I was never into politics back home. Australia uses the weird parliamentary system that I have still yet to understand. As such I never voted. I felt that it was a disservice to those that actually took the time, effort and energy to weigh the issues if I came in and nullified their vote because the opponent's name "makes her sound like she's got big tits".
It's weird, because Australians don't have the right to vote. The 'right' would include the right to abstain, and you can't. Voting is compulsory. Not voting is (or was when I lived there) a fifty dollar fine. In my new home of Massachusetts, they would call that "Wicked Retarded".
When I moved to the US, I generally stayed away from politics. It was a whole new system to try and learn, and I wasn't allowed to vote anyway, so why bother?
(In a small aside, when Barack Obama won the election in 2008, there were many groups aligned to the Tea Party that complained that "this president won't be MY voice, therefore I am a victim of taxation without representation." This drives me completely insane. You got to vote. You participated. Your right to vote doesn't guarantee that your guy wins. I'm a non-citizen. I pay taxes but I'm not allowed to vote. I am the LIVING DEFINITION of taxation without representation. If anyone should be pissed, it's me.)
Anyway, the Bush years happened. Although I don't vote I'm probably one of those Liberals, with the occasional Conservative leaning. I became very interested in political comedy, and this bled into a fascination with pundits. I would listen to the Boston talk radio station, which was all Conservative. I wanted to hear the other side.
Now being good at arguing, I can see the kinds of tricks that many pundits are doing. It's easy to win an argument if you're just shouting into a microphone, and if you have a dump button handy, any dissenting point of view from a caller won't be heard. The biggest trick is the circular-logic argument. "If you oppose my point of view, you're an idiot, and why would I listen to anything an idiot has to say?" It's surprisingly effective.
I also think it's funny that there's a "shut up and sing" backlash against famous people that espouse their political beliefs. The only difference between a singer and a political pundit is that one of them has a performing arts talent. Would putting their views into a song make it somehow okay?
One of my closest friends in the US is a Conservative. We have the most lively political debates. Afterward, we remain friends. This is normal for us. I feel like it should be normal for everybody. I respect and understand that he has a difference of opinion. Not only that, I realise that we NEED people with a difference of opinion in order to check our own. Devil's advocate is almost always a helpful thing, and having two sides to a political debate is a constant devil's advocate.
Reading internet forums, especially those after political news stories, makes me sad. People are angry, mean, insulting, arrogant and downright threatening in a way that simply does not occur in a face-to-face meeting. Not only that, none of these arguments have any hope of succeeding.
As a near-professional in the art of the argument, I will say this: There is no point to arguing unless you have a chance of changing your opponent's mind.
This will never happen if people continue to argue in the way that they do on message boards and forums. People on both sides do it, and it's just a stupid and pointless waste of time.
If you really want people to listen to you, and you insist on remaining online behind a wall of anonymity, here's a few rules to follow. They are not mandatory. It's still your right to act like a jackass online if you still want to.
1. Quit name-calling. All of it. As soon as you type 'Libtard' or 'Rethuglican' your argument goes right out the window. Anything you type after that is just taking up precious internets.
2. If you're posting anonymously, any claim you make about your real life is a waste of time. "I'm a marine." "I own a lawnmower." "I have a black friend." Anything like this that you use to somehow underline your point is going to be construed as an unverifiable fact by anyone you hope to convert.
3. Stop getting religious. Telling atheists that they will spend eternity in a lake of fire is pointless. They don't believe in the lake of fire either. Is this how you hope to convert people? "Oh man, I didn't believe in God, but that lake-of-fire thing? I didn't know about that. I'm in!"
4. Stop getting atheist. Religious people have been hearing all their lives that God's not real. You saying it is hardly going to change anything.
5. Don't bother making threats. Nobody's paying attention, and even if they were, they know you're bluffing.
6. Try seeing someone's point. Make a concession. It feels really, really good.
7. Try respectfully disagreeing. This will often segue into 'agree-to-disagree'. It also feels really, really good.
8. Learn something. A point may be good, even if it's being made rather badly. Why does somebody have an opposing opinion? Investigate. Empathise. You don't have to agree, but you are somewhat obliged to educate yourself.
I know that this won't change much. People are still hoping to make the national team for the Douchebag Olympics. However, I wouldn't have typed all of this if I didn't think I'd convert at least one person.
That would have been pointless.
No comments:
Post a Comment