"Don't argue with a fool. The spectators can't tell the difference." -- Charles J. Nalin
I know this is a realization that many Kossacks have affirmed in the past, but I've always felt that someone must respond to ignorance and stupidity when it rears its ugly head, if, at least, for the lurkers who are reading and possibly considering the points being made. As a result, I've always tried to give an enlightened and reasonable response to conservative talking points when I see them on my Facebook wall, in blog comments, or wherever. However, that is becoming increasingly more difficult as conservatives sink into a fantasy-ridden, delusional bubble that is impossible to penetrate with any form of reasoned analysis. The conservative worldview is so steeped in conspiracy talk and nonsense that there is virtually no common ground around which to hold a rational debate.
More and more, my debates with conservative friends and family is degenerating into mocking ad hominems (of which, unfortunately, I get drawn into myself), just because that is about the only "rational" route the debate can take. Any data- or scientific-driven arguments are rebuffed by conservatives with the ol' "data is constructed by the vast liberal conspiracy to suppress the truth" argument. How else do you respond to this? Conservatives are so far off the reservation, that refuting this nonsense would require a deprogramming effort of biblical proportions. I always come away from these arguments feeling icky and a bit foolish myself.
I'm growing weary of presenting evidentiary data, only to be told that (sigh) scientists, social scientists, Hollywood, the media, academic institutions, teachers/professors, unions (on and on ad nauseaum) are all involved in a liberal conspiracy to suppress data that supports any conservative position. Evolution isn't true because scientists are all brainwashed liberals. Social science data about income inequality isn't true because social scientists are just cleverly-disguised Marxists/Leninists. The financial collapse of 2008 is all due to democrats working in conjunction with Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae. Global warming isn't true because the scientists studying it only want to destroy capitalism. ACORN/Unions/Washington Democrats (take your pick) are behind the Occupy protests. I have had some version of all of these arguments thrown at me by conservatives at least a half dozen times in the past year.
As a result, I have decided to not engage any of the mindless, brainless ignorance I see daily on Facebook, in chain e-mail letters, on news article comments, or anywhere else, as tempting as it always is to do so. In the past, I took every opportunity to correct this sort of misinformation, but I'm fast realizing that it cannot be corrected because it's rooted in an entire worldview that denies facts. To correct these arguments requires dismantling the worldview (which, by the way, is what the Occupy movement is attempting to do). On the occasions I do respond, it will only be if there seems to be some modicum of rational argument being made. In other words, I can debate a conservative who has real concerns about aspects of President Obama's policy. What I won't debate is someone who simply dismisses Obama as a socialist/fascist/Muslim or any other nonsense that is not rooted in reality. As difficult as it may be to not respond to some of the BS, I really feel that it is not productive at all to either side to do so. A part of me has been tempted to follow Thomas Jefferson's dictum that "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions," but I feel that it only feeds the conservative stereotype of the "elitist" liberal. What, then should be the liberal/progressive response to bollocks and drivel? I'm open to suggestions.