On critical thinking:

Rachel Maddow demonstrates “critical thinking”. Shouters of epithets do not. It would be easy to claim that I think this because I agree with her. Liberal and funny versus cranky and conservative? It is not difficult to choose a team. But criticizing the government isn’t critical thinking—constructively deconstructing the government (or other aspects of popular culture), pin pointing what is wrong and why it’s wrong, and considering solutions—that is critical thinking.

The Rachel Maddow approach is to take the stated “facts”, analyze their validity and what it means for the world. It is then that she forms an opinion off of it. But Maddow is not a critical thinker because she is correct. One can critically think and completely miss the boat. But she breaks things down and then builds them up, and that’s what makes her thought process valid.

The epithet shouters, however, have made a categorical error. To explain, consider the cited example of Bart Stupak being called a “baby-killer.” Baby-killer is an emotional slur, based upon misinterpretation and/or the slewing of facts. But even if Stupak was in fact responsible for the killing of babies, stating it does not say anything about one’s comprehension or analysis of the healthcare bill. To assume that this alleged baby-killing is reflective of the viability of the bill shows a shallow and irrational interpretation of the facts. It does not accurately explain or analyze. It is a complete misfiring. To satisfy Fisher’s definition, critiques of the healthcare bill should find specific examples, apply them to the big picture and criticize them rationally, not with one worded, misguided slurs.