One thing I do insist on, if I'm to take someone's input with any level of seriousness, is that we are all clear on the definitions of the words and terms we're using.
For example, I find it bewilderingly difficult to find a person who understands what "privilege" is in a socio-economic context. Unless I feel like hauling out the chalkboard and teaching this poor imbecile from scratch what they should already know if they're displaying a willingness to engage in racial, gender-based or economic debate, I'm probably not going to bother paying any attention to their opinion. This isn't because I'm inherently arrogant (debatable; I won't deny it just yet); it's because their opinion is overwhelmingly likely to be uninformed and/or based on anecdotal evidence and/or based on prejudice and second-third-or-fourth-hand stories.
Rules of Any Decent Debate
1. Understand the vocabulary. If you want to argue whether or not there is a God, define 'God'.
2. If you know nothing or nearly nothing factual about the topic, don't start. Don't even say anything. Shut up and listen. You might learn something.
3. No anecdotal evidence. Ever. I don't care. If you utter a sentence during a serious discussion beginning with "My [insert relative/pet/friend/ex-boyfriend's name here]..." you are going straight to debating Hell and I will help you get there. It isn't relevant. Just because something happened to someone you know does not make it the norm. It doesn't mean anything at all, actually, so just don't bring it up. Good. Thanks.
These are all problems I tend to find in abundance on the internet. That's not to say they're not also tragically common in everyday (real) life, but the internet really manages to produce some doozies. If I had a dollar for every time I've come across a wildly creatively spelled missive denouncing one thing or another based on someone's auntie's personal experiences as a secretary, I'd be a very wealthy lady.
What's really caught my attention tonight when it comes to terrible arguments is the sheer number of people who dismiss concerns about underlying messages in anything aimed at children by saying, "But it's for children, so it's intended to entertain not indoctrinate".
Intention is completely and utterly irrelevant. I'm sorry, but in cases of implied racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, or xenophobia, it really doesn't matter even a tiny little bit whether the creator of the thing really intended those ideas to be embedded in the fibre of it. If someone can find any of those things, and reasonably justify their point using the source material, then I'm real sorry, but it's there. You can choose not to look at it if you like. Of course there are other ways of reading it. That doesn't mean that implied racism/sexism/ableism/homophobia/xenophobia isn't there anymore. It just means you'd prefer not to acknowledge it.
Another thing - indoctrination is most often not intentional. I don't understand where exactly this idea came from that 'indoctrination' means 'deliberate and malignant brainwashing', but it's complete nonsense and shows a poor grasp of the vocabulary. According to that fount of knowledge known as Wikipedia, "indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned."
The only difference between indoctrination and socialization is that one has a negative connotation and the other has a positive connotation. It's all cultural learning, and it is never more significant and influential than it is in children's entertainment.
