NO WINNING OR LOSING

The community forums of any credible news organization, such as letters to the editor in The San Diego Union-tribune, should be a place to go not just to persuade others to see things as you do, but to learn and consider the outlooks of others. Honest debate — not prevailing in an argument — should be the goal of the conversation because if the intention of the discussion is reaching the truth or the closest possible thing to consensus that we can, it shouldn’t be about winning or losing.

That’s why we work to ensure the letters section isn’t a place where participants in the conversation use cherry-picked facts to bolster their arguments while obscuring those that undermine that argument’s foundation. We don’t let writers propound misinformation in an effort to put one over on the opposition. While both are popular, and not particularly new, forms of debate, it’s not really fair, whether it is letter writers or pundits or entire news operations that are manipulating reality.

The topics we all discuss, from climate change to the state of national affairs to the trustworthiness of a particular candidate or political party, are multifaceted and the opinions expressed come from all perspectives.

Granted, truth itself is a challenging concept. Scholarly studies like Joseph Campbell’s “The Power of Myth” and David Graeber’s and David Wengrow’s more current “The Dawn of Everything” highlight the degree to which things we know to be true, even in our modern, cynical society, have their roots not in what someone would call history but what many would consider fantasy. What some great thinkers of the past considered the dictates of great deities, scientists, political leaders or prophets, others may consider little more than storybook tales that took on greater prominence as their confirming narratives resonated with those who heard them.

As anthropologist Graeber and archaeologist Wengrow point out, even the very words we use in an attempt to unscramble the mystery of where we come from make it challenging to create a road map to determine where we are or should be going, as those words were born of the prejudices of our past.

Depending on writers’ perspectives, for example, they could argue that this is either the best economy they have witnessed (with record job and GDP gains) or their worst (with extreme inflation and major supply chain issues). But to make those arguments on one side while completely ignoring factors on the other is somewhat disingenuous.

And such lopsided claims probably won’t convince those benefiting on one side and suffering on the other that they are wrong.

Similarly, just repeating outrageous or exaggerated charges dumped out on the internet or cable news shows renders an argument not only untrustworthy but the easy target of ridicule.

It’s not playing fair to argue politicians are denying citizens their freedoms by cracking down on homeless camps without noting the devastating effect street life has on people and society. It’s not playing fair to complain the Biden administration is spending $30 million to hand out crack pipes to addicts (it isn’t), as some headlines in rightleaning media screamed, without learning what the community overdose prevention programs being funded actually do. It’s not playing fair to recite hyperbolic

Debaters should not just be trying to outrage the opposition.

conflation of Special Counsel John Durham’s latest motion in his investigation of alleged shenanigans in the 2016 election without noting even he says the media may have “misinterpreted facts contained in the government’s motion.”

It’s fine to support or assail such efforts or investigations, but debaters should be honest about what’s really being discussed rather than just trying to outrage the opposition.

When it comes to determining what is true, those who have been around long enough know “It’s not complicated,” the thread-bare adage now used by a phone company, is a myth, especially when your phone stops working. Everything is always complicated, whether we’re talking about phone contracts or the living history that is the state of current affairs.

It’s likely few of us reading or writing letters are experts on the topics at hand who wouldn’t benefit from someone else’s perspective. And it’s likely the people we talk with or about are neither entirely good nor entirely evil.

It’s unlikely letter writers and readers (and editors for that matter) will reveal all of life’s greatest mysteries here or know absolutely everything about the people and topics we are discussing. But we owe it to each other to be honest about what we do know, challenge our own biases and play fair as we explore.