A brief note about the argument public, for the purpose of discussion of the abortion law.

Interventions of various mps (by some, not all) against the decriminalization of abortion were collected and disseminated with the objective of making fun of them. For those who gathered and disseminated it was clear that the mere enunciation of such opinions was reason enough for ridicule. They were opinions that were his own parody. At the same time does not seem to have circulated something similar but on the side opposite: in bulk will disseminate a set of opinions of advocates of the decriminalization exposed as ridiculous.

The asymmetries are always interesting, I think, in a social process. In principle, in a public discussion, one can expect criticism acerbas (‘this is unacceptable’), and heavy disqualifications, but the starting point is that the views in game are minimally decibles because they are not directly bullshit. Think of the recent discussion between Peña and Chomali on the same theme: the more strong were the criticisms, in any case there was the procedure that we discussed.

What does then the circulation of texts, I insist on that, it is presumed that they are so foolish that they can only produce laughter?

Let’s start with the following assumption: The set of arguments that can be sustained in a public discussion and is accepted in it as having at least some sense represents the space of common sense, the space of dissent among reasonable people. What happened yesterday then it would be that certain phrases have passed out of this space to the common sense of reasonable. This represents, in principle, a movement: Things that were possible to be said seriously, now leave (start to stop) to be. And this is because they generate only scorn for the one who says them.

This is not the first time that this happens. Some, on the topic of discussion now, have remembered phrases said in other debates that now also appear as non-sense now: Look that said who now think such a thing, they said things that now they even would be clearly wrong. The discussions on the divorce law, or about the equal treatment for all, the children have been used. By the way, the intention of one of the phrases escarnecidas (the reference to slavery) have the same purpose: on occasion you could publicly advocate it, but now we are all clear that is not acceptable.

The use of derision and mockery is not the only way in which certain arguments go from being reasonable to stop being so. But it is one of the indicators more clear that this has occurred: The ridiculous shows with certainty that it is not necessary even to refute or to listen to the position reviled. It has come to be an argument, which merely say it is your critical.

Thus, we go back then to observations on the function arguments public. Them a few times, and in particular on a few occasions in the short term, change the opinion of the people. What they can do, and do so even in the short term, is to change the state of common sense: Modify the set of assertions, and possible arguments to be taken seriously. And this, well it can be argued, does not cease to be quite relevant to the long-term.