Spring Break
Activist Groups Prey On Emotion, Not Fact
Dan Cunningham
Issue date: 10/2/07 Section: Commentary
Something happened during the 1960s. The mindset of the American people began shifting to a new, dangerous place. This shift was a call to the heartstrings of our people, citing moral rights and wrongs as reasons for policy. It worked too well and today sensationalism is the reigning method of persuasion amongst self-proclaimed human rights activists. Sensationalism is the belief that emotional arguments are all you need to be right. Most of these activists feel that emotional arguments are the only evidence one should need to enact government policy. The most recent example of sensational appeal is the Sept. 20 Jena Six demonstration.
Activists at human rights rallies often have only two goals in mind. The first is to convince people that there is widespread abuse somewhere. The next is to pin anyone questioning it as ignorant or racist. The first part is fine, but to attack people rather than their arguments is wrong.
Sensationalism inevitably polarizes groups of people and closes the door on evidence-based debate. It leads to people shouting their values to assess a complicated situation. This mentality undermines the value of research and encourages emotional responses to everything. These activists would forgo the scientific method just because it would uncover evidence that situations are not as black and white as they appear.
I'm not an unreasonable person. I don't make crazy assertions or operate purely on emotion. In fact, I actually demand some evidence before taking a side. Indeed, there is often scant evidence to back a sensationalist's argument. Yet, no matter how clearly conclusions are presented or how appropriately arguments are described, there will be a group of closed-minded activists who will misrepresent the conclusion, recite their own and perform character attacks. These people will shut out other data so they may maintain their delusional view of the world.
In the 1960s, severe welfare reform took place. This was based off the sensational premise that the poor existed because of the economic system in place kept them poor. The majority of people beneath the poverty line were also minorities. Welfare restrictions were dramatically reduced, single mothers began to be paid per child for 18 years. Mothers could even earn welfare when there was a working man in the house. These benefits primarily affected blacks because the proportion of them in poverty was far higher than whites. People supported these reforms because it was the right thing to do.
Activists at human rights rallies often have only two goals in mind. The first is to convince people that there is widespread abuse somewhere. The next is to pin anyone questioning it as ignorant or racist. The first part is fine, but to attack people rather than their arguments is wrong.
Sensationalism inevitably polarizes groups of people and closes the door on evidence-based debate. It leads to people shouting their values to assess a complicated situation. This mentality undermines the value of research and encourages emotional responses to everything. These activists would forgo the scientific method just because it would uncover evidence that situations are not as black and white as they appear.
I'm not an unreasonable person. I don't make crazy assertions or operate purely on emotion. In fact, I actually demand some evidence before taking a side. Indeed, there is often scant evidence to back a sensationalist's argument. Yet, no matter how clearly conclusions are presented or how appropriately arguments are described, there will be a group of closed-minded activists who will misrepresent the conclusion, recite their own and perform character attacks. These people will shut out other data so they may maintain their delusional view of the world.
In the 1960s, severe welfare reform took place. This was based off the sensational premise that the poor existed because of the economic system in place kept them poor. The majority of people beneath the poverty line were also minorities. Welfare restrictions were dramatically reduced, single mothers began to be paid per child for 18 years. Mothers could even earn welfare when there was a working man in the house. These benefits primarily affected blacks because the proportion of them in poverty was far higher than whites. People supported these reforms because it was the right thing to do.
Viewing Comments 1 - 4 of 5
wow
posted 10/02/07 @ 8:29 AM EST
wow. your little paragraph on the welfare system was very poorly researched, or probably not at all... way to base your "facts" on stereotypes and your personal feelings and emotions. (Continued…)
JerryC
posted 10/02/07 @ 11:56 AM EST
"Losing Ground" by Charles Murray, now there is quite a biased source. He is the author of the racist book "The Bell Curve". "The Bell Curve" argues that minorities are racially inferior and, therefore, government money should not be spent on them. (Continued…)
thank you
posted 10/02/07 @ 1:24 PM EST
you're my hero. to be able to say what you truly believe is admirable. case in point - i whole heartedly agree with everything you've said in this article and regarding jena 6, but i'm too much of a coward to attach my name to this comment. (Continued…)
I AM BLACK AND DISAGREE
posted 10/15/07 @ 2:14 PM EST
I imaginr that you are upset that people are making unimformed decisions or opinions about the Jena 6 controversy, but you have mistakenly taken it too far to include the activism of earlier times. (Continued…)
Post a Comment