|
|
|
August 06, 2007
When good people can't talk....
I've noticed that the louder and more opinionated a person is, the more likely he is to see a political disagreement with his position as a personal attack. Perhaps it's because he's put so much of his persona into it by being so loud. I think these types are best dealt with in blogs, where insults and ad hominem attacks tend to be self discrediting, WHERE YOU CAN'T SHOUT ANY LOUDER THAN THIS, and the loudly opinionated boors are reduced to inferior-looking lines of text. Real life is another, very ugly matter. Commenting on the malignant shouting down of a soldier who attempted to suggest publicly that the surge might be working, Roger L. Simon wonders whether a larger pathology is infecting the political ethos: ...Soltz is not alone in this. We see it everywhere from the Internet to our cable news networks to the boardrooms of our most respected newspapers. And we see it on all sides of the ideological spectrum. People identify their very selves with their political views. To say this is not good is an understatement. Besides making it almost impossible for people to change their minds, it makes it exceptionally difficult for them even to talk to each other, let alone reason together. Interestingly, that was the "naïve" Aguina's point - that "good people" should be able to talk together about what was going on.Identity politics (which Goldstein and others have called "identitarianism") has spread to include even people who don't belong to any special group, but who nonetheless wear their political views as badges to such an extreme that disagreement becomes a personal affront. When I was in high school, I remember not liking someone's favorite rock group could be taken as a personal insult, but this is much worse. I'm often hesitant to say what I think in public lest it be taken as a personal attack on someone who might disagree. Yes, people are that delicate. Speculating about why the war in Iraq might have been justified can trigger instantaneous, reflexive anger, and very awkward social situations. So can questioning the need for alarmism over anthropogenic global warming. Or questioning ethnic theme dormitories (which of course encourage segregation): I was the only one in the room that opposed the dorms. The moderator targeted me with most of her questions and many times took it upon herself to refute my arguments. Those in the audience also grilled me on how I could be so narrow-minded.The more the underpinnings of the right to disagree are removed in this way, the more disagreement becomes akin to discrimination, and thus, is seen as quasi criminal in nature -- something requiring immediate moral condemnation, in the shrillest possible terms. (Similarly, supporting the war in Iraq can lead to a charge of criminal culpability, and disagreeing with anthropogenic global warming theory is like Holocaust Denial.) Disagreement with some people becomes more than disagreement. If you're in a group of people who disagree with you, it can become self indictment. I've always had friends who disagree with me, but things are getting a little ridiculous where it comes to meeting new people. When I meet new people, I often wonder about the advisability of telling them what I think, especially if they show signs of being in kneejerk group agreement on a given issue. So why bother? Even disagreeing in the most diplomatic manner can require an enormous expenditure of energy, which is pointless when you're dealing with a drunken pack of people you know disagree with you 100% and can't wait to pounce. Is there a duty to publicly disagree when that can turn an otherwise enjoyable social event into an ordeal? Roger continues: We live in a veritable politics of rage. We no longer have a society where what would appear to be good news for our country - success for the surge - would be applauded by a decent majority of our citizens. Something has gone very wrong. And there is plenty of responsibility to go around, a whole culture of people defining each other as "moonbats" and "wingnuts," those two execrable neologisms of our times. And our politicians and media have only encouraged it.I think the pathology will get worse between now and the 2008 election. Because, "too much is at stake!" It will of course fuel the blogosphere, and even I can't resist the occasional temptation to tell people that I try to avoid discussing my thoughts offline. There may be a guilty paradox in there, but I still think blogging is good for everyone's mental health. Thanks to blogging, it's a lot easier for me to keep my mouth shut in public, even on those occasions when my views are known or discovered, and I am confronted like a cornered rat. If cornered, I can just plead guilty to the various indictments, and laugh it all off. After all, I can return to my blog, where I'm still permitted to think what I think -- and have the last word 24 hours a day. That 24 hours a day part, though.... It sometimes seems like a downside. UPDATE: Sean Kinsell links this post (thanks Sean!) and adds some of his inimitable wisdom: Frankly, I don't like conversations that give me indigestion any more than the next guy. Having been brought up the old-fashioned way, I avoid being the person to bring up politics (or religion) among people I don't know very well. But surely once a topic has been put on the table by others, it's fair game. I'd generally be happy to let these things pass were it not for the fact that they come from the sort of people who maintain that Americans are complacent and ignorant about the state of the world because we're not exposed to dissenting views! posted by Eric on 08.06.07 at 01:43 PM
Comments
If only the intolerance were limited to gay issues, I could at least understand. It's the bigotry by association that drives me nuts. If you support the war, you're on the side of the bigots! If you think the country should control it's borders, you're "just like Pat Buchanan." Etc. Join an identity politics group, and lose your brain! Eric Scheie · August 6, 2007 05:21 PM While it is certainly true that this kind of insanity spans the political spectrum, I do think that right now it is more prevalent on the Left in America. There are several reasons for this. First, the Left is just more invested psychologically in politics. It is, after all, one of their fundamental tenets that social/political change is the way to the Good. (As opposed to, e.g. Christian conservatives, who would say that Christ rather than Caesar is the way, or libertarians who would say politics is an obstacle to the Good.) So it is harder for a Leftist to not think politics is all-important. Second, the modern Left is highly invested in group identity. They scarcely consider anyone as an individual. You are your race, your sex, your economic class, and your political party. Those are what define you. That's one reason Leftists are so especially vicious about conseratives who are women, black, or gay -- they've slipped out of their assigned category! Finally, the Left is currently more invested in dissatisfaction than the Right. After all, if you are a Progressive, looking for wrongs to right and social injustice to correct, society must be riddled with wrongs and injustice. The conservative is more ready to be more or less content with how things are. The leftist is inherently discontented, and thus angry. Experimental test: go to a social gathering of conservatives (say, an NRA turkey shoot) and make some pointedly liberal remarks. You may get some friendly argument, but you're more likely to get laughed at. Try the reverse at, say YearlyKos, and I guarantee you'll get screaming, eye-popping, vein-bulging vituperation. Again, I'm not saying everyone on the left is this way, nor am I saying it's unknown on the right. But if I had to make a wild-ass estimate, I'd say twice as many leftists are brittle and hostile the way you've described. Trimegistus · August 6, 2007 05:40 PM Great site! Would you consider a link exchange to The Internet Radio Network?? At the IRN you can listen for free to over 26 of America's top Talk Shows via FREE STREAMING AUDIO! Steve · August 6, 2007 08:08 PM Eric: Yeah, I'm a self-loathing fascist who supports the very people who want to kill me, too. But for better or for worse, I inherited a deep mischievous streak. I don't bring up politics in mixed company, but when provoked by others, I enjoy throwing out lines like "Well, really, the Palestinians should consider themselves lucky the Israelis haven't wiped them out by now"...you know, just to see who faints. Sean Kinsell · August 6, 2007 08:25 PM Racial politics is never pretty. It has been headed that way ever since people started hyphenating what kind of American they are. Suffice it to say that leaves me awful confused since I would be a Latino-Jewish-black-Native America-Dutch-Christian American. That is way too long to put on an application. John Kaiser · August 6, 2007 09:23 PM If only Mr. Simon had paid attention to anthropology when he was in school. Harvard I believe (or was it Yale?). All this fear and emotion put into politics like it was life or death comes from a time (the alpha male transition) when it was life or death. In some places it is still life or death. M. Simon · August 6, 2007 09:31 PM I enjoy throwing out lines like "Well, really, the Palestinians should consider themselves lucky they haven't wiped themselves out by now"...you know, just to see who faints. M. Simon · August 6, 2007 09:34 PM M. Simon: Meaning that poker-faced sanctimony is the only tone one can properly adopt in discussing it? Not sure what your point is. Sean Kinsell · August 6, 2007 10:29 PM Sean Kinsell: Probably more like "Smile when you say that, pardner." triticale · August 7, 2007 12:01 AM After all, I can return to my blog, where I'm still permitted to think what I think Well, Hillary is leaving the door open to regulation on that .... There's a quote that goes something like "When people stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing, they'll believe anything." Do note that the most rabid of those that engage in "identity" politics are those that have made their political beliefs their "religion" Darleen · August 7, 2007 01:35 AM It's not just politics. I recently posted on author David Eddings and his The Belgariad. Which "inspired" a post at another blog in which the author get a tad bent out of shape about the matter. You'd think I was buggering the spirit of Professor Tolkien or something. Some people just have no sense of proportion. Or any sense of discrimination for that matter. I want to support the defense of Iraq and selective abortion, that's my business. (In case you're wondering, The Belgariad is mainstream fiction set on an imaginary world with working magic. :) ) Alan Kellogg · August 7, 2007 06:41 AM If you don't fight you can't win. Unbelievable not to stand up to the enemy within. This is why the struggle is taking so long. This is the main problem the conservative base has with Bush and the conservatives in congress. Only a warrior wins, all else is "pablum for permissiveness". Fog God's sake, get a backbone! There is no room for playing nice with the enemy, on the battlefield, in the "parlor". It is seen for what it is, weakness. Only speaking your true mind to those who share your sentiment is craven. John Hinds · August 7, 2007 11:52 AM "If you don't fight you can't win." That is very true in war. But isn't there a time and place issue? Aren't there times you might just want to eat dinner with friends? Is shouting preferable to discussion? I've never known anyone to be persuaded by debates anyway, so much of it strikes me as a tedious waste of time. Eric Scheie · August 7, 2007 12:37 PM Raising niggling doubts in the minds of true believers can do more than all the high-flown rhetoric ever preached. Alan Kellogg · August 7, 2007 02:38 PM Very true. Which is why I quit a UU church. Now we attend a Lutheran church where people would rather talk about kids than politics. Karl Gallagher · August 7, 2007 03:14 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
August 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
August 2007
July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Monica does Fred
• The Call • what page am I on? • The Default Interpretation • A Shill For Al Gore? • Day in recovery • How guns make good criminals bad • Problems in Asia • Might As Well Be Walking On The Moon • Gavin Newsom speaks, but with credibility?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
"Disagreement with some people becomes more than disagreement. If you're in a group of people who disagree with you, it can become self indictment ... When I meet new people, I often wonder about the advisability of telling them what I think, especially if they show signs of being in kneejerk group agreement on a given issue ... Even disagreeing in the most diplomatic manner can require an enormous expenditure of energy, which is pointless when you're dealing with a drunken pack of people you know disagree with you 100% and can't wait to pounce."
Well said. I am a gay conservative, living in Canada (no, those three traits are not mutually exclusive). I am occasionally at social occasions where dozens of well-educated, wealthy, self-actualized gay men are chatting about politics, and the universal assumption by 100% of the people in the room is that, by virtue of being gay, you are a liberal (or Liberal - the Canadian equivalent of a Democrat). At that point I usually just stop contributing to the conversation - who needs the antagonism? Then someone inevitably accuses me of being morose or withdrawn, and to just lighten up.
For a group that has fought long & hard for tolerance, gay people can be remarkably intolerant of divergent thinking in these situations.