Labelling: Not A Valid Counterargument

Scoffing and muttering, “Racist,” does not invalidate the words of the messenger. Observing that African Americans represent the majority in American prisons isn’t racist just as observing the abnormally large population of Ashkenazi Jews in show business isn’t antisemitic. Unfortunately, this rebuttal appears to work on people, even those who are cognizant of logical fallacies. Although knowledge of logical fallacies is incredibly useful, it’s not absolutely necessary. We don’t need college degrees to spot illogical arguments. We don’t even need to be familiar with the words ad hominem to deduce that insulting the messenger does not discredit the message. Even charging the messenger with jealousy is a poor attempt at disproving his or her claims. While simultaneously boosting the indicters’ egos, this overworn tactic, used by the upper class, gains no legitimate traction in an argument. Regardless of that fact, what have we become? We settle debates by sniveling, moaning, and shrieking, “You’re just jealous!” or “You’re an antisemite!” Is it antisemitic to point out that Israel has a history of spying on America and that Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, knew that Jonathan Pollard was betraying the United States? Is it antisemitic to make known the fact that Irgun, an Israeli terrorist group, bombed the King David Hotel? Logically speaking, even if the messenger was a jealous bigot, truth can still spring forth from his or her mouth. Labeling the truth tellers to silence and bully them demonstrates that the powerful have closed the topic from an open and honest discussion.

In fact, in certain places outside the United States, freedom of speech is a lofty ideal and not a right. You’ll have the law crashing down on you if you speak of the Holocaust in an unauthorized fashion. We venture outside the bounds of approved thought, and we’re made targets by the state waiting for an excuse to annihilate us. Is the scenario not revolting? This is a breech of an unalienable right. This abuse of power purposely dissuades us from any honest academic inquiry. Truth doesn’t need this extreme level of protection and when speech is countered with fines, loss of employment, and jail time, deep down we all know what’s coming next. If the former owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, Donald Sterling, couldn’t say what he wanted in the privacy of his own home, what makes us think we could be the exception? The rule by mob, or democracy gone mad, enables the irrational and the self-righteous to seize too much control. The mob, manipulated by the media, was so smugly convinced that Donald Sterling was racist. It’s as if the mob takes comfort in making “racists” responsible for all their shortcomings. They cannot think critically. This makes the mob easy prey for the media. For instance, Barack Obama clearly stated that businesses didn’t build America’s infrastructure; business owners could not make money without the roads, water, sanitation, and energy resources the government provides. The fanatics on the right exclaimed, “Obama hates success!” as Obama simply stated facts. The political right claims to be victimized by the government and the poor on welfare. No better than their opponents, the left claims to be victimized by religious zealots, racists, and sexists.

Thanks to liberals we have hate crimes, which could give government license to execute draconian punishments. Hate crimes are notoriously difficult to prove reliably. This means that we could be punished based on accusation alone, and angry mobs are never short on accusations. Today an accusation of homophobia can put your business in danger. Idealistically, businesses, which aren’t a legal monopoly, should have the right to refuse customers. However, when it comes to Christian bakeries, that’s not the case. Thanks to conservatives we have deregulated businesses that lay waste to communities, the environment, and the economy. Monsanto, the corporation that created Agent Orange, coerces farmers into using their infertile seeds thereby gaining control of the food supply. Michael Taylor, a former Vice President of Monsanto, works for the Food and Drug Administration. Government officials who actually care about the people, if there’s any left, will always be at odds with these corporate shills, but how did the people consent to this disastrous loss of power they once wielded? They gave it up at the first sign of danger. Similar to advertising, simple techniques of persuasion convinced them to want. When the mob ushers in a fascist or communist system, they had previously asked for it, but one crucial problem lies in the fact that the mob never knows what it’s asking for. Liberals hopelessly seek respect from others who don’t approve of their alternative lifestyles. When they don’t get it, they ask the government to step in. Fortunately, withholding respect isn’t against the law, but liberals are unknowingly asking to criminalize it.

As usual, conservatives show equally deplorable behavior. Conservatives hopelessly wish the government would stop stifling free enterprise, but the free market has been dead at least since the Robber Barons sunk their hooks into the United States. We cannot make tons of money if we threaten the power of the ones who own the marketplace. If you strike it rich, it’s because the owners of the marketplace allowed it to happen. Rich business owners cannot admit this to themselves. They’re only tiny specks in the universe just like everyone else. The world doesn’t owe the wealthy any respect or obedience, and the world doesn’t owe the people freedom from the wealthy. Governments aren’t here to shield us from verbal bullying. Corporations aren’t here to make us happy. When the people look to governments for protection and to corporations for happiness, they find neither protection nor happiness. Assuredly, what we do find in people is an innate ability to reason. Anyone can label another as a sexist, a welfare queen, a lazy loser, a rich sociopath, and a bad Christian. Such accusations need support from solid reasoning and a detailed account of actions that live up to the label. In the realm of religion, the era of the blood thirsty, heretic hunting Christian is over. Christians of today realize that killing, more specifically burning people at the stake, without a fair trial is wrong. Now we must be wary of other labels used by fanatics to lambaste each another with. No one should be punished at mere speculation or unfounded accusation. No one should be taken seriously when a label is used in the place of evidence when investigating the truth.