Last night, Mr. 42 and I had a late dinner out at a local pizza place. They were close to closing, so we were the only people in the dining room, and the television was tuned to The O'Reilly Factor. He was going on and on about how liberals are people who want to rid the country of all Christian traditional values and so on, setting up so many strawmen, it pained me to listen. I'm a regular viewer of "The Colbert Report," but until now I had no appreciation for how keen a satire Colbert produces.
As I listened to O'Reilly turn out absurdity after absurdity in the name of "unbiased fact," I rolled my eyes and sarcastically pointed out the obvious flaws to my husband. He started laughing and said, "The thing I find most entertaining is how seriously you're taking this."
I said, "I know it's his job to be outrageous, but he's eroding critical thinking in this country."
"And how does it affect you?"
"To some people, this is what passes for intellectual, informed debate."
"So? You're not one of those people."
"Well, sometimes I have to deal with those people, and they think this qualifies as objective opinion."
Mr. 42 has a point; I don't really think O'Reilly believes everything that he's saying. I don't believe politicians believe most of what they're saying, either; to them, it's most important that there are people who believe what they're saying, and this is just giving those people what they want. Very few people take O'Reilly seriously, and very few of those people will ever be in a serious political discussion with me.
So, why do I still feel as though I need to point out the flaws in his arguments? Why do I feel that, if I don't stand up for real debate, that I'm condoning his methods? When I hear him go on like that, it feels as though if I don't actively use his rhetoric as a mental exercise for finding logical fallacies, I'd be desensitizing myself to stupidity.
Before anyone accuses me of conservative bashing, I want to point out that I would have done the same thing had it been some far left blowhard; O'Reilly was just the one on the television in the restaurant last night.
As I listened to O'Reilly turn out absurdity after absurdity in the name of "unbiased fact," I rolled my eyes and sarcastically pointed out the obvious flaws to my husband. He started laughing and said, "The thing I find most entertaining is how seriously you're taking this."
I said, "I know it's his job to be outrageous, but he's eroding critical thinking in this country."
"And how does it affect you?"
"To some people, this is what passes for intellectual, informed debate."
"So? You're not one of those people."
"Well, sometimes I have to deal with those people, and they think this qualifies as objective opinion."
Mr. 42 has a point; I don't really think O'Reilly believes everything that he's saying. I don't believe politicians believe most of what they're saying, either; to them, it's most important that there are people who believe what they're saying, and this is just giving those people what they want. Very few people take O'Reilly seriously, and very few of those people will ever be in a serious political discussion with me.
So, why do I still feel as though I need to point out the flaws in his arguments? Why do I feel that, if I don't stand up for real debate, that I'm condoning his methods? When I hear him go on like that, it feels as though if I don't actively use his rhetoric as a mental exercise for finding logical fallacies, I'd be desensitizing myself to stupidity.
Before anyone accuses me of conservative bashing, I want to point out that I would have done the same thing had it been some far left blowhard; O'Reilly was just the one on the television in the restaurant last night.
