One of the defining aspects of the toxic discourse that has taken over our lives is the focus on the speaker instead of the substance of the matter. We don't have substantive discussions and try to weigh argument against argument and examine position against position. Everything becomes completely personal.
Tell me who said something, and I already know whether I'm for it or against it.
Unfortunately, we have become accustomed to the reality that this pattern characterizes the rules of the game in the political arena. Positions are derived from the position that seems correct to a party at that moment, as part of the struggle between the parties. And so we can see people exchanging their opinions like socks, and reciting chewed-up message sheets, just because at a certain moment a certain position serves the interests of that party.
Want more news, videos and stories? Join the Haredim 10 WhatsApp channel >>
But now this style has spread to the general public. People no longer listen to the content of things, they don't try to understand the logic of the position you present, they are not willing to accept the possibility that you might be right. If you Saying these things - we must oppose them and reject them in advance.
Not right, not fair
In order for this technique to work to the maximum extent, the method of disqualification and blackening has been highly developed. If I succeed in blackening the image of my opponent and making him illegitimate - I will be exempt from the need to listen to his positions and deal with his arguments. Once I have made him a negative, demonic, ridiculous or unreliable factor - I do not need to make the effort to discuss the essence of the things he presents.
A journalist dares to voice a different voice, one that deviates from the chorus - we call him a 'mouthpiece' and try to make him unprofessional. An expert presents a position that undermines the dominant concept - something is found in his past or in his public activities that will cause the public to disdain his words. A media outlet brings a different approach to public discourse - we search for some kind of stumbling block by one of its people and blacken the entire media outlet as something that is 'terrible and terrible.'.
Perhaps this pattern makes life easier, but it certainly does not contribute anything to a healthy discourse, in which one can fertilize one's thoughts and strive for the right solutions. And it is also so dishonest. In whom is it impossible to find some kind of stumbling block? What journalist or public figure has not made a mistake once or twice?
But the stumbles of those who are 'on my side' are forgiven and forgotten, while the stumbles of those who represent the 'other side' I will make sure to put on giant signs on the main roads, and if necessary I will also take things out of context.
Maybe enough?
It is such a shame that the rejection and vilification are reaching their peak precisely at a time when we are required to make difficult and fateful decisions. It is impossible for all wisdom and reason to be found on only one side. That is why it is so important to listen to each other with an open heart, and to look for the positive points in their positions. Only in this way will we reach the truth and find the right path.
The system of disqualification and blackening causes people to close themselves even more in their own bubble, and to seal themselves off from the voices of others. It's not good for them, and it's not good for all of us. Maybe it's time to stop it?
