No Baseline: The Fine Art of Modern Political Discourse

Charles Lafontaine
6 min readJun 1, 2024

--

A. Americans have decades of Cold War propaganda ingrained into their minds. Most automatically assume anything Russia does is wrong. But your entire perception of Russia is based on the picture the USG [United States Government] and MSM [Mainstream Media] have painted for you.

Your perception is based on a mountain of lies.

B. Russia suppresses its people and does not allow free speech. It’s an unsafe place for homosexuals.

A. And how do you know that Russia suppresses their people?

B. The neverending cavalcade of evidence. Reports from multiple intelligence agencies, audio and video recordings, the crackdown on political dissidents, the imprisonment and suspicious deaths of Putin’s political rivals, testimonials from locals. Where’s your evidence?

A. Yes but how do you know? What you are being fed is all lies. Homosexuality is allowed, Putin just stopped the gay demonstrations a few months ago.

B. And why would he do that? He won’t even allow free assembly for gays.

A. Um, because grown men shouldn’t be allowed to dance naked in front of children?

Note: this real internet argument has been edited for clarity and brevity.

You have heard this one before.

Someone makes a claim which runs contrary to well established truths and provides precisely no evidence to reinforce said claim despite the requirement for the claim to be taken seriously. The second man states that this claim is ludicrous by appealing to the aforementioned well established truths. The first man states that the second man’s information sources are incorrect, misinterpreted, or otherwise deliberately altered in order to fit an agenda. The second man counters that the first man has provided no evidence and that he may very well fit the description of a rabblerouser in the same manner as the multitude of sources that he has just dismissed. The second man then furthers his point with yet another concrete example of the first man’s claims being baseless. The first man retorts by not actually discussing the point made but touching on a sensitive issue in a manner meant to inflame and distract. Doing so insinuates that the second man is somehow in league with wrongdoers or is at the very least sympathetic to them in a way that should arouse the suspicion of all who hears what he has to say. This is where what can only be generously described as a conversation falls apart entirely.

This same dance is repeated all day, every day across our social media platforms and increasingly in our homes and parliaments. Does it sound familiar?

Political disagreements that become heated are nothing new, nor are spurious claims or disingenuous arguments. While we have no hope of the former being remedied, the latter were once susceptible to being splattered on the bulwark of basic facts. Fundamental knowledge that was used as a platform for discussion, the baseline we agreed upon because we knew it to be both true and incontrovertible. A place from which we could begin to discuss, however fiercely, the finer points of a topic.

Today, no such baseline exists.

The meanspirited and ignorant alike have co-opted the term skeptic for their own purposes. It is now a cover used to question established facts, throwing a wrench in the proverbial gears of discussion as we are now no longer able to depart having no agreeable starting point. Actual skeptics have been relegated to the back seat of any discussion.

To illustrate the severity of the issue, there is now a significant number of people who genuinely believe that the planet is flat.

Simply because we can question anything does not mean we necessarily must question everything at all times. This applies to claims that have been questioned, reviewed, analyzed, and found to be in a particular state by reasonable and rational people across a long enough period that there is virtually no other conclusion to be had. Reopening the debate on what is already established stymies a discussion in every instance of its use while allowing the user of this tactic to falsely claim the mantle of a skeptic devoted to uncovering unsullied truths.

Virtually no other conclusion to be had? So you are admitting that it is at least possible that the planet could be flat!

Skepticism is not something to be implemented at every conceivable opportunity as though reviewing the same statements or claims time and again in the absence of any new evidence that may impact their veracity would somehow yield different results. We are well aware of the fact that the planet is spherical and that Vladamir Putin’s 2024 electoral victory was predetermined. These are well established and proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Questioning these facts is not a victory for skepticism nor is it the sign of an inquisitive mind. It is yet another ideological pitfall on our way to complete societal decay.

But how do you specifically know? It’s possible that all sources across the world (aside from the few who disagree, of course, as we are the true bearers of knowledge) are working in unison to concoct this story. Just because all of these independent and accredited sources, most of which stand to gain nothing with these findings and are often at odds with one another politically or socially, have come to the same conclusion doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re right. This is an ad populum!

(For the love of all that is good and holy, an ad populum is an appeal to the masses, not a consensus among experts. Ed.)

The skeptic can and should question to what degree the election was rigged. Were all ballots pure theater or were votes counted properly and the results merely altered afterward? There may be evidence to support either. Is the planet a perfect sphere or ovular in shape? Maybe its rotational speed or tectonic activity are altering its shape by small increments over time. These are the finer points one can review now that a foundation has absolutely been established.

Ideologues and conspiracy theorists situate themselves in small gaps in certainty. The places where we know a reasonable amount but are not completely without question. These tiny gaps are then used to drive enormous and often ridiculous arguments using the lack of total certainty as a basis. If one does not know precisely the answer then anything must be possible. The specifics on how Putin’s fraudulent election was conducted is not completely known, therefore you must have no basis whatsoever to state that it was in fact fraudulent. The planet being an oblate sphere and flattened at the poles means it is not technically a sphere as the prevailing belief was for so long. Therefore, it could actually be entirely flat.

One could conveniently miss the forest for the trees to cast doubt on anything known to be true. Refusing to argue on these grounds grants the conspiracy theorist a moral victory among his cadre as he can now state that his opponent refuses to have a free and open discussion on the topic.

The mainstream media has lied or been incorrect before. That does not mean it will be forever branded a disreputable source. Putting aside the fact that it is not monolithic and merely being a part of it does not mean one is somehow immersed in or susceptible to its previous errors or omissions, each new claim is to be judged on its own merits. Even if this new claim is being made by a source that has been previously found to be incorrect or ideologically motivated, it simply means there is more reason to examine the new claim with greater scrutiny. This also applies to the aforementioned conspiracy theorists and ideologues. They too can state an established fact without the need for its examination as it is in an unaltered state from previous questioning and analysis. In fact, most disreputable sources will state established facts in an effort to lend legitimacy to their parallel dubious claims so long as doing so does not interfere with their agenda.

You need not prove the proven because your opponent deems it worthless out of hand. Facts are appealed to because they are indisputable, they are not merely the opinion of the many and ready to be demolished by a brave soul shouting defiantly. Falling into this trap and beginning the endless process of providing yet more proof cedes critical ground to ideologues and lends credence to their baseless claim of truth seeking.

Hold on now. Haven’t you made claims in past articles without providing solid proof of your own unearthing that did not come from numerous witness testimonials that can be faked or mainstream sources such as governments and independent journalists across the world that are agreeing unanimously as their deep state overlords demand? Knowing, of course, that even had you done so I could so easily claim that you are also in league with them and therefore part of the controlled opposition and deem your findings equally untrustworthy while never even attempting to acknowledge them?

--

--

Charles Lafontaine

Philosophy, politics, social commentary. Life of the party.