LimitedGovernment
05-04-2012, 11:28 PM
If you're a libertarian, you might have been attacked by someone today. They might have associated you with the Heartland Institute and its recent billboard campaign comparing people who advocate for alternative energy lifestyles to Timothy McVeigh.
In other words, the Heartland Institute sent a clear message: "If you don't think that global warming is a conspiracy-driven myth, you're a terrorist". That message has pissed people off - people who will be ready to strike back, and who may see you as a worthy target.
The billboard was taken down in less than 24 hours because of the outcry against it.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/the-short-hot-life-of-heartlands-hateful-climate-billboard/
So LG, Why does this matter?
It matters because what we have seen in the past few decades has been an increasing trend toward attacking people directly, and - when direct attacks fail - attacking whole groups of people by saying that there are conspiracies and lies that they "knowingly" (or "ignorantly and gullibly" - depending on how heated an exchange is) support.
As the linked article says, this behavior results in a handful of things that destroy the constructive dialogue that moves our country forward.
1) It encourages people to be more extreme in their views and reactions to others.
2) It tells encourages people to ignore personal investigation into the issues, because the "enemy team" is "manipulating numbers and words" for public consumption.
3) It devalues the scientific community, because the assumption is that the "enemy team" has infiltrated research groups and institutions in large numbers.
4) It encourages people to rely on a political party or a radio host as the sole source of "good information".
5) It marginalizes freethinking people and moderates who are viewed as being either ignorant, apathetic, or wusses.
Ok. So why bring it up here, of all places? RPF is a place where discussion is encouraged.
Three reasons.
1) It's always nice to have a forum post on record that points to opposition to destructive dialogue.
2) It's all the more reason to be aware of how we conduct ourselves here. The more we distance ourselves from these kinds of knee-jerk reactions, scare tactics, and refusal to listen to each other and look into the facts, the more credibility we'll have among people (e.g. moderates) who are hypersensitive to destructive propaganda and personal attacks.
3) We need to be careful to not react negatively if/when people associate us with beliefs that we don't hold or groups that we don't support. A negative reaction will decrease the likelihood that we'll be able to have an informative conversation, and will feed the continuing trend toward Cold War-style politics.
In other words, the Heartland Institute sent a clear message: "If you don't think that global warming is a conspiracy-driven myth, you're a terrorist". That message has pissed people off - people who will be ready to strike back, and who may see you as a worthy target.
The billboard was taken down in less than 24 hours because of the outcry against it.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/the-short-hot-life-of-heartlands-hateful-climate-billboard/
So LG, Why does this matter?
It matters because what we have seen in the past few decades has been an increasing trend toward attacking people directly, and - when direct attacks fail - attacking whole groups of people by saying that there are conspiracies and lies that they "knowingly" (or "ignorantly and gullibly" - depending on how heated an exchange is) support.
As the linked article says, this behavior results in a handful of things that destroy the constructive dialogue that moves our country forward.
1) It encourages people to be more extreme in their views and reactions to others.
2) It tells encourages people to ignore personal investigation into the issues, because the "enemy team" is "manipulating numbers and words" for public consumption.
3) It devalues the scientific community, because the assumption is that the "enemy team" has infiltrated research groups and institutions in large numbers.
4) It encourages people to rely on a political party or a radio host as the sole source of "good information".
5) It marginalizes freethinking people and moderates who are viewed as being either ignorant, apathetic, or wusses.
Ok. So why bring it up here, of all places? RPF is a place where discussion is encouraged.
Three reasons.
1) It's always nice to have a forum post on record that points to opposition to destructive dialogue.
2) It's all the more reason to be aware of how we conduct ourselves here. The more we distance ourselves from these kinds of knee-jerk reactions, scare tactics, and refusal to listen to each other and look into the facts, the more credibility we'll have among people (e.g. moderates) who are hypersensitive to destructive propaganda and personal attacks.
3) We need to be careful to not react negatively if/when people associate us with beliefs that we don't hold or groups that we don't support. A negative reaction will decrease the likelihood that we'll be able to have an informative conversation, and will feed the continuing trend toward Cold War-style politics.