Memes, Videos and other Bad Arguments - A tale of Facebook

In today's world you rarely see an argument. I am referring to logical, well stated arguments with logically sound and valid premises and conclusions. Let me restate that. You do not see such arguments in Facebook, a place where many today congregate, get their news, and form their opinions. Rarely on Facebook, does one see an argument. You do not encounter valid and sound premises and conclusions on Facebook. Yet, it is for many the closest they come to engaging in any type of political discourse. I myself find it addicting. I am intrigued with it, despite its issues. It is with that, with people's reliance upon it, and my own habit in mind that I inquire here.

A cat meme. . . in case you needed to know.

So on Facebook. regardless of whether you agree or disagree with someone, whether you feel strongly about a position or not, you typically assert what you believe in one of two ways. You assert the idea or belief with either a meme, or a video. Neither is particularly satisfying. They work wonderfully perhaps for cats and wildlife, but neither leads to a conversation or a discussion. Such props rarely lead to an analysis of premises and conclusions, of positions and the ideas behind them. Such things are not the intent of memes and videos in the first place.

A political meme. . . 

The meme is today's version of a bumper sticker. Unlike a bumper sticker, however, you only encounter a meme for some limited time. The bumper sticker is on the cars in front of you, which you see at the same traffic lights every day, perhaps over a period of weeks, months, even years on those same cars. You might react to a bumper sticker initially, but then you see it again and again and again. It fades over time. With the meme you do not have such time to digest and respond. You simply react to what is on your screen but luckily it is gone soon enough. Often you only see a meme once. If it is really good, really effective, it might linger for a little bit. The effective ones provoke. All are typically short one sentence rhetorical statements, usually with an image behind the text. Together, that image and statement grab your attention. The best of them might make you pause and think, but basically they cause a reaction. Either you will strongly agree or you will strongly disagree with a meme. And those that do not cause such a reaction are failures.

The classic "My child is an Honor Roll Student. . ."

The successful meme causes the viewer to respond either affirmatively or negatively to it. It causes one to react contingent to the beliefs and values the viewer holds. It is, if it works, a litmus test betraying one's positions, one's values. Again, the goal of a good meme is to provoke a strong reaction. What that reaction is. . . is contingent upon who the viewer is.

A sample of a piece of graffiti / gang identifier,
according to the link provided, this is the Latin Kings

It is hard to engage a meme. You are either for it or against it. The typical response is a "like" of some sort. It might make you laugh or you just give it a thumbs up. These are responses of those who are sympathetic to it. You do not, however, ask a question of a meme. No one asks,"What does this mean?" or "What are you talking about?" regarding a meme. It is not done. If you ask such things, you are not really asking anything, you are challenging the meme and those who posted it. And your 'question' is responded to with mockery. It is almost like a gang identifier, warning all that this space belongs to a certain group or gang, but like a gang identifier it dares you to challenge it. Remember, the meme causes a reaction, a response, positive or negative.

In short, such questions neither deserve nor need a response. The questioner is perceived as someone who does not get it, as perhaps clueless. The questioner is not seen as trying to understand the mime, but actually attempting to challenge it. He or she is in some small way a threat. Again, you are really not asking a question, you are challenging the meme, and those who posted it. It is as simple as that.

Following the cat meme is the animal and wildlife video!

Videos, which are also shared on Facebook, do offer more substantial opinions, perspectives. They can run for five, ten minutes. Nothing too long, but enough to sway a person's opinion. They do in a way offer arguments and one is perhaps better able to challenge them. Granted you cannot argue with the video, but it is easier to post a response challenging the points made in the video. How the poster responds may vary but it is easier to engage a video as opposed to a meme. Even with that, it is typically folks in agreement liking it, and with shared positions that you typically see in the comments. Whether it be cats or politics typically the comments found under such are largely in agreement. In most cases, the people posting share much more than just memes and videos.

In general though, videos are more accessible to dialogue. They can be a starting point for a conversation, unless they deceive. Unless they simply provoke. Ideally you want both, a set of facts presented coherently and effectively. The ideal is to sway both emotively and intellectually. On Facebook that ideal is rarely achieved. Rather what we have are videos that only push a position by causing a response. They, like memes, work by provocation.

And just as with memes there are various images and themes that will provoke responses. There can be an appearance of reasoned argument, but not. They can lay out an argument or they can appear to be such, but not. Videos can deceive and distract, just as a magician does, replacing the elephant with an empty box. Videos can have the appearance of reason but actually persuade with distraction and deception. And such videos lead no where. They misinform and actually do no service to those who believe them and take them as true, as valuable.

One of the worst offenders I have encountered regarding such videos is immigration author and journalist Roy Beck's colorful gumball immigration video, "Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs - NumbersUSA.com". I have encountered this making rounds routinely and it seems to have been made back in 1996.

The basic gist of this video is that the US is bringing in a million immigrants a year with the intent of eliminating poverty in the world. He points out that the US will never achieve its goal - there are just too many people in poverty in the world. Therefore we should abandon our policy of bringing in such immigrants. He presents some impressive numbers based upon United Nations / World Bank data. Further, he stands there on his stage with multiple jars of gumballs. Each gumball representing a million immigrants. You see before you in those gumballs the scale of the problem. Poverty truly is a global problem. Further, the US attempt to solve the problem a gumball at a time, considering all the jars and all the gumballs he has there, is absurd. It cannot be done. 

Not only does he point out the basic problem with such an approach, he points out that this is not good for the US, nor the countries and regions these people originate from. Such a policy, he points out stresses the US's infrastructure and and takes money that could be better spent on its own citizens. Likewise, he points out that this does not help the regions that are struggling with poverty. The US is in fact taking their best people, leaving these regions without the very talent and human capital that could help pull them out of such a dire reality. 

The last argument might actually have some merit to it. Maybe the US is stealing the best and brightest. That said, the basic argument being offered here is false. No one in the US is encouraging immigration as a way of eliminating world poverty. No one in or out of government is suggesting that bringing millions of immigrants to the US will help those who remain behind in their homelands, It will not help the hundreds of millions who continue to struggle with the challenges of poverty. 

In short, the eloquence of his stage and his presentation, the research done to substantiate his claims, are all there. Not only the preparation and the stage, but the gumballs, and the jars, and the bourbon sniffer that he stands there spinning that lone gumball in as he makes his points. All are all very impressive. That said, none of it takes away from the point that he is arguing against a position that no one has asserted. 

His argument against immigration is valid if and only if his first premise is true: That the US Government has adopted an immigration policy with the intent of eliminating world poverty. That premise is false, and with that the rest is worthless. The stage, the gumballs, the numbers, all are for nothing. 

It is a common fallacy, a type of invalid and unsound argument. The above is an example of a straw man argument. In short, the argument is false as the first premise, which is typically what is being challenged, does not accurately represent what is being argued against. Mr Beck and his team have created a "straw man", versus an actual position regarding immigration and why the US desires to bring in a certain number of immigrants each year.

Another video that caught my attention is one the NRA recently released. Originally on NRATV on July 1st, I found it too making the rounds on Facebook. Basically it is an agitated speaker, a commentator,  Grant Stinchfield responding to the "violent left’s meltdown" over Dana Loesch’s recent NRA advertisement, another video that recently made the rounds. 

 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgMRP4KOALw )

I will only comment on Grant's video, which I encountered last week. It was last Friday and it did effect me. When I listened to it, I was just taken aback. I had heard about earlier NRATV videos and all, but never listened to them. Here is this man against a black backdrop. It is just him. He is near hysterical. He is in a rage. And he makes all these bizarre claims. He is challenging the violent left. The shooting of Steven Scalise at that Republican Baseball practice is referenced. Kelly Griffin with her head is shown. After maybe a minute, maybe, I have had enough. He is too intense. It is his tone, his pace.

I went back to the post and asked who is this guy and what is he talking about? The poster of the video went back and forth with me for a while. Another person on the post took over after awhile and responded to my queries. This went on the rest of that afternoon and continued on into Saturday. We stopped Saturday afternoon. He got tired of me trying to make sense . I thank him for his patience with me but again, I was just trying to understand. What was the point of all this?

Friday night I arrived at the conclusion that this video was not really intended to communicate but to divide. I still believe this. I suggested that ultimately it is a way to justify ignoring half of America. It exaggerated the actions of a few and and then suggested that those who are Democrats, who are liberals, etc. were somehow responsible for these actions. He suggest that if they are not responsible for these actions then at the least they are complicit in them. Again, it seems like an argument for ignoring such a group. It would be appropriate if true. Interestingly. we are talking about more than 100 million people who would probably consider themselves liberals, Democrats, members of the left, or at least agree that they hold some those political views.

The violent acts we are talking about range from the recent shooting at the Republican baseball practice in VA, where Steve Scalise, the House whip, was shot, to Kelly Griffin with her gory head. We are talking of Snoop Dogg in a video of him shooting a clown which looks like the President. There are references to the violent protests in Berkeley and other similar incidents, which were occurring earlier this year. Again, these are unfortunate events, some tragic, others simply in bad taste. They really say little regarding the 100 million plus people who voted for Hillary Clinton and again who have certain beliefs regarding the government and its proper role in our country.

In writing this essay, I went back to the video on YouTube. I have to say YouTube is amazing. I did not really want to listen and re-listen to this video. YouTube provides a transcript as one of the options! If you read the transcript you quickly realize this is another straw-man argument of sorts. This video is not a challenge to liberals, it is a challenge to the violent left, whoever they are. This guy is in fact after them.

That said, he does provide some hints as to who the violent left is. He points to a "Cammalleri" who wrote a letter to the NRA protesting that prior video. I imagine it is not Michael Cammalleri of the LA Kings, despite the YouTube transcription. Probably Carmen Perez, one of the co-founders of the Women's March, which is also referenced by the speaker.

He goes on to reference Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom of CA, a prior mayor of San Francisco and according to his Wikipedia page exploring a run for the CA Governorship. He then points to DeRay Mckesson, a civil rights activist and member of the Black Lives Matter movement. He asserts that Mckesson is responsible for property damage to more than 850 businesses and injured more than one hundred law enforcement officers. This is an especially serious charge, which is quickly stated and then moved from. He goes on to mention Chris Murphy, junior Senator from Connecticut, and Michael Bloomberg.

So he is pointing to democrats and liberals. He is asserting that Michael Bloomberg, Gavin Newsom, DeRay Mckesson, and Carmen Perez are responsible for these violent shootings, riots and Cathy Griffin's video.  The left has indeed become the violent left. What we have here is an "ad hominem" argument. It is an argument, which is directed against the person or persons rather than the position they hold. None of the people he lists, Bloomberg, Newsom, or Mckesson are guilty of any of these crimes. None have been charged in relation to any of these events nor are such charges forthcoming. He is associating people he disagrees with politically with violent often tragic crimes. And with that association they do become irrelevant. They can now be ignored. That is the intent.

Two other points to be made here in relation to this video. The first regards the use of such events as the shooting of Steven Scalise to brand those on the left as violent. This involves not only flawed logic, it is disrespectful to those who were shot, the victims. It is to use them and these events cheaply. It is to disregard the real causes of that shooting, an apparently lone frustrated man who saw something of value in such a shooting. And the second point is that this video diminishes the tragedy or seriousness of such shootings as he list such events with the silliness of Cathy Griffin and Snoop Dogg.

Let me end this with this. The memes I started with, the two videos I explored; none want you to engage. They want to end conversation. In each, the conclusion they offer is that there is no need for conversation, the answers are obvious. The meme, the modern day bumper sticker, the internet's version of graffiti or street gang identifier, just demands your thumbs up. The videos have you believe that immigration is a failed impossible policy, and that we must defend ourselves and our liberties from the violent left. Both are patently false. All are typical of what can be found on Facebook. Each involves a certain thoughtlessness, a disregard for logic, an embrace of sentiment, and a nasty aftertaste.