I made a
decision this week which insures the ability of listeners of the radio station
to disagree with me. In fact I welcome it.
I post this
commentary on Facebook, Twitter, on our website in podcast form. I’m out in
front of a wall---giving you my opinion---and giving you a chance to disagree
with me in a very public way. In fact, I encourage it. That’s why I do a
commentary---to make you think and disagree, if you choose.
While I put
my name on my opinions, there are those too cowardly to do the same. They
create bogus Facebook accounts and hide behind a wall of anonymity. And I allow
it. I’m OK as long as they argue facts.
I’ve had to
ban a few of the naysayers. Not because I’m afraid of the argument or their
ideas. I banned them when they got personal. They cast aspersions’ on my
intelligence (they don’t believe I have any) or my character. That’s the move
most liberals do best. They can’t argue the facts so they argue that their
opponents are idiots. In this case, that would be me.
If you click
on the bomb-throwers, you can see they have hidden themselves behind a
pseudonym, too frightened to put their real names on their ideas..too scared to
allow the public to attach their names to their dogma.
For the most
part, I find their posts entertaining and leave them on our social media. I do
that despite the fact that their accounts are fake.
It must be
horrible not being able to attach your name to your opinion.
I don’t
suffer that dilemma.
For the record? I think you and WFIW are doing a great job, keep it up.
ReplyDeleteJohn Clemmons
Keep it up! I don’t always agree with your opinions, but your comments do always make me think about the issue and that is a good thing. We should all be open to consideration of others’ viewports.
ReplyDeleteI always put my name, Christopher brown and think you’re an idiot
ReplyDeleteInteresting that you believe liberals resort to name calling because they cannot argue "the facts," implying you have them & they do not. Seems like a circuitous way of insulting their intelligence. Maybe you thought it'd go over our heads.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that the informal fallacy of argumentum ad hominem should be avoided, you have some difficulty in this post with several other informal fallacies.
ReplyDeleteYour statement of “That’s the move most liberals do best” is an example of faulty generalization. I would make an educated guess that an argumentum ad hominem is not a fallacy primarily employed by one identified group but simply a common fallacy that is unfortunately overly utilized in both spoken and written rhetoric.
Your usage of the term “bomb-throwers” is a simple attempt to manipulate emotions, rather than use of valid reasoning.
To address why some may chose to comment anonymously, you state that they are “too frightened to put their real names on their ideas”. Might there be other reasonable arguments why a person would choose to comment anonymously? As a former leader in higher education, I would presume you had to evaluate instructors and course directors and are thus familiar with the rationale for anonymous feedback and could easily apply that fundamental knowledge to this situation.
I would hope with your experience in education, broadcast journalism, and humanities that you would use your current platform in radio and media to elevate the level of civil discourse and rhetoric in my home community rather than contribute to the hostility and divisiveness.
Pamela Smith Trapane