I am going to revive my blogging and stop using my computer journal. I've lost the journal twice and have decided that this platform is fine for what I intend to post. I know there has been quite a lapse but here we go.
Today, as usual, I ended up carrying on multiple debates on Facebook with many different people. While a few of them turned out in the typical fashion, there was one that was educational for those involved and another that had someone admitting there was nothing factual to their opposition to Trump but it was personal... maybe me telling them that it was okay to feel emotional or personal about a candidate is quite alright. One is still hanging out there but I don't know if the people have left it or will respond later.
Still, I was debating something that has irked me since the story became public two days ago. A woman wrote a letter claiming to be a major individual working within a campaign. Her letter went on to explain how she had supported that candidate until recently. It was an "open letter" that was a hit job on the candidate full of supposed facts and revelations that could derail a candidate. The problem is, I decided to research the person instead of the article. The woman in question has been openly against the candidate specifically in her personal life for at least 6 months and her professional social media accounts reveal that she was latently against the candidate. This brought her claim of being part of his organization into doubt so I checked out her employment history. She never worked for the politician in question. Her resume says she worked for a PAC in the past, her resume didn't specify a name which I found curious. Apparently, she is currently unemployed but volunteers her time locally.
Take these two simple facts that she opposed the candidate for at least the last six months and that she never worked for the candidate as she claimed and her story unravels to the point of pure fiction. The problem I run into, half the liberals on my feed post links to some article with her letter claiming it is true. Of course I reply with what I have found out. Even on the "Occupy Democrats" facebook page I found people who saw my research and admitted that the woman was obviously lying for publicity. I began to see other posts with this story with people spreading my research as well as some information I hadn't discovered. Putting it all together, the woman appears to have been professionally hurt by this candidate and the letter wasn't only for publicity but also for simple vengeance. I knew some fanatics, those without reason, and those who hated the candidate would believe anything so I was prepared to repeat the process of education and hope for the best.
Today though someone I have respect for posted another article. I simply posted the same information about her background and expected his intelligence to lead him to the truth. Instead the post devolved into him disputing my research and trying to link the candidate to criminal behavior. When I pointed out to him that his position was ironic because while he refuses to believe in the criminal behavior of one candidate that is under FBI investigation, he was quick to believe the rumor of the other candidate's theoretical illegal activity, he through out the red herring defense and stood like a blind rooster above a roasting pan crowing about how "he wins". He then insulted me and told me to just "quit posting right now".
Needless to say, it tweaked me. This is a man who prides himself on using reputable sources but I had pointed out to him that his article citing criminal activity came from a well known liberal leaning site, NPR. Although NPR was founded to be nonpartisan, it long ago lost the right to claim impartiality. I proceeded to open a simple google search and started linking articles with quotes for him to read. Prefacing this argument, I explained the problem with NPR. They are blindly "liberal leaning" and believe all reporters are the same. With one exception, they have a huge problem with their reporters keeping their bias and opinions out of the news. I shared about 6 or 7 links backing up my position and then realized I was at the bottom of the google search page. Proper debate form says time to go no further and give him a chance for rebuttal.
After this barrage of articles, the man who claims he is a speed reader who has shown he can post as many as 6 article links in 5 minutes while claiming to have read them has yet to respond. At this point it's been about an hour and he hasn't responded but it is in his nature to always "get the last word" and never leaves a post, even one he agrees with, to follow his at the end of a topic. I had another discussion with him earlier today in which he claimed a couple of times that he "won" and went off the rails. There is absolutely 0 possibility that he would leave this alone so I'm sure he's trying to scour the internet for something to dispute my arguments and most likely he will try to either ignore my point or totally misconstrue what I've said to prove a different point. The irony that he likes to quote common literary and political mistakes while constantly using them seems lost to him and his wife.
I sometimes wonder why I engage in discussions with him because they always end up in one of two ways. Either he insults me and cries winner or he completely twists, misunderstands, or ignores my points so they fit whatever argument he makes. Part of me wonders if he is a toxic part of my life and someone I need to cut out or if the mental exercise he sometimes invokes is worth the childish rebuttal and rhetoric.
No comments:
Post a Comment