I'm a very simple person. I try to stay completely neutral when I talk politics; I'm open to either side, provided they back up their arguments with fact or historical relevance. I tend to bring up politics with many of my friends. Some people disagree with me and I respect them so long as they don't start hurling slurs and obscenities at me.
But one class of person stands out as the worst type to debate with. And before you misinterpret that, I'm not talking about a political spectrum. Conservatives or Liberals, Republicans or Democrats, Right-Wing or Left-Wing. You can be an extreme Right or Left-Winger and be the coolest, most civil, even-tempered individual of all your peers, or you can be an outright flamer. And I'm not targeting Socialists or Communists either. They're just people who see the world differently, and they have varying temperaments and ideologies. I personally think their viewpoint is skewed--just from all the conversations I've had with people who claim to favor Socialism as an alternative to Capitalism; it really seems like all they see is the negative in Capitalism and only the positive in Socialism.
But I'm getting off topic. The class of person I refer to is the kind of person who's willing to explain his side to you but can't accept that you think he's wrong or misguided. For lack of a better word, I shall call these people "Know-It-Alls," because unfortunately this is a phrase that best describes them. Many of these people think that anyone on the polar-opposite mindset (Liberals to Conservatives, etc) is pushing an agenda--and therefore, so they conclude, evil.
This viewpoint is a lot more common than most people think. There may be people who you, the reader, think are evil, whose political viewpoints are simply founded with a different set of philosophy. For example: I have a friend who says that Conservatives are evil. He uses examples of Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity--two of the more predominant figures we see today.
First of all, I think Sean Hannity is a sub-par intellectual. Sometimes I agree with what he's saying, sometimes I don't. He has his ups and downs, usually downs. But I hardly think he's evil.
Just poking at the word "evil" for a moment, I have a criteria for people who are evil, and it is as follows: Someone who consistently, and intentionally commits, or influences others to commit, acts that undermine the rights, freedoms, or well-being of another person. This includes those who spread propaganda against a system with intent gaining support and breaking it down, and people who try to collapse a system and personally profit off its downfall (By the way, look at the name in the header of this article: George Soros. He's one of those people I consider evil).
Now, going back to Glenn Beck. I heard a lot of bad things about him as I became more political. And as a result, I never believed anything I heard him say. But at the behest of my mother, I started listening, and fact-checking.
So far, I've found very little to be bothered by.
Okay, well, he does talk about religion a lot. And while his religion is pervasive through his rhetoric, that's the beauty of the country in which we live. Everyone who wishes to deliver a message now has the means and a right to do so; to say whatever's on their mind. Be it saccharine diatribes about Jesus, or hate speech that drips venom. I'm a big believer in freedom of speech--as Beck says, "More speech, not less"--and I'm not going to tell someone they can't say something because I disagree with it. I'm far more likely to simply tell them they're wrong.
Which brings me to those Know-It-Alls. These know-it alls will actually consider it an insult for someone to tell them they are wrong, or that they don't know what they're talking about. And at the same time, they tell you you are wrong and that you don't know what you're talking about, and it's supposed to be acceptable. These people claim they do tons of "research," which, more often than not, means they read an article on the internet or listen to a college professor and then proceed not to care what anyone else says. So what ends up happening is their research tends to be very one-sided.
And if you just so happen to get into a debate with one of these people expecting to emerge with a handshake and a smile, maybe not seeing eye-to-eye but still understanding one another? FORGET IT. It's like talking to a bull while wearing a red sweatshirt. The last time I had a debate with one of these people, at my first argument they responded with a firm, "ARE YOU F@#$ING RETARDED?!"
Now, I understand that sometimes emotions run high or maybe you're just not feeling too well or whatever excuse you want to make about why you lost your cool. But every time? That's not simply a habit, that's a condition. And also: how can being told you're wrong be an insult? How can being told you don't understand something be an insult? Sure, it's bothersome to think that you could be wrong on something, even I know how that feels. But if I were to do "research" on global warming and climate change--just as an example--and I determined that the argument for man-made climate change was using a faulty argument or bad data to come to its conclusion, I would be inclined to say "he's wrong about man-made climate change." Is that an insult? Any reasonable person would say no, it's not an insult at all. Especially when the accusation is based on supporting fact.
So what's the solution? Is there some way to quell the anger of someone who thinks like that? There is, but it tends to be self-depreciating. You have to agree with everything they say and support their argument. So they'll be happy. Maybe they'll be wrong, but they'll be happy.
And that's something I have problems with. I don't like to let people just get away with a faulty argument just because they want to feel good about themselves. Therefore, I tend to piss these people off. Because I don't care so much about pleasing people. I don't care that they think they've done all the research they need to and their argument is sound without any input. The fact that they get violently angry in the first place demonstrates that they don't have the ability to back up their argument with evidence; instead they resort to emotion. They may have done research, or read a blog like this, or taken a quote out of context because it supports their argument. What value should we place in that kind of mindset?
In the end, they're not going to change. They're going to keep voicing their opinion without the means to back up their logic, and I'm going to keep refuting it, no matter how angry they get. Eventually I'll only have a handful of friends who think clearly and maybe disagree at times, and they'll have a couple hundred people around them that just agree with themselves all the time.
Ignorance is bliss, I guess...
No comments:
Post a Comment