The best way to honor Breitbart's memory is to follow his example. Never back down.
·Don't allow yourself to be called a hater. Rather, expose those, who would, by their own words, vitriol and, dare I say, hatred.
·Question everything, especially yourself. Be intellectually honest. Don't just repeat what another has said. Question even what they have said. Prove it to be honest or incorrect.
·Stand up for what you believe in, even if you end up being a solo trumpeter for your belief. Sometimes all you have left to stand on is that it's the way you believe, and if you are being honest, no matter what your stance is, it becomes very hard to rebuttal.
·When you have successfully exposed dishonesty, don't allow yourself to be labeled in an attempt to marginalize. e.g.
---"you need to come down off your cross" [This nugget of a comment generally comes from someone who wishes to accuse you of attempted "moral superiority", when ironically it is usually them that are committing such judgement in the mere usage of this comment.]
---"oh yeah, well your just a racist" [challenge them on the very definition of racism, and then see if they are again using a word they are clearly attempting to redefine],
---"your just a hate-monger" [offer the challenge of giving one example. This is where questioning yourself becomes very important. What is your motivation? Is your ultimate goal to expose dishonesty and reveal enlightenment or is it to pummel your opponent into submission, thus robbing them of self-realization of their honest position on a particular subject? (e.g. more times then not a person who would strip away the rights of another to self-defend, would themselves, being placed into a real time situation, self-defend themselves and/or love ones)]
·Don't allow yourself to be drawn into an emotional argument. While the word "argument" can both be described as healthy debate or and outright fight, I am referring to the latter. Name calling is usually the death toll of any healthy debate into a chaotic argument, unless it can be honestly challenged and explained and thus properly applied. (e.g. If they can not clearly show how your statement or action fulfills the very definition of "racist", then your opponent isn't attempting to expose dishonesty in you, but rather regressing into name calling. Question yourself and just don't do it )
·Never be afraid to admit you don't know enough about a subject. Again this is where intellectually honest applies. While this may give the license for an opponent to freely explain their position on a subject with out firm rebuttals, this does not strip you of your obligation to still question individual points, sources or motivation. If you are to question yourself why would you not question what others would have you to believe?
·Trust your gut. If it doesn't "feel" right, step away. Don't allow yourself to be manipulated into not trusting your gut because it's not politically correct. This usually comes in the form of being accused of not being educated enough. Funny how it requires proper indoctrination or education to "expose" the errors of a gut feeling that comes from instinct.
·Challenge an opponent to see if they have actually heard, read or watched sources you have provided, or if they are just assuming your position and are just simply having a "knee-jerk" reaction. As being that this point is being made more then halfway through this post, it will be clear as to who read this thoroughly or simply stopped at the first few sentences and and decided they knew everything that would follow, thus missing this very important point.
·Don't have a knee-jerk reaction. If we are honest with ourselves, this one is difficult for all of us to do. Many times dealing with a subject matter, if no knee-jerk reactions happen, opponents may actually find that they agree, but come from different paths of enlightenment over the subject.
·Never consider your current stance on a subject to be the final evolution of it. While that does not mean that you should assume that you will not have the same position later on about a subject matter, it does allow for new facts, new enlightenment and the understanding of current words or phrases that may either strengthen your position or weaken it. If it weakens it, then you must be intellectually honest with yourself to discover the reason for this.
·Don't always accept the premise of the question. (e.g. So Mr. Jones, have you stopped beating your wife?) Be very aware of what your opponent is challenging you with, and never accept terms by which you are only allowed to answer by. This is also applicable with accepting terms. (e.g. homophobe, islamophobe) These are invented terms that give pure power to the opponent to define what the the word means and how it applies to you. This also tends to be death toll to debate, as your opponent wishes to regress to name calling without being able to clearly show how your statement or action fulfills the definition of the term, due to fact that they hold the keys to the very definition of an invented term.
It may be difficult to find yourself in an honest debate, and more times then not, are better off challenging your opponent to prove their position with facts and honesty. When given the opportunity, this clearly is a preferred method if it was offered to you.
This is what I take from Breitbart's life and what I learned from him in his actions and discussions. He was a great man, but more, he taught me how to aspire to be one as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWlqiv- ... r_embedded
