![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogRecommended reading: this post from Sean Blanda at Medium.com which makes a point I’ve been trying to get across for awhile now, but does so better than me.
Which is this:
Political discourse (especially on the interwubs) has devolved to the point where many people think in terms of teams – my side and the Wrong Side. And the Wrong Side has been reduced to demented 2D caricatures of stupidity and evil. There are a few key consequences of this (besides the general breakdown of civilization):
1. It feeds and amplifies mutual distrust (i.e. it’s easy and satisfying to hate caricatures)
2. It makes people intellectually lazy (i.e. you become less interested in understanding the issue so much as winning the argument, even at the expense of facts).
3. People end up posting political memes and links not just to express their opinions, but to be seen expressing them – to show like-minded people that they are on The Right Side of the debate.
Blanda offers the following challenge:
There’s an obvious caveat here (and one Blanda touches upon): yes, some people are going to give you utter batshit to back up their side of the argument. That’s where we are right now, so it can’t be helped.
In which case it might be helpful to shift gears and ask them why they believe this stuff: “You know, I have trouble identifying with this – what is it about this that registers with you?” Maybe you’ll just get more batshit. Or maybe you’ll learn something about them that makes them seem less evil and more like a human. When you look at it that way, really you have nothing to lose by trying.
The overall takeaway is that it’s okay to disagree with other people about important issues, if only because it’s inevitable. We’ve forgotten this. You’ll never have a consensus of opinion when it comes to sociopolitical issues. That’s one reason democracy was invented – to allow for a plurality of those opinions to co-exist and have a voice in the process of governing, and to at least try to work out a compromise.
This is generally not a bad thing. It's not perfect, either. But nothing on Earth is, so that's not an issue for me.
But then I’m one of those doofuses who believes neither side has a monopoly on The Truth and that it’s better to have critical input (even if some of it is batshit) than to live in a sociopolitical echo chamber that’s oblivious to anything that doesn't conform to ideology or designates dissenters as cartoon villains that need to be destroyed (either socially, politically or literally), so I would say that, wouldn't I?
Not a team player,
This is dF
Which is this:
Political discourse (especially on the interwubs) has devolved to the point where many people think in terms of teams – my side and the Wrong Side. And the Wrong Side has been reduced to demented 2D caricatures of stupidity and evil. There are a few key consequences of this (besides the general breakdown of civilization):
1. It feeds and amplifies mutual distrust (i.e. it’s easy and satisfying to hate caricatures)
2. It makes people intellectually lazy (i.e. you become less interested in understanding the issue so much as winning the argument, even at the expense of facts).
3. People end up posting political memes and links not just to express their opinions, but to be seen expressing them – to show like-minded people that they are on The Right Side of the debate.
Blanda offers the following challenge:
A dare for the next time you’re in discussion with someone you disagree with: Don’t try to “win.” Don’t try to “convince” anyone of your viewpoint. Don’t score points by mocking them to your peers. Instead try to “lose.” Hear them out. Ask them to convince you and mean it. No one is going to tell your environmentalist friends that you merely asked follow up questions after your brother made his pro-fracking case.
Or, the next time you feel compelled to share a link on social media about current events, ask yourself why you are doing it. Is it because that link brings to light information you hadn’t considered? Or does it confirm your world view, reminding your circle of intellectual teammates that you’re not on the Other Side?
Or, the next time you feel compelled to share a link on social media about current events, ask yourself why you are doing it. Is it because that link brings to light information you hadn’t considered? Or does it confirm your world view, reminding your circle of intellectual teammates that you’re not on the Other Side?
There’s an obvious caveat here (and one Blanda touches upon): yes, some people are going to give you utter batshit to back up their side of the argument. That’s where we are right now, so it can’t be helped.
In which case it might be helpful to shift gears and ask them why they believe this stuff: “You know, I have trouble identifying with this – what is it about this that registers with you?” Maybe you’ll just get more batshit. Or maybe you’ll learn something about them that makes them seem less evil and more like a human. When you look at it that way, really you have nothing to lose by trying.
The overall takeaway is that it’s okay to disagree with other people about important issues, if only because it’s inevitable. We’ve forgotten this. You’ll never have a consensus of opinion when it comes to sociopolitical issues. That’s one reason democracy was invented – to allow for a plurality of those opinions to co-exist and have a voice in the process of governing, and to at least try to work out a compromise.
This is generally not a bad thing. It's not perfect, either. But nothing on Earth is, so that's not an issue for me.
But then I’m one of those doofuses who believes neither side has a monopoly on The Truth and that it’s better to have critical input (even if some of it is batshit) than to live in a sociopolitical echo chamber that’s oblivious to anything that doesn't conform to ideology or designates dissenters as cartoon villains that need to be destroyed (either socially, politically or literally), so I would say that, wouldn't I?
Not a team player,
This is dF
