Too Many Words
In Journalism school we used to have great fun with headlines, coming up with humorous or nonsensical word plays that would get the reader’s attention. In this case, “too many words” refers to something a relative posted in Facebook with that heading. I’m pretty sure what he meant was that writers/authors/reporters/etc. need to get to the point. So, depending on how long this part of my post is, I may comment more on wordiness as a sidebar.
First Some Definitions
- Open-mindedness: “Receptive to arguments or ideas” (Merriam-Webster)
- Bigotry: “Obstinate or intolerant devotion to one’s own opinions and prejudices” (Merriam-Webster)
Examples of bigotry in a sentence: “A deeply ingrained bigotry prevented her from even considering the counterarguments.”
Why Am I Venting?
Prompted by some Facebook sessions a few weeks ago in which I made the mistake of getting embroiled in a political discussion, I decided to vent in this post.
If I had taken my own advice – “don’t discuss politics using social media” – I wouldn’t have participated in the Facebook sessions that upset me. I say that because for me social media is the wrong platform for exchanging that kind of information. I.e., if someone comments in a news feed that so and so did this or something happened that supports their point of view, I want to be able to ask that person, “What’s your source for that information” or “Why do you believe that’s true?”
“You’re entitled to your own opinions, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.” Daniel Levitin
Anyway, back to my “embroiled political discussion”. Before the dust had settled on the Facebook exchanges that lasted several days, yours truly had been thoroughly thrashed and labelled with some very unkind labels (nothing obscene, but much undeserved labels).
For a bit more grist for this mill, check out this Imprimis piece by Amy Wax. You can read all of it if you want, but at least scroll down to the paragraph that begins, “It is well documented that American universities today, more than ever before”. Read that paragraph and the two paragraphs that follow it.
As you may know, Imprimis is a right-biased source. If that bothers you, just forget all that (bias business) for a minute and read the damn article. Amy Wax provides some thought-provoking ideas.
Here’s some music to listen to as you read and a quote to think about:
Antonio Vivaldi: Four Seasons (Spring)
“Truth and lies were irrelevant, what mattered was what people believed.” (A quote from Lethal Agent, a novel by Vince Flynn that I just finished reading)
What’s My Point?
Shouldn’t I be allowed to contradict someone, to express my own opinions and try to ferret out the truth without being lambasted for my own beliefs? And, yes, if I hear a convincing and accurate argument that disagrees with mine, I’m willing to say, OK, you’re right, and I’m wrong.
If you missed this part in the Imprimis piece by Amy Wax, here it is again:
“What those of us in academia should certainly not do is engage in unreasoned speech: hurling slurs and epithets, name-calling, vilification, and mindless labeling. Likewise we should not reject the views of others without providing reasoned arguments. Yet these once common standards of practice have been violated repeatedly at my own and at other academic institutions in recent years—and we increasingly see this trend in society as well.”
Sorry, no pictures this time, but for sure I’ll add pictures in my next blog. I’m done venting (feels great!), thanks for reading and listening. I’ll save the “wordiness” sidebar for another post.
