It’s election season and there is no escaping politics anywhere. One trend that I’ve observed in partisan politics is that the message is often overridden by who the messenger is. In other words, if you are an exponent of the person delivering the message, you will more often than not dismiss what that person has to say. The reverse is also true. If you are a proponent of the person, it might not matter what that person has to say. You will most likely tend to agree with that person or at least choose only what you want to hear.
It’s not just politics. The prop community shares the same characteristics, as I have seen in a couple of my posts (Good Riddance and Community Forums and Message Boards, take 2), as well as on the RPF. There are instances of alleged trolls asking pointed and maybe uncomfortable questions. Yet, they were dismissed as trolling and so the questions were ignored.
Are the questions any less valid, trolls or agendas notwithstanding? Is the message nullified because of its source? If the question is valid, and the message states a truth, does it matter what the source is or who is asking, whether it was me, for example, or some anonymous troll with an agenda? If a person you don’t like presents valid points in his or her arguments, would you still automatically dismiss the person and the argument?
Conversely, if a person you like makes a false statement or an outlandish claim, would you correct that person? Or do you keep quiet and give that person a pass? This type of selective hearing can frustrate any open discourse because what really is important–the message–is then overshadowed by prejudicial sentiments.
Opinions? Obviously I am speaking very generally here, but I’m sure specific examples are abundant.