The other day, a friend made a long post on Facebook regarding women’s rights and and how trans rights have skewed several important issues regarding women. I was inclined to agree with what was being said, and was going to “like” it, but I was also too lazy to read the whole thing and as such, felt it would be intellectually dishonest to click the button. But as I scrolled to the bottom I saw one comment that really frustrated me.
I don’t completely know how to describe it, but it was along the lines of, “You’re an idiot for saying this, this is so ignorant and inaccurate, I’d love to talk to you about this but you probably won’t listen anyway, you probably haven’t even read this far, I don’t expect you to, but you are really, really wrong, you idiot”.
It’s amazing to me how nice people can be branded as horrible just because they have an opinion that somebody else doesn’t like. Said friend is one of the most considerate people I know, even annoyingly so at times when I’m in the mood for editorializing.
What even is the point of arguing if you don’t actually believe the other person is willing to listen? At that point, you’re just trying to flex about how you think you have the right answer, and want to pick a fight. I felt like I was back in 2008, reading Atheist forums or something. How old was this person, mid-late 30s? “You’re so stupid for not seeing this exactly the way I do!”
I really wanted to say something and draw their attention to this. It’s childish when people do that. “I don’t expect you to listen!” Really, this is just a way of trying to bully people into seeing things your way. It’s almost like reverse psychology, when you think about it, or at least a really weak attempt at reverse psychology (which is manipulative, anyway). Most people’s minds are not changed by internet arguments, and that’s okay. Even if somebody gave you a compelling perspective, immediately capitulating would be irresponsible: just because somebody can craft a compelling argument doesn’t mean they’re right. You’d have to really look into it before making a final decision. But to speak out against somebody in that way, as if you have the perfect truth is A) arrogant, B) almost certainly false, and C) in itself does absolutely nothing to lift the other person up. What you can provide people, though, is additional perspective.
As much as I wanted to say something, I remembered that verse in Proverbs about how involving yourself in somebody else’s quarrel is foolish, so, I decided against it.
I suspect that it has always been this way. I seem to recall a history book talking about the outrageous claims people made about their political opponents in the early 1800s. Lol. But as a species, we haven’t learned. Hell, I haven’t learned. I try to be reasonable, but I occasionally feel the arguments rush through my head with no restraint. It’s kind of demoralizing.
The biggest question you can ask yourself is, “Do I actually want what’s best for this person?” when you are in an argument. Because the grim alternative is, “Do I just want to feel superior by having an argument I believe is correct?” The desire to feel superior is strong in humans, and is the source of some of the worst things in all of history. Don’t think that a slice of that doesn’t reside in you.
As a rule of thumb, I don’t try to overhaul other people’s opinions when I choose to engage with them, I just try to add perspective.
But while I’m on this topic….
It’s amazing to me how the secular world is more religious than religion, now. At least under Christianity, forgiveness was the central message, but according the Twitter hoard, if you did black face in the 1980s, you’re a monster and always will be. There is no forgiveness, and no redemption for anything. Everything is a permanent record. And you thought religious people were condemning!
But it’s also sad how politicized things have become. Again, maybe it’s always been that way, but there are some really interesting subjects in the world that you almost can’t talk about without people assuming you are on some political side about it. I know of an ethnography on gender that I’ve wanted to read for years, but it’s apparently taboo for anyone who is generally conservative to care. Granted, I’ll take anthropological research from the 1960s over conservative political books any day. Also, I’ve always been fascinated by colonialism, but when I mentioned something about this to my dad long ago, he immediately had something derogatory to say about an Obama quote concerning colonialism. Not what I’m talking about, Dad! (I love my dad, don’t get me wrong, it’s just funny how people can be political about things when you least expect them to be)
I realized the other day, too, how silly the capitalism vs. socialism debate is. Why are we still debate -isms from well over 100 years ago? Why haven’t we created our own -isms by now? We’ve learned a lot over these past 100+ years, enough to know that both -isms are inadequate. I feel like time would be better spent discussing what the road forward looks like. I guess “capitalism” and “socialism” provide some stock perspectives from which to generate discussion, but they are so polarized as to be almost completely useless at this point. What do you mean by capitalism? What do I mean by capitalism? Hardly anybody could probably give you a good answer, and even if somebody could, would the person they are engaging with be able to as well? -isms are not easy to talk about. Who decides what they mean? When does a person’s book or article become part of the “canon” for that -ism?
As a moderate conservative, I sometimes feel quite out of place in churches, where you are sometimes expected to have strong opinions on everything. But I don’t, because there’s a lot I don’t know, and then there’s also a lot I don’t care about. And that’s not to say politics should be ignored, only that getting at the truth is incredibly difficult, and quite frankly I’m busy with other things. I can form an opinion at the drop of a hat, but that doesn’t mean it’s an opinion worth arguing.
It’s also curious to me that so many people think that “their side” has all the right answers. My theory is that this is just a certain manifestation of laziness. Honestly, it makes life a lot easier if you can just pick one side and go along with everything it says. I honestly don’t think the human mind was designed to hold so much information as to be able to evaluate the entirety of state-level social systems. You just…you can’t. But rather than embrace uncertainty, some people opt to pick a side exclusively. I think that’s really dangerous.
Also interesting is how some people spend so much effort simply forming opinions. I have a few friends who post political things, and I have no idea what they are talking about most of the time. When I look those things up, I’ll sometimes find out they were fresh news items from that very day. You are basically asking for an echo chamber at that point, as the only people who are going to like your post are your friends who have no life and spend all day watching the news the way you do. Go take a hike! Go smell some flowers!
Anyway, all of this to say…do you legitimately care about the people you choose to argue with? If you do, you won’t attack them personally. You won’t try to manipulate them into adopting your beliefs. You won’t try to denigrate them. The most you can really hope to do is provide a perspective that feeds into their overall philosophy, and maybe, hopefully, makes them a better person or somehow leads them closer to the truth, either by incorporating your perspective, or even, if you’re wrong, by rejecting it. And couldn’t we all be more reasonable people?