I had a gchat with Dave earlier. It seems he's unhappy at the way I've responded to some of his political posts. According to Dave, instead of presenting the other side of an issue, I have simply written about why he is wrong. I did not mean to be negative or overcritical. Dave also went on to say that he feels he should no longer make posts of a political nature because he gets too caught up in the debate.
I think this points to why political discussions are often so heated; they get too emotional. People stop listening to each other, or they only address one part of a person's argument. Even in blog form this is a problem, as I am guilty of not fully reading Dave's posts and responding to one piece of his argument with which I disagree.
Why do they say not to discuss religion and politics in polite company? Because it's so personal. I think facts and figures are all well and good, and they'll score you extra points if you're on the debate team, but I think most political beliefs are way more subjective than all that. They are a mixture of ideas handed down from our families of origin and the lessons we have taken away from our own experiences in the world.
Trying to get a person on the other side of the ideological fence to come around to your way of thinking on an issue is like trying to convince someone how delicious your favorite food is. Talk until you're blue in the face, they're still going to hate bananas. Maybe it's not as simple as all that, but it seems that way sometimes. Maybe people can change their point of view, but I don't think talk does much good to effect that change.
2 comments:
a lot of times, the issue comes down to, i believe, a couple of things:
1) i think i'm right
2) whether or not i think you can change your mind.
i do not have conversations with my grandmothers, as i have no expectations of changing their minds on something. and not that i'm even trying to change Dave's mind, but i know he's a reasonable man and, more importantly, he'll read what i send him or post and he'll think about it. i'm about to start the amnesty article, e.g.
i have no problem talking with Republicans about their ideas on political topics (and i think we all know that i could care less about being polite in polite company), as long as they'll at least listen.
and isn't that what we're doing here? i don't want Dave to stop posting politico... it's part of why we're doing this, isn't it? we just have to listen and make sure everything is constructive.
No hard feelings from me. Just didn't feel it was constructive.
Post a Comment