I wonder who some books are written for. They take one side of a debate and their whole book is an attack on the other side. According to them there's nothing good about the other side. To me that seems pointless. To make a good argument, ironically, you have to give the other side some credit. If your argument doesn't engage with the opposing view at all, it's not going to be very convincing.
Like, say if there was a group that believed that you're morally required to eat exactly 3 pieces of fruit a day. If you want to argue against them, you can't just dismiss their view. You have to understand why they think that and then explain why you disagree.
A reasonable position would be, it may be a good idea to eat 3 pieces of fruit a day but it's not a moral requirement. Then you would consider why the group thinks it's a moral requirement and make an argument against that.
Instead of that, we have people making statements and writing books about how it's so obviously stupid to require people to eat 3 pieces of fruit a day and anyone with that view is obviously depraved and actually dangerous. Like, what if people listened to them and started feeling morally obligated to eat 3 pieces of fruit a day? We have to prevent that ideology from spreading. Further, we know that fruit is just a codeword for something much more insidious, so we have to stop them from speaking or writing articles and books that refer to fruit, whoever refers to it. It's not that everyone who refers to fruit is a card carrying 3 fruiter, but they may still be a useful idiot, mindlessly conveying this poison to impressionable minds.
Instead of that, we have people making statements and writing books about how it's so obviously stupid to require people to eat 3 pieces of fruit a day and anyone with that view is obviously depraved and actually dangerous. Like, what if people listened to them and started feeling morally obligated to eat 3 pieces of fruit a day? We have to prevent that ideology from spreading. Further, we know that fruit is just a codeword for something much more insidious, so we have to stop them from speaking or writing articles and books that refer to fruit, whoever refers to it. It's not that everyone who refers to fruit is a card carrying 3 fruiter, but they may still be a useful idiot, mindlessly conveying this poison to impressionable minds.
People who are in favor of the 3 fruits always engage with media that produces a narrative in favor of that and against the non-3-fruiters, and likewise those against. So, it's kind of pointless. What's the point of all this media and content and books that confirm what you already think over and over and over again. It's not meant to change anyone's mind or to educate anyone, so what is the point of it?
No comments:
Post a Comment