In reaction to this post (link), some are suggesting that they’re reluctant ever to go where I’m suggesting we at least consider going; ie: to a more “in your face” rhetorical approach. They’re further suggesting that to do so would be to “join them in the muck,” and they don’t like that notion at all.
I agree with them. One hundred percent.
Please be assured, everyone: I’m not suggesting that we abandon our obviously less abrasive, less offensive, far more rational style of arguing!
What I am suggesting is that there are proposals that demand that we drop the gentility, and respond with a resounding, “F-U!” Proposals like: Eliminating free speech; censoring Conservative voices; sending Conservatives or Trump supporters to “Re-education camps,” and the like.
If we greet these ideas the same polite, intelligent, docile way we always greet ideas from our ideological opponents, then we signal that we consider them issues and not the abominations they really are.
There’s a very good reason we always lose when we debate issues: because we call it a knife fight; we bring knives; then they bring knives, guns, grenades, the media, academia, Hollywood, etc.
So, again, I’d never suggest that we abandon gentility and civility, and intelligence, and rationality. In fact, we should always strive to be ever better at all that!
But, we should, I think, also add some more rugged skills into our mix for those times when responding with, “That’s a really bad idea” just isn’t enough.
I’m searching for ways we can add those more rugged skills, while still being somewhat polite, and signaling that even when we do, so to speak, get down in the muck with them, we do even that better and more intelligently too.