Let’s Not Willfully Misrepresent Our Opponents

Last updated on: November 26, 2013 at 4:54 pm by Libby Anne

Let’s Not Willfully Misrepresent Our Opponents 2013-11-26T16:54:29-04:00 Libby Anne

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I’m tired of both the right and the left demonizing their opponents and willfully misunderstanding and misconstruing their arguments. Really. Freaking. Tired.

[Edit: I originally offered several examples here, including one referring to “right-wing filth,” one hypothesizing about whether or not a right-wing politician’s face was “permanently stuck” in a whine, and two comments hypothesizing that pro-lifers would feel “smug satisfaction” if women who cannot afford a pregnancy were to start committing suicide. I have removed the actual text of these examples because the last two comments were drawn from my own comment sections, and while I did not provide links or state who wrote them, I hurt one of the commenters by posting her words in this fashion, and I regret that.]

Our political opponents are human. It’s worth trying to understand our opponents rather than blatantly misrepresenting them or demonizing, mocking, and deriding them. Do we really think our opponents will have any reason to listen to us if we treat them like that? Do we think they will try to understand what we are saying if we don’t even try to understand what they are saying? These sorts of statements aren’t about dialogue or solutions or even creating well-thought-out positions. They’re about fostering the group cohesion of your own side.

I grew up on the other side of the aisle. Those people aren’t what they’re made out to be in blog posts and comments like these. I may have disagree on underlying fundamentals, and I may think them misguided, but I don’t think the vast vast majority of them are in any sense evil or sadistic. I would like to think that there is a way I and they can at least talk and pinpoint where we disagree and where we may find common ground. Oh sure, it’s easy to argue that this isn’t possible because they won’t do it, but that comes across as a lame excuse if we won’t do it either.

On top of all of that, we are more convincing if we grapple with our opponents’ actual beliefs rather than strawmanning them, and if we engage with them rather than dealing in petty insults and silly taunts. Is that really so very much to ask? No one wins in our current state of hyper-polarization. No one.

***Addendum***

After reading criticism in the comments I feel like I wasn’t quite clear enough on a few points. Rather than edit the post content I will add some additional thoughts here. I’m going to leave aside the personal insults bit for the moment (some commenters argued that personal insults can be appropriate, and while I disagree addressing that would be an entire new post). I’m also going to leave aside what our goal is when engaging with our opponents (some commenters said they don’t see the point in trying to convince others, and while I disagree, again, addressing that would be an entire new post). What I do want to address is this issue of misrepresenting our opponents.

My emphasis on understanding is not intended to be an emphasis on agreeing. The Right holds many positions that are harmful, sometimes disastrously or inexcusably so, and that should absolutely be called out. My point was that we should actually understand the other side’s arguments, not that we should reach some form of understanding. What I am saying is that we should attack the actual arguments people are making rather than creating strawmen—things they aren’t actually saying—and then arguing against those. I am not saying we should hold hands and sing kumbaya. I’m saying that we should attack actual positions rather than strawmen we have created of our opponents’ positions.

That bit about no one wins in our current state of hyper-polarization? I didn’t word it quite as I should have, because I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be polarization on issues where there clearly is polarization, etc. What I was trying to say is that no one wins when each side mischaracterizes the other’s positions and imputes false motives to the other side, and that it sometimes appears to be more about group cohesion than anything else. No one wins when each side misrepresents the other side’s position rather than making sure they fully understand it before attacking it.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with disagreeing adamantly and calling out bad ideas or harmful beliefs. I do those things all the time! What I am saying is that I frequently see comments actually misrepresenting what the other side believes. It is true that intent is not magic. But just as we shouldn’t misrepresent someone’s positions, we also shouldn’t misrepresent their intent. Yes, by all means, explain the horrible results of their positions! Again, I do that all the time! That can be incredibly powerful. But there’s a difference between saying “politician X’s positions will result in women’s deaths, let me explain how” and “politician X is a filthbag who would smile in his sleep if women all just offed themselves.” The right side of our political spectrum today has enough positions that cause real and actual harm without our creating fictional ones.

***Addendum #2***

After reading some more of the comments, I need to add a few more things.

First, it is true that I suggested that the two comments on abortion were willfully mischaracterizing pro-lifers when I had no knowledge of their intent and thus shouldn’t have called it willful. I will remember this in the future, because it is true that the fact that I feel something is a mischaracterization does not mean it was intended as a mischaracterization.

Second, many commenters have argued that some of the comments I used as examples merely represented venting, and shouldn’t be seen as intending to be accurate or be held to the standard of, say, a printed article. I am not completely sure how I feel about this, partly because in spaces like blog comments it can be hard to tell the difference between someone who is venting and someone who is perfectly serious. However, I do take the point.

Third, there has been some disagreement on whether the comments on abortion were actual mischaracterizations. I regret using those two as an example simply because whether or not they were mischaracterizations gets away from the point I was trying to make, and also because my using these examples, even without putting a name with it, hurt one of my commenters.

In my experience, those the comments did mischaracterize pro-lifers. Several of the commenters, including the author of one of the two comments I used as an example, have argued that in their experience, the portrayal of pro-lifers was accurate. I don’t know what to make of this entirely because it does conflict with my experience, but it has given me food for thought.

Fourth, I should restate that I do still think that willfully misrepresenting our opponents is a bad idea, and that we should try to make sure we do understand our opponents’ actual positions. That was what I was trying to say in my original post, but I should have said that without using personal examples, and while remembering my first, second, and third point above—that just because something looks like a mischaracterization to me does not mean it was intentional, that sometimes people are merely venting and not trying to make an actual argument and that should be borne in mind when reading their comments, and that what appears to me to be to be a mischaracterization may actually in others experiences be reality.

Politics

Previous Post

November 22, 2013

CTBHHM: Esther and Her Mother

Next Post

November 23, 2013 CTNAHM: Move Away From Your Inlaws---They'll Contaminate Your Wife

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atheism Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism Family Feminism Homeschool Meta Parenting Patriarchy Politics Purity Quiverfull Social Justice Uncategorized Worthwhile reads

Select a Month February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

At Jesus' crucifixion what did the soldiers place on His head?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Crown of Thistles Crown of Jewels Crown of Thorns Crown of Nettles