Back in 8th grade our current events/history teacher thought it would be great fun if we learned how to debate. I didn't want to. I wanted to be the judge or "a" judge or "the" judge (so its natural I write blogs). So the teams prepared, a special section of the Bay City Public Library was set up (it was a carrel actually but it seemed like a big deal). We made the WNEM news. I, along with Garby Leon, spent a lot of time in prep as we were "judges" so we had to know both sides - in case someone tried to pull a fast one on us and pull a rabbit out of you know where.
A more civil discourse is going to take a lot of learning on both sides of the issue and in particular, for those of us who are judges of what is being said. We can't be spoon fed interpretations because we can't trust the translator. We have to rely on our ability to say "that's not right - I did my research and I know better".
We can never ever ever rely on "well that speech seemed too long compared to others" or "This was a memorial - what was that cheering about". That isn't subject - that is setting and as dumb as two love struck 8th graders judging a debate.
Ms. Sartin, our teacher, laid down the rules. Opening statements. Specific position statements. Premise. Counter. 2 back and forths. Closing statement blah blah blah and Garby and I were to judge. I was infatuated by a girl named Sally at the time and she was on one of the teams. All my prepping went out the window when she did her thing and my judging went down to stage presence, appropriate dress, calmness of voice...good looks...Garby did the same.... we talked about it. Our conclusion was to announce the winner and declare our judging notebooks to be private. A Solomon's choice.
The point is or was then and is now is of course we watch endless political or subject debates but they aren't. They are fashion shows, Vanna White auditions, news chuckies and chickies endlessly judging what they see...so many onlookers kibitzing the neurosurgeon and then when the patient dies it is "well at that critical juncture he used a rather outdated speculum and therefore"...when 1. they can't do it on a bet and 2. they haven't a 1/100th of the knowledge in a subject on which they are opining.
A more civil discourse is going to take a lot of learning on both sides of the issue and in particular, for those of us who are judges of what is being said. We can't be spoon fed interpretations because we can't trust the translator. We have to rely on our ability to say "that's not right - I did my research and I know better".
We can never ever ever rely on "well that speech seemed too long compared to others" or "This was a memorial - what was that cheering about". That isn't subject - that is setting and as dumb as two love struck 8th graders judging a debate.
Is "civil discourse" code for censorship?
ReplyDeleteAnd what is wrong with someone making a complete ass of themselves?
Imus did it and paid the price. I have no problem with that.
I think Bill Maher is a complete irresponsible ass, but as long as HBO wants him on....so be it.
Meanwhile the Left is clamoring for censorship of people like Beck, Limbaugh, and FOX News. If they are so irresponsible, people will tune them out and will soon be off the air.
I'm not sure the "marketplace" is self policing in this area. If 10% of the people hang over the right and left edges of rationality that is a lot of people to populate an audience.
ReplyDeleteYou are reading Althouse who views civil discourse as censorship. Her argument is arcane and tortured. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
That's your response? Boring...............
ReplyDeletethat's your queston? assinine?
ReplyDelete