Read about repeachment on InYourFacebook
Has a single mind ever been changed in social media fights?
To quote from T.S. Eliot’s “The Wasteland” — no, not the opening line about April being the cruelest month! — “Well now that’s done: and I’m glad it’s over.”
President Donald Trump was impeached again (repeached?) on Wednesday because of what happened last Wednesday and his term ends next Wednesday.
I liked it better back when Wednesday was Prince Spaghetti Day and we watched Wednesday in “The Addams Family.”
We live in a challenging time.
I will never understand people, often strangers, fighting over politics on Facebook or Twitter. What, exactly, is the purpose?
Have you ever seen a comment like this? “Oh, thank you. You know, I had not thought of that before. You’re right, I have been saying Trump is the best/worst president we ever had, but you have shown me the light and now I think he is the worst/ best president we ever had.”
Neither have I.
Now there is a big to-do about Facebook and Twitter banning the president. My thought was: “Here’s a winwin solution: They ban us all. They go out of business, and we go back to discussing politics face to face with people we actually know.”
A couple of high school and college friends pointed out that we wouldn’t see each other were it not for Facebook.
Good point, I am grateful to Facebook for having reunited me with many, many friends from long ago.
For years I have been hoping Facebook would branch off into two totally separate entities: Facebook for those of us who want to stay in touch with friends, share pictures and the latest hot dining spot, and InYourFacebook for those wishing to trade insults over politics.
Don’t tell anyone, but I used to assign AP English Language and Composition students to read Facebook posts for homework.
The assignment was to find at least three examples of rhetorical fallacies (also known as logical fallacies).
Since I like to challenge students, I had to send them to look elsewhere for fallacies. The metaphor about shooting fish in a barrel comes to mind.
The events of recent days have birthed a thousand logical fallacies. For example, “No True Scotsman,” is a fallacy that deflects blame.
In this case it’s No True Trump Supporter. It goes like this: Trump supporters have long said that Trump supporters do not riot. Last week they rioted. Now some argue, “Those are not true Trump supporters.”
Ad hominem (to the man) attacks are a constant from both sides. “You’re an idiot” is so persuasive in moving a debate opponent to your side.
Cherry picking means taking one statistic, fact or statement from a slew of contrary statistics, facts or statements and ignoring all the others.
Leftists say people on the right are violent because some of them rioted last week, ignoring dozens of Trump rallies that spawned no violence and the hundreds of leftist riots over the last seven months that did.
Tu quoque is Latin for “You do it, too.” Endless examples.
Strawman arguments are those that completely distort the argument the other side is making in order to easily knock it down, like a strawman. Hard to find a Facebook fight without it.
I could go on, but I don’t want to.