"Uninhibited, robust and wide-open debate," is dead in U.S. (1 Viewer)

[St. Geezy]

The notion we have the sort of "uninhibited, robust and wide-open" debate on public issues that Justice William Brennan championed in his N.Y. Times vs. Sullivan opinion is about as realistic and quaint as trying to live today by firelight.

This truth came into sharp relief this week when Jason Collins, a journeyman professional basketball player, announced he was gay in a Sports Illustrated article.

Many in my profession, who have comfortably ignored the ongoing story of a Philadelphia abortionist who allegedly behaved like a serial killer, have treated Collins' revelation as the present day equivalent of "Man Walks on Moon." For most people who are less politically inclined, however, the news wasn't earthshaking.

"Uninhibited, robust and wide-open debate," is dead in U.S.: James Varney/Wednesday chat | NOLA.com

Very interesting piece that I happen to agree with. Opinions lately on topics have become so polarizing.

 

[insidejob]

Well, it's sad, but that's why I get my news about what's going on in this country from the BBC.

 

[JimEverett]

Read the article. Have no idea what the point of it is.

 

[buzd]

Read the article. Have no idea what the point of it is.

The point of it is to drum up the nola.com crowd to have the same (but likely less erudite) arguments that we have on SR in their comments section. That's mostly what nola.com has become - "hey look at me and give us click throughs on our website" instead of "Here are some facts and current news and thoughtful editorials so hopefully you will subscribe to our paper and patronize our advertisers".

 

[tomdda]

Read the article. Have no idea what the point of it is.

It's saying that the only group of people that it's okay to be bigoted about nowadays is Christians.

 

[kansast]

didn't read the article.. but I can pretty much agree with the statement that any kind of real debate in the country is long gone. It's more about who sounded better saying it. Who had the better sound byte and who has more of a chance getting their sound byte repeated over and over again, until the rest of folks who never had an original thought, believe the sound bytes they hear most often.

 

[insidejob]

The point of it is to drum up the nola.com crowd to have the same (but likely less erudite) arguments that we have on SR in their comments section. That's mostly what nola.com has become - "hey look at me and give us click throughs on our website" instead of "Here are some facts and current news and thoughtful editorials so hopefully you will subscribe to our paper and patronize our advertisers".

What's even funnier is Varney being asked in the comments why they didn't bother covering the abortion/murder trial in Pennsylvania and him having no logical answer whatsoever.

Actually, his answer was that it's because of the big bad liberals that they didn't cover it.

James Varney, NOLA.com|The Times-Picayune
Absolutely fair shot by dickey.
I don't have an answer to that, by the way, and haven't spoken to the editors about it. I do wish we had carried some stories on it, though, and I have no doubt if this was, say, some killer from Operation Rescue or some such scary group that had murdered an abortionist, there would be more coverage and it would be carried in more papers.

 

[V Chip]

It's saying that the only group of people that it's okay to be bigoted about nowadays is Christians.

 

[Zack Lee]

that last Stewart quote earned you a thumb V-chip - oh Tomdda, you got a thumb too

 

[PayOrPlay]

Whatever his alleged point may have been, it was intensely off-putting for him to lump Jason Collins together with Kermit Gosnell.

 

[billinms]

Debate seems pretty healthy here on the EE.

 

[Sun Wukong]

There's no shortage of debate in our culture. The quality of it is generally poor and few people are actually convinced to change their minds, but pretty much all we have is debate. Pointless, awful, loud, obnoxious debate.

 

[SuePrudhomme]

Debate seems pretty healthy here on the EE.

Sometimes it is, yes. Other times, it's just people chipping off hunks of their brick-hard, fossilized opinions to throw at other people, just as it is in most forums or comments sections. Nuanced discussion among people who are open to changing their worldviews when presented with new perspectives or information, on the other hand, is pretty rare.

To the EE forum's enduring credit, I've seen more of that here than in most forums. I know I've read some things that have changed my mind, and that's a good thing. When I stop being able to learn and change and grow, might as well plant me.

As for talking about Jason Collins and Kermit Gosnell in the same article, his point wasn't that there were any similarities at all between them. However, commenters' responses tended to follow the same pattern: Read a news story, find the trigger word ("gay" or "abortion" are always high on the list, but you can put "gun control" on there too), race to a preferred soapbox on either side, start shouting. How can there be reasoned debate when everyone just assumes their usual ethical or political positions and starts screaming at the top of their voices?

That's probably reading more into that rather scattered article than was really there, but that's what I took away from the "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate is dead" angle. It's being poisoned by inflammatory language and inflexible attitudes.

 

[tomdda]

- oh Tomdda, you got a thumb too

Good, I was hoping!

 

[jasonj]

FWIW, debate here and across the internet has caused me to change (or at least opened) my mind on a lot of issues I thought much differently about when I was younger.