In light of several tragedies in Orlando, Florida, the digital age we live in was on fire! Discussions about blame, what we could learn, equality, guns, President’s, and you name it weren’t off the table. (Author Note: I graduated from the University of Texas at San Antonio with a degree in Communication Studies that focused in online and social interaction and viral messaging if you’re looking for my line of thinking).
With that said there were a lot of arguments, but not a lot of smart ones. I know what you’re thinking, “Duh Ben. It’s the Internet.” You’re right. It is the Internet. There’s two things I look to discuss, 1) the power social media can truly do in shaping the debate and 2) how too many people argue terribly online (early warning: I will reference examples about specific issues, but this is not a discussion about the issues so save your nonsense).
Social media and the good it does
Let’s look at the good social media can do. In wake of the Orlando Terrorist Attack, the handful of friends I had in Florida checked off that they were ok on Facebook. Which poses the question, how many of you knew Facebook had that feature? I was notified that they were ok and abruptly liked and commented on their safety. News stories are another big medium for social media. I was on Twitter to quickly learn of the Planned Parenthood shooting I believe last year, that rocked the news shortly after. The point being that social media was ahead of reporting the news. Notices about events like this can lead people to be safe, as many news outlets won’t run with the story until they have substantial facts. I make these points to argue against those who say social media is worthless in the realm of a living and breathing society. It does more harm than good despite a perceived lack of necessity.
Straw man arguments
Now let’s talk about arguments. There’s a common example of terrible debating called a straw man argument. This is simply when a person commits a logical fallacy by ignoring a person’s actual position, and substituting it with something the other person didn’t say and argue that. Sound familiar? You see this the most common when people argue about mainstream media. “Fox News is a Conservative news network!” and the person you yell this to says “The same goes for MSNBC when it comes to liberals”. See how that doesn’t address the argument of Fox being a conservative network? The argument I’ve heard go the other way just as quickly.
Presidential Race
This argument will be blatantly clear when it comes to this year’s presidential race. People will say “How can you vote for Hillary?”, which many Hillary supporters will refute with “How can you vote for Trump?”. These are two very valid questions that don’t belong in the same argument. What I mean is that if the question is why would you vote for Hillary, then why would you discuss Trump’s policies at all.
Orlando Terrorist Attack
Let’s apply this to the Orlando Terrorist Attack. Again, I’m not arguing specific issues just juxtaposing how arguments can’t get muddy when done poorly. The pro gun reform folks immediately asked how could a man like this get a gun, when he was investigated by the FBI several times and had a history if abuse against his ex wife. A natural response to a situation like this, and they are well within their right to do so. Some of the pro gun crowd’s natural response was to point out the enemy is ISIS and not the gun itself. This is reflecting from the initial arguement of how did this ma get a gun. Again, two different arguments falling into a Straw Man Argument.
Abortion
Let’s apply this to abortion. That’s right. Abortion. Likely the most hot topic on any form of social media and rightfully so. Pro Life folks generally believe life begins at conception and many believe the fetus can feel just like any human inside the womb. With this belief it’s not that crazy to see why they are pro life. Does that mean every person who is Pro Life wants to control women’s bodies? Yes. Yes it does. You still with me? Because I don’t mean that. You silly billy. Just wanted to see if you we’re paying attention. That’s a strawman argument. In my estimation, what most want, is to make sure if someone is choosing an abortion that they are educated and prepared to understand what this means.
The Duggar Family Scandal
Let’s apply this to the Duggar Scandal. This was the now infamous family of 19 kids on the TLC network. The line I kept hearing in conservative media and social media is “People are waging a war on Christians”. People aren’t waging a war on Christians, they’re waging a war on hypocrites. If you call homosexuals pedophiles and support arguably anti-gay legislation, and then it turns out the act you committed was arguably in the realm of pedophilia that makes you a hypocrite which people don’t like. (Author’s note: I took more of a personal stance on this one but the point is still made about a logical fallacy).
The Cincinnati Zoo Tragedy
Let’s apply this to the Cincinnati Zoo Tragedy that killed an endangered Gorilla. The Internet was split immediately you could say three ways. Some called for the parents to be arrested, and other’s deemed the parent’s not at fault and a true tragedy, and other’s called for the zoo to be investigated (and some still denying the parents of any wrong doing). Several folks who were against the parents argued that she should have been watching her kids better. The response by many in support of the parents was that the zoo should have had better safety measures to stop the kids from falling in. Two arguments that don’t belong in the same conversation, but people used these as their fuel to the fire.
The Disney Alligator Tragedy
Let’s apply this to the Alligator attack at Disney World Resort. In a very mirroring situation, a young boy was tragically killed by an alligator at Disney’s lake outside of the resort. Similar to the zoo incident, one side of the arguement was that the parents should’ve kept a better eye on their kid who was reported playing in the water when signs said no swimming. The side that supported the parents argued that Disney should have a Beware of Alligators sign up, and some even arguing in addition to the sign how we’re the parents supposed to know about Alligators. The two arguments don’t go together. Another fallacy. How does Disney having not having Alligator signs up, deny any culpability to the parents? And vice versa.
WITH ALL OF THIS I SHOULD NOTE, THAT ALL OF THESE ARGUMENTS HAD NUT JOB VIEW POINTS IN ALL OF THEM! Which is the point of this essay. That we let the extreme view points in these arguments dictate how we judge the viewpoint holistically. It’s one of the oldest arguments, that liberals are always this and conservatives are always that. That’s a fallacy. A fallacy designed by small minded thinkers to hope you don’t argue otherwise.
My name is Ben Campbell. I hope you enjoyed this, and I encourage you to argue with me on Twitter @zenlikefury!