“They should all be shot in the head so that the good people can get on with their lives.”
These words, which I read on a social media post thread in the Fall of 2020, will never leave my head; they are etched there for all of the time I have left on this earth. They were written in response to anti-vaxxers choosing not to get the vaccine. The individuals in that conversation appear to believe that the world would be a better place if all those who did not get a C*V*D vaccine were killed off. THEN … the “good” people could get on with their lives.
Am I the only one who sees a lack of logic here?
I’m a Composition Professor, and my job is to teach Critical Thinking skills (the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. – The Foundation for Critical Thinking). These wildly partisan and close-minded, even hate-filled, words – “They should all be shot in the head so that the good people can get on with their lives.” – were on a social media post written by an individual who also is a Professor whose job is to teach Critical Thinking skills in higher education. I find it beyond concerning that a person who is to teach students to not only think for themselves but also to question ideas and information and to write strong arguments can be of such an opinion, which is, in and of itself, the antithesis of critical thinking. (An Argument, in the manner used in Composition courses, is a statement or set of statements that you use in order to try to convince people that your opinion about something is correct. – Collins Dictionary.)
Common Sense (sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts – Merriam-Webster) states that if there are two sides to an issue and the side with the stronger amount of power goes ahead and kills off the faction with a differing viewpoint – within a short period of time, there again will arise an issue on which that remaining group of “good” people will find themselves disagreeing. Will the group in power apply the same “logic” as before? “They should all be shot in the head so that the good people can get on with their lives.” It follows with that type of initial “thinking” that yes, again, the population gets halved. And so on and so forth.
Is this a Slippery Slope Logical fallacy (a course of action that seems to lead inevitably from one action or result to another with unintended consequences – Merriam-Webster)? Or is it straight common sense? I shouldn’t have to ask because the statement that started the conversation is without a shred of actual logic or critical thought but, rather it contains emotion and lack of consideration for opposing perspectives, including ‘science’ which contains evidence to the contrary regarding vaccines that people in power silenced and called disinformation. Why? Ah, there’s that beautiful word – Why.
True argument and strong critical thinking begin with an acknowledgment that people hold different viewpoints – the world around. Not just an acknowledgment but also the willingness to understand the WHY behind the beliefs and ideas of opposing perspectives. WHY is the keyword. Take some time to discover why. Consider other perspectives and why they exist. Think on those based and rooted in experience and fact. Challenge with calmness and rationale those perspectives based on feelings and baseless attempts at argument. These are easy to recognize if you educate yourself, as the curriculum does for my classes, in Rhetorical Devices (a linguistic tool that employs a particular type of sentence structure, sound, or pattern of meaning in order to evoke a particular reaction from an audience. – ThoughtCo), Logical Fallacies (an argument that may sound convincing or true but is actually flawed, leading to an unsupported conclusion. – Scribbr), cognitive dissonance (the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change. – Oxford Languages), confirmation bias (people’s tendency to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with their existing beliefs. – Britannica), and nonverbal language (the act of conveying information without the use of words. Nonverbal communication occurs through facial expressions, gestures, body language, tone of voice, and other physical indications of mood, attitude, approbation, and so forth, some of which may require knowledge of the culture or subculture to understand. – APA Dictionary of Psychology).
In my Comp II classes, the first week begins with a biography of my life and some unique things about me. Then, I have the students tell something unique about themselves. Each one shares. After this sharing time, I stress how different we all are – and that our upbringings, our cultures, and our experiences shape our beliefs and values, and that none of us has had the same set of those – and because of this we will see the world through different eyes. I talk about how that should be exciting to us … It should entice us to talk to one another in an effort to understand the WHY behind beliefs and ideas, thus giving us an opportunity to learn and to grow and strengthen our own ideas. Then, I address how, unfortunately, we, the citizens of this spinning globe, gravitate only toward those whose thinking is similar to our own, and we are comfortable deciding that any person who has a different set of values or beliefs is wrong – and, in the case of the social media post on a colleague’s page – those with differing ideas should die off – seeing as only people who look like us and think like us could in any way be “good.” I tell my classes that we will rise above the emotion-based dramatic nature of ‘cancel’ culture (the practice or tendency of engaging in mass canceling as a way of expressing disapproval and exerting social pressure – Merriam-Webster), and we will remember that we are all different in beautiful ways, and it is a good thing that we see life from opposing perspectives and that we have the opportunity to look at life with a broader understanding of how small each of us is in the scheme of things, to know that there are bigger things than us at play in this world. In truth, we need each other. We need different ideas and perspectives if we want to … well, that starts me down another conversation, which I choose to reserve for another post.
In my classes, after the groundwork is laid for how to participate in true arguments and be critical thinkers, we discuss how being open to the ideas of others and being able to incorporate opposing perspectives into our arguments pushes us to understand where someone else is coming from, and how it also forces you to understand your own beliefs and WHY you hold the viewpoints that you do. Are your ideas based on assumptions, biases, and/or logical fallacy? Are they because your Momma and Daddy taught you to believe that way? Are they because CNN or FOX told you to believe it? Did you pick those ideas up at your church? Watching a TV preacher? Did your college professor fill your head with those ideas? Or do you have true facts, indisputable and verifiable from trustworthy sources – drawn from research that you yourself have conducted and weighed with logic and common sense sans emotional reactions? Where do the ‘facts’ come from? What are the motivations or beliefs of the sharers of those ‘facts’? Do not just believe what you read and what you are told. Deep dive into information on which you feel compelled to assert an opinion. On a consistent basis, I tell my students to listen in class but not to 100% take my word for it on multiple subjects. I tell them to research the information for themselves. Know why you believe what you believe. Know it.
Recently, a student questioned (outside of class) the source of some statistical data regarding a topic I shared in class. Information I shared with a desire for the students to apply critical thought to the matter – to look up information for themselves. The student wanted to use my information, though, for a research paper in another course. My source for that particular data was one I felt certain another professor might disregard due to political affiliation, so I dug in and assisted the student in locating information in that same vein from a Yale University-based study, which would be a more acceptable source of statistical data for a paper in that professor’s course – being that it was an Academic resource, not a news media source. Be willing to dive beyond depths of comfort and like-minded resources in making an argument. Using data from sources that the opposing perspective will trust or the ‘reader’ will trust is essential. In order to accomplish this, it is incumbent on the arguer to take time with research and knowledge. Think. Know why you believe what you believe and be able to back it up. I digress …
We are able, in class, to discuss topics like racism, consent, and politics because we establish uniqueness and common ground before stepping into ‘arguments.’ We research and bring information to the table, and we hold discussions in the classroom and in discussion threads online – maintaining respect for one another in the midst of disagreement and diversity. I insist on this – and by taking the time to lay the groundwork – this happens on a consistent basis. Most of the time, eyes open, new ideas form, and students find themselves growing in unexpected ways. If I can lead them toward critical thinking – using the rhetorical devices logos and ethos above pathos (Logos appeals to the audience’s reason, building up logical arguments. Ethos appeals to the speaker’s status or authority, making the audience more likely to trust them. Pathos appeals to the emotions, trying to make the audience feel angry or sympathetic – Scribbr) – then I accomplish a worthy feat. Pathos is important, but it is deceiving and manipulative if we get the prettified use of it in ‘argument’ in politics, religion, sales, and law … logical fallacies, cognitive dissonance, and confirmation bias abound.
Every semester, I tell stories. Lots of stories. My life is a playbook of lessons for others in the realms of critical thinking and communication skills. How not to do this. How not to do that. This is what happened when. You know, life events that brought me to this passionate space regarding communication and argument and seeking truth in a sea of serpents and chaotic drama. One particular story I tell every time I discuss the definition of argument and one of its foundational steps is about my daughters, who at this time are 26 and 24. This event occurred 10 years ago when they were 16 and 14, teenagers who knew more than me. Insert a smirk.
It was a sunny day … how’s that for a beginning? I do not remember if it was a sunny day, but I was cooking dinner. In my space, the kitchen. My domain where I stood most days fixing dinner for my family. The 16 and 14-year-old daughters-o-mine enter the kitchen, bringing their fight with them. We will not use the word argument, because this was in no way a true argument. It was emotion-packed – angry and self-seeking – and neither girl was listening (different from hearing – “In their definitions alone, it’s clear to see the big difference between the two. Listening requires attention, meaning it’s active. Hearing is passive — you can’t close your ears, so sounds will enter and be heard. This makes it involuntary.” – University of the People) to a word the other actually said.
“Mom, she ….”
“Mom, she …”
Back and forth they went, both trying to score Mom’s approval – to win the fight. My focus was on dinner, not on their inability to communicate with one another on a semi-rational level, and their mess of need for winning caused my concentration on the task in front of me which included chicken and seasonings to get off track. I turned around, spice jar in hand, and in a calm voice said, “That’s it. You’re neither one loving your neighbor as yourself.” I stared at them. Looking at one and then the other.
Silence. They looked at me. They looked at each other.
The fight was over … they had common ground.
Mom is crazy.
They left the kitchen, no longer fighting, and I returned to making their dinner. Sheesh, people.
Common ground (a foundation of common interest or comprehension, as in a social relationship or a discussion. – Dictionary.com). It is a beautiful place to be, and we only get there by listening to the perspective of others, asking great questions like WHY, and drawing conclusions rooted in commonalities and solutions. Another way to put this is to treat others the way you want to be treated. Am I right? You want others to listen to you and to consider your thoughts, ideas, and opinions. So, likewise, listen to theirs. It’s not complicated.
I write this with the hope that one person will stop and think about the Why as they walk through their day encountering differing perspectives. Ideally, a movement of people who think for themselves would be fantastic … alas, this world and the status of it does not give me that much hope. Always at war. Here or there. Always fighting. Pointing fingers. Selfishness. Narcissism. Me, me, me, me. Dehumanization. Not seeing the value in others beyond being stepping stones to our own desires. You know … the “good” people getting on with their lives.
It won’t stop me, though. I will be an advocate for true argument, for critical thought, for considering the “Why,” for asking questions, for great conversations, for … peace.
I do not push my own politics on students. I strive to teach them to THINK FOR THEMSELVES because I do not want any of them to be sheeple (people who copy what other people do or believe what they are told and do not think for themselves. Sheeple is a combination of the words sheep and people. – Cambridge Dictionary). I have to do this, must do this, because there are those in my career field who preach the exact opposite from their podiums. They embrace cancel culture and indoctrination of masses of students into their own political ideologies. They say things like, “They should all be shot in the head so that the good people can get on with their lives.” Not only them but the news media, politicians, and some preachers are all set on telling people what to believe, and they do it in ways they know people will not question. CNN reported it; it must be true. FOX showed a picture of the breaking scene; it must be accurate. To this, I sigh, and I share here a quote I have in my Comp II syllabus. The portion in blue is what my syllabus holds, but the entire quote is appropriate to this discussion. Too often, “we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.” ~ JFK
“The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie–deliberate, contrived, and dishonest–but the myth–persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.” – John F. Kennedy – Commencement Address at Yale University, June 11, 1962
It’s a battle worth fighting.