How to Argue: Gatekeeping

As an LSAT instructor, I teach argument for a living, and because of that, I’ve become the most annoying Facebook friend ever. Rather than just jumping right into the NFL national anthem controversy, I’ve decided to use this issue as a test case for how to argue properly. This is the sixth post in a series, so click here for more background on the NFL national anthem debate, here for an explanation of arguments and assumptions, here for a study on definitions, here for personal attacks and straw men, and here for misleading statistics.

If you watch cable news pundits or check social media regularly, you’ve probably encountered arguments like this before:

“You don’t get to criticize Hugh Hefner if you voted for Trump!”
“You can’t say Black Lives Matter and just ignore the violence in Chicago!”
“You can’t understand international terrorism if you were never military!”
“You can’t criticize the Alt-Right unless you condemn Antifa too!”

Put a pin in these. We’ll get back to them. First, a little background:

2427e7aed845497691e20b56be201e611d3e6514d5614609f07c5cb04e65bf5dThe term “gatekeeping” was coined by social psychologist Kurt Lewin in 1943 to describe journalism. Lewin saw the press as gatekeepers of information— the people we trust to decide what makes the news. The 24-hour news cycle and the advent of social media have brought new twists to Lewin’s theory though. Fox News and MSNBC are convenient examples as one is outspokenly conservative and the other outspokenly liberal. A viewer who chooses Fox News will hear a different set of stories than an MSNBC viewer, and when the two networks do report on the same events, their pundits will offer completely different interpretations. Of course, these organizations still have some measure of editorial control, unlike the slew of online news platforms that have sprung up over the past two decades. While some of these sites practice legitimate journalism, many pass off opinions and conspiracy theories as fact. With such a range of coverage to choose from, the consumers of news have become its new gatekeepers. Individuals must now use their best judgment to figure out what news is worth reading, and with the increasing number of people who get their news from social media (Facebook in particular), these gatekeepers can now influence what news their friends see as well.

Gatekeeping is all about controlling the flow of information, but the NFL debate showcases another flavor of this phenomenon: controlling the flow of people.

social-media-aiIn the social media space, gatekeepers can choose to block people from even entering a conversation, thus filtering out different viewpoints before they’re even shared. On Facebook, if certain friends regularly post news or opinions you don’t agree with, you can hit the “unfollow” button to hide their posts or the “unfriend” button to disconnect you completely. But as this series is about how we engage one another (not just avoid one another), I want to focus on one particular form of gatekeeping that pops up often in debates on social media: “You can’t talk about ________ unless you ________!” The NFL national anthem debate is loaded with these scenarios, so stop me if you’ve heard any of these before:

You can’t talk about the NFL debate because _______________.
(A) you’ve never served in the military!
(B) you’ve never been a victim of racial profiling!
(C) you don’t even watch football!
(D) you’re the host of SportsCenter!
(E) literally any other reason people make up. Anything.

Look, I get it. I even sympathize.
Social media has revolutionized how we communicate, and in the deluge of unsolicited opinions from friends of friends of friends, the desire to filter who participates is only natural. However, much like ad hominem attacks, saying “you can’t talk about it because…” just makes the argument personal (which always makes things worse). When we use this method of gatekeeping, rather than ending conversations, we wind up damaging friendships and siloing ourselves off. So don’t just tell people why they shouldn’t be allowed to speak; engage their arguments respectfully, knowing their arguments will help you refine your own.

When we place restrictions on who can argue,
when we insulate ourselves from disagreement,
when we discredit the arguments of others
simply because of who they are or what they believe,
we miss out on a larger world.
Sure, this argument has its limits;
some bullies and trolls need to be ignored,
but whenever possible, let’s leave the gate open.
Through openminded argument, we hone our views, we arrive at unexpected solutions, and we affirm the value in one another. When you close the gate, this becomes impossible.

I still have a few miscellaneous thoughts about argument to wrap up this series. I’ll share them in tomorrow’s post.

Leave a Reply