attention – especially on Twitter, (PLEASE IGNORE TWITTER), 3) Calling out sexism/racism/other prejudice online is cheap and plays into an us-versus-them mentality that can be toxic and counterproductive. Especially if it seems like you're leaping to conclusions without evidence.

On Rule #3: Generally, when one of my online friends posts a reaction to a sexist or arguably sexist comment or situation, I recoil, not because I'm sexist (I think we're all a little sexist sometimes, but I believe in full equality and opportunity, full stop, and I believe that we have a ways to go before we get there), but because those reactions lend themselves to a self-righteousness that I find off-putting and a little frightening.

It's off-putting because a common attitude of the anti-sexists is something like “hey, I can spew the hate because this guy's already shown himself to be a hater! It's cool because I only bully bad people and weirdos who disagree with me!” That kind of tone assumes that every reasonable person agrees with you; it shuts down debate by inviting either unquestioning approval or a refutation that only proves how sexist everyone else is.


It's frightening because it lends itself to broad-brush generalizations in which facts go unexamined and people take sides based on ignorance and noise.

To take two recent examples from the Republican “war on women” :  1) Remember the outrage when Lisa Brown said she was censored for saying “vagina” during a debate on an anti-abortion measure? That was essentially a lie (she was prevented from speaking on the bill AFTER it had already passed , and she pissed off Republicans not because she said “vagina,” but because she implied that Republicans wanted to rape her; her full quote was 'I'm flattered that you're all so interested in my vagina, but no means no!' I happen to think that's a funny and fair way to score political points, but if that's your strategy don't lie about it afterwards and claim that Republicans are trying to legislate vaginas while being scared of the word “vagina.” More to the point, for me, this is frightening because the national conversation afterward became all about one self-serving press conference and a catchy slogan – not a single one of my friends who threw their support behind Brown seemed to realize that this happened in the Michigan state legislature, not the national Congress, and none seemed to realize that the anti-abortion measure had already passed. They were just happy to point and laugh at the craa-azy Republicans, while the craa-azy Republicans were busy legislating away women's reproductive rights in Michigan. The real issues here were completely drowned out by ill-informed political noise. 1) Scott Brown, a moderate with no clear record of sexism, was unfairly targeted by ads lumping him in with the likes of Todd Akin, who he publicly repudiated. Brown's last act in the Senate was co-sponsoring an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would allow government to set aside larger government contracts for women, putting women-owned businesses on equal footing with other historically underrepresented group in contracting, like minorities and disabled veterans.


I'm probably going to go ahead and be a hypocrite here, and break all of those rules anyway. But I just wanted to explain where I'm coming from.

Mets Player Struggles With Definition of Humility, Irony

Mets player Jordany Valdespin appears to be a monumentally hilarious jerkwad.

https://twitter.com/jordany023

His current Twitter status stresses the importance of humility -- and is accompanied by a photo of Jordany Valdespin posing next to a collage of PHOTOS OF JORDANY VALDESPIN!

My mind is Valdespinning....

In another Twitter photo, he wears a Marlins hat, which is a jerkwad thing to do in the best of circumstances. Valdespin wins extra jerkwad points because he plays for a team that directly competes against the Marlins.

Still, I'll be rooting for you, Jordany! Go hit 30 HRs for the Mets next year!