Vain Jangling
unnecessary debates
It should be quite telling when persons (political or otherwise) who spout accusations, information (or mis/disinformation) from their (political/media) platforms —where they can ignore or control the narrative and questions— yet refuse to debate with those who disagree with them. Especially, if they feel empowered enough to call out their “opponent” (by name or association) in their rhetoric.
If there is a conversation in church, society, political arena, important enough to be expressed via platform/media, etc., important enough to name call or warn, then why is it not important enough to have dialogue in an open forum where persons can hear the information, listen to the arguments, and draw their own conclusions? This would encourage thinking, involvement, communication.
To claim such discussions are “unnecessary debates”, while indulging them in a “safety bubble” is mere vain jangling.
Vain Janglings 