(Don't) Consider the Source

I've come to (for now) the conclusion that one of the most damaging axioms to meaningful discourse is, "Consider the source." How many of those handy turns of phrase are used to shut something up with a few words or lead us into distraction over evaluation of something external rather than using on a question personally and inwardly? Unless the question at hand is of the nature of climate change or dangers of cigarettes where a source of information or disinformation may well be funded by Big Tobacco or Big Oil and its likely reason to exist is to provide a minority report that can be cited as reasonable doubt in the murder of the planet, we will be in danger of writing long blog sentences like this one. Think of all the people you know and who gets benefit of the doubt because they are on-side and who is disregarded or shouted down because he, she or the famous they uttered a word or idea on the issue at hand or another one entirely with which you disagreed. Think of how many people do love their parents and grandparents but constantly disagree on issues that may be generational or on which a stand may be habitual or on which so much time and commitment and sacrifice has been spent in spreading this belief or living this life that they feel it would be embarrassing to incorporate new information or flip-flop or betray agreements they have signed in order to mollify someone or maintain a connection or funding. How many people will fight to the death over the reputation of their most ancient ancestors whom they have never met but will flatly reject their parents' beliefs, taste in movies, or a business they have built and wish to pass along? "The sins of the father are visited upon the son" may be reportage of the way people do behave, but it is also nonsensical. If I am raised Catholic, does that mean anyone has a fool-proof code key to my psyche and voting habits? If I watch The Walking Dead, am I cool with America's Second Amendment, let alone the paradoxical idea that an a constitution and its amendments should never be amended with the introduction of new and evolving information? If someone is Portuguese should that person feel guilt for ancestors who started slavery? If someone is of the African tribe that aided the Portuguese in betraying and luring and trapping fellow Africans, must that blood be on them? Forgive the rhetorical questions, because after all it is easy to dismiss as rhetoric. Or the Pawnee who are shown in most movies about First Nations people as the "bad guys Indians" -- must their descendants live that down? I say in those cases there is no debt to repay. Does a country - an institution or general banner organization - that has wronged people under a previous administration have to account for that? Yes. Japanese internment camps during World War 2? I don't know if the compensation is timely enough to help anyone involved or if there could be reparations for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki considering the current understanding we get from Oliver Stone's recent series on hidden history (namely that Russians had already settled any threat of Japan military at the time and the bombings were not as necessary an evil as we have been led to believe). If I as an overweight person with type two diabetes tell you that eating vegetables and regular exercise are essential to keep fit, will that assertion be any less true than if it comes from someone slender? If I own about 23 Mel Gibson movies, and a boxed set of 30 Rock starring Alec Baldwin and Tracy Morgan, there are people who will take that as proof that I espouse the beliefs that have been attributed to them and that I am an "apologist" for this or that view or package deal of opinions. There are people who think that a word can be extracted like DNA to reproduce you in full. And this is in a culture of constant agitation, where the drama or the hot-button or the bottom-feeding element is taken for granted as necessary to get hits or clicks or make it "a thing." Every news item on line is likely to offer an opportunity to feel you are venting and weighing in, all the while providing your e-mail so you can get more spam and alerts from people who seek to refute your declaration of a favourite colour. That way, more clicks, more log-ins, more hits. Because they are both "social issues," does abortion have a damn thing to do with gay marriage, much less be the result of it? And will knowledge of one's distaste for one tell you his or her attitude about the other? Funny thing about rhetorical statements - people forget that art and even persuasion is about asking questions more than answering them. If the answer comes from you, it feels more organic and valid. Considering the source is ultimately a carry over from top-down structure of leadership. Who was the first to say "Consider the source" ? If Jodie Foster is friends with Mel Gibson, and if the highest paid actor currently Robert Downey Jr. has been a public supporter of him at his lowest ebb, how does that fit in to the way the media pushes and pulls and ultimately distracts people with side issues and sub-issues? How does that become a sound-byte or a tweet you can get behind? If Sinead O'Connor has dealt with sleaze-bags and she answered a question relentlessly posed to her about Mylie Cyrus causing a stir in a video ostensibly inspired by her own work yet directed by a pornographer and alleged rapist, why is anyone imposing upon that a discussion about "slut"-shaming ? And is a man defending Sinead therefore to be viewed as anti-women or anti-equality? And is the director of Wrecking Ball in any way motivated by your positive self-worth and freedom ? And are his detractors just party-poopers or zealots or date-rapists because they presumably seek to control girls? It's exhausting. There was an amusing discussion on a chat show I follow on-line in which a side-kick I won't name made a cheeky remark pretending to renounce the ignorant stance that gay men are automatically child molesters. He said essentially as his capper, "Straight men can molest young boys." His host then said, "How does that happen?" That kind of thing is bold, and should not be viewed as a threat to the earnest effort to educate parts of the world who mistakenly lump all creeps into a "gay" generalization. But you know the LIBERAL comics involved in that exchange would be enemies of the week to some people merely for suggesting that adult male sexual contact with underage boy does not sound like a heterosexual act. Even though I have heard otherwise reasonable and well-meaning friends of mine argue the other extreme. They might mean that they count persons IDENTIFYING as straight, but strangely when a movie star says that he is gay the true believers in the underground will not accept that answer because they determine which acts or words reveal the most amusing truth that will get the clicks and hits. If you told me the debates I've had on Facebook or other websites I would get mired in, I wouldn't believe it. Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, Alec Baldwin, Terry Richardson, Rob Ford, and a Pope who actually knows what he is talking about, I wouldn't have believed you. And in my disbelief I would have to demonize you and block you and fill in the blanks of who you are. That way, I can procrastinate in writing my masterpiece screenplay about communication. If you are a Star Wars fan you can visit starwars.com and look at the many sub categories for discussion posts and think that world religions are no more divisive. I'm sure I can find someone to argue in defence of the prequels so that I can disregard them. Fact is that anyone can be just plain wrong on something.