How to lose Friends without getting upset about it

“I’m still running away” by Flickr user Vincepal, used under a Creative CommonsAttribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 license.

I have noticed a shift in my Facebook news feed: there are now fewer ridiculous rants against Obama and pro-gun-rights posts, fewer Creationists going on with spurious proofs of their improvable ideas, and thankfully fewer racists with equally implausible, unsupportable ideas.

I wonder why

The only reason I can figure is that the creationists, gun advocates and racists who “friended” and followed me have since unfriended and unfollowed me. There probably is a way to see who has unfriended you, but I don’t bother with that. I’ll just go with noticing the absence of names and faces that I used to see quite regularly.

One is a Facebook Friend of a Friend who called me an “asshole” because I questioned his argument that Obama sucks. I asked for some solid examples of how Obama’s policies had made their lives worse in some concrete way.

Another right-winger dropped me after I questioned logical holes in his statements and arguments about gun rights and foreign policy. Maybe he just got tired of being shot down so many times. But even Snoopy gets back in the air after being shot down by the Red Baron.

I don’t see many creationists anymore, either. There’s one I haven’t seen after she asserted “it takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution than in creation.” I suggested she look up “faith” in a dictionary, and then open another book that’s not the bible.

(By the way, Oxford defines it as “firm belief, esp. without logical proof.”)

Okay, maybe my retort was kind of snarky, but it’s not insulting.

I miss those people—and not just because they're so easy

I think one of the purposes of Facebook was to engage in a healthy debate. Sure, it’s also a great way to catch up with old friends and far-flung family, to coordinate group activities and to share cool photographs, but I also enjoy respectful debates. I point out logical holes, question assumptions and conclusions, and have been questioned and corrected myself. I accepted corrections when I made errors, and I never sank to the level of insults. I never swore at people (okay, I used a few salty words to describe things and actions, but never the people I was arguing with).

For the most part, I did not get a lot of abuse. As I said, one person called me an “asshole” for questioning his argument about Obama. Another insulted me for arguing for higher corporate taxes and against the idea that corporations should be able to spend on political communications without limit. A number of people called me a “liberal” as if it were insulting. I told a few of them to look up the word, too, and once got insulted for explaining that the understanding of the word “liberal” in the US is different from its original political meaning, and that in Europe, neo-liberal is equivalent to neo-conservative in the US. I don’t understand why that was threatening or problematic, but it did bother some people.

But the people who were most committed to the right-wing side of many debates—guns, abortion, evolution, taxation, health care—have run away.

What are they afraid of?

I’m not going to shy away from expressing myself. I am a writer, after all. If someone disagrees with me, that’s fine. I encourage that.

Bringing poles closer

Image courtesy Dark Matters a Lot

We need to be able to discuss our differences respectfully. I don’t delude myself that I’ll ever change anyone’s deepest beliefs, but if we don’t share opposing ideas, we only increase the polarization that is already growing in the world. Extremism is growing on all sides of every debate, and we can see this with ISIS/ISIL, Christian/creationist groups, the Tea Party, resurgent communism in Russia. And that kind of extremism doesn’t make the world a better place.

So come back, right wing! Engage me. If you think I’m wrong, let me know. Just remember my rule of engagement: if you use personal insults, you lose.

NRA proposals: a new low in misdirection

Creative Commons photo by Ed Schipul

“Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” asks the National Rifle Association in its latest video. “Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school? Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he’s just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security.”

The magician’s secret, the key to a successful trick, is misdirection. Patter, the high-speed, high-energy babble that comes from the trickster’s mouth, is part of that. “Look over here,” the magician says, pointing away from the hand that’s hiding the coin or pulling the card out of the deck. The audience looks away, and the magician shows the illusion. Magic!

The NRA’s video is political and social misdirection. The illusion: that guns are necessary to the American way of life, the survival of the USA as we know it today.

The result: US residents buy huge numbers of firearms, and 55 percent of Americans support the NRA’s proposal to put armed guards in every school.

I’m neither a citizen nor a resident of the US, but it’s a debate that resonates in Canada. I’ll leave aside the criminally negligent absurdity of the NRA’s argument, and focus on the message from a communications perspective.

The context

NRA head Wayn LaPierre: not crazy.
Just bad.
(Photo credit: AP/Alex Brandon)

The argument over increased control of guns in the US is an old and predictable one. After the especially horrible school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut last month, the debate ramped up again. Groups like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, among others, called for more and stricter controls on guns, and the National Rifle Association reiterated its hoary message: “guns don’t kill people — people kill people.” Then, the head of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, proposed that the solution would be to put armed guards in every school in the US. “If it’s crazy to call for putting police in and securing our schools to protect our children, then call me crazy,” he told NBC News.

That’s not crazy. That’s irresponsibly disingenuous.

The misdirection

As President Obama announced his intentions to more strictly enforce existing gun control laws and pass new laws, the NRA brought out this message equating Secret Service protection with armed security guards in elementary schools, and equating 50-round ammunition magazines with Second Amendment rights.

This is how misdirection works:

Look over here, folks. We have a problem: obviously mentally disturbed people arming themselves with military grade assault weapons and using them against children and other unarmed innocents.

Now, watch this hand: we give everybody the same kinda weapons! Assault rifle here, assault rifle there, concealed handguns over there. Now watch what happens: two days after the Newtown school shootings, a gunman in San Antonio, Texas opened fire in a movie theatre. He was wounded and incapacitated by an armed, off-duty police officer.

See? More guns means more security!

Just don’t look at the body count.

(According to the Journal of Trauma-Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, “before a child in the United States reaches 15 years of age, he or she is…12 times more likely to die a firearm-related death” compared to children in other industrialized countries.)
http://blog.syracuse.com/opinion/2012/12/americas_exceptional_gun_cultu.html
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/96411.pdf

I’m not going to tear that argument apart. You can see for yourself that the fact that it was a trained law-enforcement person who shot the crazed gunman refutes the argument that arming everyone protects everyone. Nope, I’m not going to say that. You can figure that out for yourself, because you’re reading this blog, and that means you’re smart.

This is how the magicians of the NRA are misdirecting the public involved in the gun control debate:

Problem: if even some categories of firearms are banned, weapons manufacturers’ sales and profits will fall.

Misdirection: The politicians are taking away your freedom! Their servants are armed, their children are protected! You deserve the same thing: stand up for high profits for gun merchants lax or non-existent gun control legislation!

Don’t look at the actual problem: 130 school shootings in the USA that resulted in at least one death of a student or staff member since the Columbine shootings in 1999 (according to FactCheck.org, an apparently right-ish site funded by the Annenberg Public Policy Center. I’ll let you form your own opinion on it: http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/)

What they’re not saying

When someone’s trying to convince you about something, you have to ask what’s in it for them.

According to Business Insider magazine, more than half the NRA’s funding comes “in the form of contributions, grants, royalty income, and advertising, much of it originating from gun industry sources.

“Since 2005, the gun industry and its corporate allies have given between $20 million and $52.6 million to it through the NRA Ring of Freedom sponsor program. Donors include firearm companies like Midway USA, Springfield Armory Inc, Pierce Bullet Seal Target Systems, and Beretta USA Corporation. Other supporters from the gun industry include Cabala's, Sturm Rugar & Co, and Smith & Wesson.”

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1#ixzz2IAJ2j6bN

The NRA and its corporate masters sponsors never say that, do they? No, they spend millions of dollars and countless person-hours to maintain the current gun laws, so that they can maintain their sales and profits.

Someone shoots an innocent person.

Response: Don’t let Washington dishonour the Founding Fathers and take away your rights!

What they’re not saying: We love our money much, much more than your kids’ lives.

  What do you think?