Edition: 032617a – Words: 952 – Audio: 08:59
(NOTE: I thank my blog buddy, chuq, over at In Saner Thought, for the introduction to the term. “Ignorati” .. . those ignorant of mental discipline.)
The two subjects you stay away from in public is politics and religion. We all know that. We accept this because people, in general, are solid in their opinions and beliefs. But while that is true, there are different reasons between the two subjects. Beliefs are one thing; that’s usually between our inner selves and whatever
entity we believe in, and how that translates toward living our daily lives. It’s a spiritual, psychological, many times illogical faith-based comfort zone that we don’t want disturbed by debate. Religion is based on hope and faith and we typically don’t want someone tampering with that as a matter of conjecture. Makes sense.
The reason we are sensitive to political discussions is that politics defines our particular social order; how we govern ourselves and choose our leaders (in the average democracy). In that, us humans are as different as night and day… all of us arriving at similar or very different conclusions to how we want to live our lives inside a political system. Deep within most of us its very basic “animal” form.. “laws and rules are for the other guy, not me”. But in a democracy we are forced to compromise.
But there are venues where we do choose to talk politics.. like with friends who generally accept us regardless of how foolish our opinion might be, or online, where basic anonymity presents a somewhat neutral environment to exchange thoughts and ideas without the fear of having our character stereotyped or physical retribution. For those of us who engage in political blogging it’s more or less the idea that “I have something to say, goddamnit, and I’m going to say it because I am right and you aren’t!”. But there are a number of political bloggers, and reader/followers, who do manage to try and have an open mind. Speaking only for myself, I have visited some blogs that have indeed caused me to modify my particular political perspectives over the years. I have also visited far too many blogs where the author is simply a babbling tirade of nonsense where it’s so obvious emotion rather than serious thought is their motivation.
That brings us to the subject of my post here. These are politically volatile times and there is a lot of “screaming” between opinions, not only here in America but world-wide as citizenry rise up to object to economic and political conditions in their respective countries. Since I can only opinionate from an American perspective… idiotic perspectives abound. Now, you could make a point that if I am calling another’s perspective idiotic that I myself am being in narrow judgment, a condescending, elitist (whatever that word means today) and likely self-centered. But here’s the thing… some folks with the blogging “megaphone”, be they average opinionated people or contributors to some extreme right, quasi (pseudo?) conservative news and opinion blogs, are just so incensed about their own opinion that they fail to make any attempt to try and explain their own opinion by trying to cite some level of facts (knowing that facts themselves can be interpretive) and be convincing in justifying their opinions. In fact, many of these folks could care less about the results of mainstream fact checking sites; facts be damned. It’s pretty much “This is how I feel and if you don’t agree then go f**k yourself.” Well, that attitude might make you feel good in a blog reply because it’s anonymous, but if you’re going through all the time and effort to post opinions then at least be flexible with your opinions as they relate to those alternative facts. Otherwise, your opinion IS idiotic… and not the result of some level of applied critical thinking.
I try to focus the theme of my blog site strictly on the character behavior and complete incompetence of Trump. That includes some policy differences, but mostly it has to do with reckless implementation rather than a complete policy difference. I am no far right or far left idealist. I am an American who thinks a flat out unqualified guy is president and should be removed, in legal ways. Now, if you want to dispute my opinion on his character or performance, that’s fine. More importantly, if you want to convince me otherwise using critical thinking, I welcome that more than you know. Unfortunately, those on the right.. and mostly the far right.. are truly rabid about their idea of patriotism and white isolationism, and using the Constitution as their justification to impose their racist agenda. Trump brought out these people because of his own maverick behavioral opinions, but encourages them by keeping silent about their views and using rhetoric that inflames their populist defiant anger, at his ridiculous rallies. The folks I appreciate are those from the rural red states; the folks who make up middle America who used to vote in other traditional parties and changed to Trump from a sense of disenfranchisement with Washington politics. Their vote that led to Trump’s win reflected a cry for help and attention. These are the folks that on any other day in past America candidate Trump would have been discarded as a political anomaly.
But let’s go to Part 2 to understand the concept of critical thinking.
(You might prefer to hold your replies until you read all three Parts.)