The absurdity of this election season has distorted the way people engage in political debates on Facebook. I’m thinking, specifically, of the way Donald Trump, his supporters and his surrogates talk about well, anything, really. There was that moment roughly a month ago when CNN anchor Brianna Keilar interviewed Trump surrogate Michael Cohen. Keilar mentioned how Trump’s popularity had been down in the polls, and Cohen responded, straight-faced, with “Says who?” Keilar replied, “The polls. All of them.” Instead of responding rationally, Cohen continued to use “Says who” as a response throughout the interview.
That exchange highlights the absurd level political discussion has reached: there’s “dispute” over basic facts when it’s clear to everyone who is correct and who is being childish. This mentality is also readily apparent in political arguments you might come across on Facebook. There’s a noxious intransigence to the way people discuss political issues on Facebook that wading into a political argument on it can sometimes be a fool’s errand.
Substantive discussions wherein the participants engage in an open, rational dialogue about an issue seem in short supply. The types of political posts that I see in the periphery of my newsfeed have tons of comments, usually large blocks of text being volleyed back-and-forth by a few people. More often than not, though, the content of these blocks of text are verbal quicksands of logical fallacies, personal insults, ignored facts and claims made with sources of dubious credibility. There’s just so much to unpack before one can properly respond that it doesn’t seem worth the time in most cases.
The subtext of these posts seem to say, “I’m stubborn in my strident political views and your attempts to make me consider other viewpoints are futile, jerk!”
These types of interactions remind me of the famous scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where King Arthur squares off against The Black Knight. As the Knight continues to lose the duel (and his limbs), he responds with lines like “T’is but a scratch,” and, when an incredulous Arthur exclaims, “Your arm’s off,” the Knight responds with “No, it isn’t.”
That’s kind of how any discussion about politics feels like right now.
I’m all for engaging people with opposing viewpoints, but there’s a limit. On the one hand, the political and cultural climate we’re living in is fraught with misinformation and ignorance and we, as intelligent, rational beings capable of critical thought, should aim to engage our fellow citizens; on the other hand, some of our fellow citizens are willfully ignorant, shun reason and aren’t interested in having their minds changed. While it’s important to engage others with differing viewpoints, in general, there’s also a point where one must disengage.
So, if you’re going to get into a political argument with someone over Facebook, proceed with caution. I’m not interested in engaging in a political debate just to score cheap political points and nothing else. I’m much more interested in participating in a worthwhile, non-imbecilic discussion – one that could actually lead to something approaching wisdom or enlightenment on a given topic. Perhaps, that’s an absurd thing to expect these days.
