The majority of my posts on Facebook are Progressive-oriented articles. Posting Progressive links on Facebook is a lot like writing diaries here at Daily kos: Preaching to the choir. Although I'm pretty sure most of my friends have hidden my posts by now. That doesn't bother me.
However, many times when I post on Facebook, there are a few repeat offender fb friends who like to comment to try to discredit the topic. Most of it is along the lines of Teapublican rhetoric: rhetorical tautologies, false equivalences, victim blaming, non sequiturs and straw men. In the end there is a lot of back and forth and ultimately no side really comes out on top, though I daresay I am often left with the last word.
My other fb friends often ask why I continue to be friends with these people at all. Why allow them to post their opinions that clash so much with mine when I could just as easily unfriend them or block their comments?
I feel they serve 3 purposes: One, I and anyone else looking at the conversation get an idea of both sides of the argument, what tactics both sides rely on, and everyone who is afraid to take sides is able to form opinions based on the people actually willing to voice theirs. Two, it is a controlled way to challenging the other side, where people you're friends with on facebook are more likely to discuss the debate more rationally, due to the courtesy we tend to show people we are at least acquainted with, and so the responses will likely be more measured than the responses when engaging in a more random and anonymous forum. And finally, I treat them as practice for dealing with these arguments in real life. Winning internet arguments is ultimately not the end game, the more valuable discussions are out between people face to face where neither side is relying on the facade of internet anonymity, and like any other skillful endeavor, handling these arguments require practice. I get an idea of what types of rhetoric I am likely to encounter, form counter-arguments, and assess how convincing they sound.
So I am going to post a recent exchange here, to provide an example and encourage others to engage their fb/twitter friends in these discussions. The objective ultimately is not to sway the other side or win internet points or even sway an otherwise impartial observer, but to lead to stronger debate skills in meatspace where one is more likely to sway the listener. I hope to post future exchanges as well.
Yesterday, I posted the following link: Mich House Republicans vote to throw over 200K Michiganders off food assistance (& that’s only part of it) (Cross posted on Dkos here) with the attached quote:
"The House Appropriations subcommittee voted along party lines to cut over 200,000 people from food assistance (FOOD ASSISTANCE!!!), to cut 1,000 jobs in the Department of Human Services, and proposed cuts to services for children and the disabled."
Michigan. Fuck.
Michigan is my homestate as well as one of my aforementioned friends, who posted this comment:
Something like 1/7 americans are on food stamp. The push to 1/8 sounds great to me. :)
To which I replied:
Is that how you also feel about protecting abused children
To be fair, this guy is not one of the more hardcore Teapublicans who comments. He is a bit too far to the right for my likings but often keeps his comments reasonable enough that I feel we do have meaningful discussions.
However, he then posted another comment, which when I looked this morning (so during a window of about 10 hours) he has since deleted (which sort of diminishes the impact of this diary but I am still interested in sharing this). So I can't copy/paste the comment verbatim, but essentially it was along the lines:
"I think it is short-sighted to spend so much on welfare. That money could be better spent in other forums. Speaking of charity, when was the last time you gave to the less fortunate?"
Again, this is not verbatim. Here is my response:
I think it's short-sighted to withhold assistance to people in need because of some notion that people shouldn't get assistance in times of need. Say what you want about the principles; withholding food assistance means people starve.
Second of all, this isn't charity. This is taxes that the state collects from the citizens. That money is supposed to, no, that money is meant to go to serving other people in the community. Do I think some of my taxes should go toward welfare and unemployment and medicare? Yes. A question might be, should the government even be involved in this, or should it just be the responsibility of charities as you assert. Without going into detail, the it is far more effective when governments run these programs, but the one underlying virtue is that, where charities are only funded by interested individuals, government programs are funded by contributions from everyone. Not only do I think my own taxes should go to these programs, but I do think a contribution from everyone in the community should go to these programs as well. Because we all indirectly benefit from these programs.
There is a reason, after all, that human beings developed civilized societies in the first place. Language, culture, currency, and cohabitation and common laws with non-related outsiders who might otherwise be seen as competitors. All of this is to facilitate cooperation and sharing of resources and labor. Even our primitive ancestors realized the best way to serve their self-interests was to work together and share the burdens that come with living. If that weren't the case, humans would still be living in the stone age, competing for the same resources and isolating themselves. It may be cliche, but a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and the same can be said of civilized societies. Resources should go toward making those links stronger.
Besides, the idea that spending that would go toward welfare is better spent toward other means, denies the fact that not investing in societal problems often costs society far more in the long run. A person might avoid going to the doctor when he's feeling sick because he doesn't want to pay a $20 copay or doesn't even have insurance, then it turns into a serious ailment and they are forced to go to the emergency room, and ends up with thousands of dollars in medical bills. The same idea with your car, where little problems you ignore, or ignoring regular maintenance, could result in costly repairs down the line. What happens to what you invested in your car, then? The same thing with your house; would you leave a structural problem until it costs you thousands of dollars to fix later on, or fix it now for a few hundred. The same idea behind investment and savings in general; investing a small amount in the present ends up being more valuable than investing a larger amount at a later time because of compound interest. Preventative measures/early investment almost always costs less than the long term alternative consequences; welfare is no different.
Lastly, the community cannot just ignore its members. If the community withholds welfare to a person in need of assistance, eventually that person may end up on the streets, or getting injured trying to make money through dangerous means and end up in the hospital, on the community's dime, or thrown in jail after turning to crime to solve their money problems, and again on the community's dime, or worst of all, death. How is that person expected to contribute to society, through labor and spending and contributing taxes, then?
That was posted 12 hours ago, though based on the fact that he's already deleted one of his replies, I am no longer anticipating any other comments on this post.
Hopefully, others here see this and are inspired to try to engage the other side on their own pages. Again, I think it is good practice, at the very least.
A word of advice. If you are going to post political discussions on facebook, avoid those eyecatching memes and infographics that sound so compelling. Misinformation is far too rampant on these, even on the progressive messages, and you do not want to be caught defending an easily debunked fallacy. I would suggest sticking to linking to blog posts and news articles, much more informative, much easier to source and fact check, and it is often much easier to point out when people commenting didn't even bother reading the entire article.