In addition to all the anger and hostility, the dominating YouTube Progressive commentators seem to enjoy tossing in an unhealthy dose of name-calling and ad-hominem attacks. These tactics do wonders to undermine not just the credibility of their arguments, but the credibility of their overall platform.
While I personally do not identify as “progressive,” I appreciate and recognize the value in the information provided in their broadcastings. I run into problems, when I want to share an episode with someone else. I always end up in an internal debate as to whether I believe the person I share the episode with can or will look past the commentator’s juvenile behavior long enough to reach the substantive part of the message. Ultimately, I have determined that for most of the commentators the answer is no, unless the person already has similar opinions. Everyone else has had too great of difficultly enduring the toxicity to reach the substance.
By frequently resorting to derogatory terms like “snowflake” or using one of a million ways to say “stupid” in order to describe their opponents, he or she is either attempting to create a sense of solidarity among like-minded individuals or is incapable of processing frustration constructively. While some forms of these verbal attacks may be intended as satire, the prevalence and often unsophisticated nature deployment harms the overall movement. The attacks jeopardize the ability of progressivism to advance and gain support. In the political sphere, goodwill is never to be wasted and I find it difficult to find name-calling anything more than a waste with ad-hominem being the most artless form of waste. Time is another resource not to be wasted. When an individual is willing to donate his time to listen to the platform of another, the investment should be taken for granted. The adage, “You never get a second chance to make a first impression,” comes to mind.
Studies in political communication suggest that aggressive rhetoric can lead to increased polarization and a breakdown in civil discourse. As this approach energizes its base, it entrenches divisions. Bipartisan dialogue and cooperation become more difficult. In the end, progress on shared goals slows or stalls. The entrenchment of divisions ultimately stifles the possibility of finding common ground or achieving bipartisan solutions to pressing issues.
Progressive activists have a reputation of being both intolerant and elitist. Their personal attacks demote any valid criticism to mere partisan bickering. Giving license to their opponents to dismiss their arguments without engaging with the substance. As stated earlier this mistake is merely tactical. When the opposing side uses one of these attacks as a mechanism to invalidate the commentator’s argument, it does damage to the entire platform by identifying the fault in the emissary that seems to be present in more than the majority of progressive commentators. I identify this as a strategic mistake because the mistakes are not just costing the commentators the battles, they are costing them the war.
► Citizen Mooney
