Project 313 – Post No. 115

A perusal of Facebook and Twitter had me notice something disturbing.

Disturbing because it’s ubiquitously present despite my limited exposure to either platform and disturbing for what it says about people; it simultaneously says people are not very astute and are also looking not to understand but to denigrate.

I’m talking about links to “Someone destroys Someone” videos. 

Say you are deeply religious and want to avoid the intellectual challenge presented by someone critical of religion. Well then, you might be inclined to click on a video titled “Ken Ham destroys Sam Harris” . . . the implication being that Sam Harris’s best arguments are conclusively and summarily demolished by Ken Ham’s deep insight and knowledge of one of the 5,357 interpretations of the Bible.  

Don’t worry if you don’t know who those people are; substitute any two people of opposite opinions. For example, Ann Coulter and Rachel Maddow, Charles Schumer and Mitch McConnel, President Trump and just about anyone with half a brain, Nancy Pelosi and anyone who’s halfway in touch with reality.

I could go on, but you get the idea. If you are naive, an ideologue, or have no independent thoughts, you might be tempted to click on those links (there are plenty for each party, each contentious issue, and for just about anything that can be simplified for non-thinkers). But, for the rest of you, here’s what you’ll find if you click on those links . . . 

. . . nothing; no substance whatsoever. Those clips are there to serve one of very few purposes. . . indoctrinate one’s followers, satisfy the beliefs of non-critical thinkers, generate income through amassing views (clicks), or just regurgitate incomplete and often faulty arguments devoid of any critical thinking.

Often, because I can see the associate still photo (typically, of a debate or news clip), I’m already familiar with the source material and I know, not merely suspect, there is no “destroying” going on by either side. The clips have been edited to make one side look better than the other, and that’s only if you agree with that side to begin with. 

That’s because most debates of any importance deal with complex issues that have no clear answers or even clear positions and any hope for resolution depends on compromise.

Here’s who typically clicks on those . . . if you hold to a dogmatic belief about something, you’ll likely to click one of these offerings because deep down you suspect that perhaps, just perhaps, you and your views are full of crap. You thus click on those links to get “good” arguments against detractors to your views or you click on those links to hear “good” arguments in support of your views. 

What you should be doing — instead of clicking on those links — is seek to understand the particular issue and why smart people — people not you — hold differing opinions. 

Here’s a suggestion; instead of looking at a two minutes clip, seek out the original material; seek out discussions on the subject, seek out people who support your views but also recognize the weakness of the position while trying to arrive at some sort of consensus with the opposition. Support those people because they are the only hope for progress.

But, if you come across a link titled “plumber dismantles Trump’s crap” . . . well, OK; that one is probably worth one click.

And now, the photo:

Project 313 115

I wrote the above but I know full well that it’s a bit like talking to a lava wall . . . even if it’s a pretty one, it’s still a wall. 

The funny thing is, I’m often not arguing a particular side per se; rather, I’m trying to get one side to even acknowledge there are parts of the opposing arguments that have some validity. 

Sometimes, it comes down to the two sides not agreeing on the basic definition of words or, if agreeing on the definition, on how those words should be applied.

More often than not, what sounds like a wall is something else . . . loyalty to your group. No matter what — and because your group demands it — there’s just no way you’ll agree or even listen to opposing views with an open mind. 

Doing so might anger your group and get you cast out of social and professional networks, often with substantial personal and economic consequences. 

Really, we’ve entered an era where totalitarianism is practiced by both sides of the social, economic, and political divide and no matter who gains temporary power, we find ourselves in a totalitarian regime. 

Honest, it’s best to be like the geckos in the corners and keep a low profile . . . Gecko Hunting Party Testing Effectiveness of Stealth Technology.

Gecko Hunting Party Testing Effectiveness of Stealth Technology

And . . . that’s it

Some of these posts will likely be longer as the mood hits me, but most will be thus; short, uninteresting, bland, and relentless.

You can read about Project 313 HERE.

That’s it. This post has ended . . . except for the stuff below.


Note: if you are not reading this blog post at, know that it has been copied without permission, and likely is being used by someone with nefarious intention, like attracting you to a malware-infested website.  Could be they also torture small mammals.


If you’re new to this blog, it might be a good idea to read the FAQ page. If you’re considering subscribing to this blog, it’s definitively a good idea to read both the About page and the FAQ page.

About disperser

Odd guy with odd views living an odd life during odd times.
This entry was posted in Project 313 and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Project 313 – Post No. 115

  1. Not only on the facebook and twitter pages.
    The other day I made a comment on a post, some bloke who wrote a religious song, Amazing Grace had apparently been inducted into the “Hymn Writers Hall Of Fame”. I’ve never come across anything so damned ludicrous, so I left a comment asking who nominated and approved this bloke, was it JC.
    I won’t bother you with the blasts, I received as you can no doubt guess the general theme.


    • disperser says:

      The trend in viperous comments abandoning all civility is not new. It’s a problem all sites with any exposure face both in part because they do a poor job of policing the comments and also because the current trend is to viciously attack rather than engage.

      That said, you probably knew you were jabbing at the equivalent of a hornet’s nest. As much fun as it might seem on the onset, it inevitably and quickly loses its appeal.


  2. Right on! And that IS disturbing!

    As you know, I don’t Twitter, Facebook, etc., I only WordPress.

    Oh! Did the plumber flush the T-Crap, too!?

    PHOTO: Beautiful colors, textures, dreamy-look!
    CARTOON: Oh, yeah!
    DOODLE: Great doodle! The Geckos are always winners!

    HUGS!!! :-)
    PS…I’ve never fit into any group, nor did I ever feel like I fit into any group. Which has been fine with me. And labels…ack. Oh, well, I could drone on about all of this, but I won’t.


    • disperser says:

      I have accounts and insomuch that someone leaves me a comment or tags me directly (very rare) I may go onto those sites. I also go there to promote the blog, but these days it’s mostly automatic (although, no longer for Facebook).

      And that’s what surprising; I’m not on there all that often and I still notice it.

      YouTube is another place (I’m on YouTube a fair amount because of music and debates) and I never fail to find “Destry” videos in my feed (thank you, Google).

      Anyway, thank you, Carolyn and as for labels:

      I looked up the couple I mentioned . . . hard to tell how they’re doing.

      Liked by 1 person

Voice your opinion

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.