Among all of my friends on Facebook, including family, friends, and even a few professors, I constantly come across multiple accounts of what is known as equivocation. Equivocation can be described as using a word in two different senses, but concealing these differences for rhetorical effect in most cases. To be clear, equivocation is negative when evaluating an argument. Of all the cases I see, the most actually tend to come from some of my most liberal friends, rather than the established conservatives that flesh out my friend list; I hope this is more the result of my own friends’ form of political activism, but if this trend among liberal youths is indicative of young liberals as a whole, I worry. My point is that in general, we are not making good arguments when it comes to things we find foundational.
The first example I reference is a post I saw shared by several of my friends at some point in the past month or so, concerning parental reactions to transgender children. The post’s content and message are paraphrased as follows: “I hate it when parents say they don’t care about the gender of the baby, just that they want it to be healthy, and then later on don’t accept when it comes out as transgender.” The first time I saw this, I thought, “Wow, that actually makes a lot of sense.” But then I thought on it further, and realized the post was equivocating. What parents actually mean when they are having a baby is that they do not care about the baby’s biological sex, rather than its gender identity. In modern English linguistics, the terms “sex” and “gender” are used interchangeably even though they are not the same thing. The argument this image makes is effective, but it is not the best argument that can be made concerning how parents ought to treat their children. Because the argument equivocates on “gender,” it loses much of its argumentative gravitas. Also, I am confident I am not the only person who noticed this, and others may be harsher.
The second example I bring forth involves arguably the most controversial of all modern biomedical issues: abortion, specifically the stratification into pro-choice and pro-life oppositions. As stated, my liberal friends like to share about liberal topics, and one such share was a supposed quote by a nun. While I did fervently search for this image in writing this editorial, I remember its content, and can paraphrase its meaning as well: “I don’t understand how republicans can call themselves “pro-life” when they oppose public education and social welfare programs.” This was another time where my gut reaction was happy, and emphatic. Once again, however, I found the post equivocated, and in a poor sense: the post seemed to call out republicans on inconsistency in their approach to human life; however, there is an equivocation on “life.” The sense in which republicans are pro-life ends after the argument that they are anti-abortion: “life” is much more than simply birth, and therefore can be used in different senses. So, republicans are anti-abortion (pro-life), but not necessarily pro- public-education, -social welfare programs. Then, if we are to critique this position, it must be critiqued not under the blanket of “pro-life,” but for what it is: two separate parts of the republican platform as we see it today.
I see these posts on a daily basis; they work their way in between posts about how all of us need to drop everything and support Bernie Sanders, or amid posts about how “we don’t need another Bush in the White House." I cannot express the level of contempt I now hold for these posts, all three types. The posts about Sanders use fanciful language and well framed quotes/images that honestly could convince many youths to vote for him, but without making any real argument as to “why.” The posts against Jeb Bush are characterized by saying “his brother ruined the country, and since they’re brothers, and their dad was also President, we shouldn’t elect him.” This infuriates me because it is not the right way to look at him as a candidate. If you don’t think Jeb Bush should be chosen as the republican nominee, that’s fine, but only as long as you don’t agree with his positions; to pre-judge him just because of a familial relation is unfair. The focus needs to be on the argument. If you want Bernie Sanders to win the democratic nomination for President, that’s also fine, but you need to make the best argument as to why.
This goes back to my original concept of equivocation: it weakens an argument, and I see it happening so much. As stated above, so many people are blindly sharing posts because it is far easier to click “share” than it is to really think about what is being said. It is reprehensible to keep sharing things like this without really thinking about it, and evaluating if it is the best form of the argument. If a post equivocates, it ought not be shared. If a post says we ought to do something, but gives no sufficient reason, it ought not be done simply because it is and the post should not be shared. I identified this issue with young liberals, my friends on Facebook. Facebook provides a medium for everyone to have a voice, and posts can be shared endlessly; the flow of information is not checked by any type of evaluation besides the moments it takes to share the post. Many of the posts I see for Bernie Sanders are not put out by the actual campaign. The images I see concerning the pro-life argument aren’t created by the news media, or Public Relations professionals in N.O.W. They are made by us, the youth, though I tend to separate myself from this group, admittedly because I tend to sit back and critique such posts. So, my issue is not with the political cause; I take issue with the method of delivery—form and presentation matter. They matter a lot. In our fight for justice we are blinded by justice. Young liberals are not making the right arguments. They are not making the best arguments. And I’m very disappointed.
