Is tension / strife (racial or otherwise) getting better or worse in America?
Internet discussions and TV and print news tend to go for the most discord they can drum up to get you to click or watch or to buy the paper. Headlines may be misleading just to draw you in. Perspective may be slanted to make the story irresistible. They say “sex sells,” but how do you make a story irresistible? Give people something to be angry about.
Internet discussions and TV and print news tend to go for the most discord they can drum up to get you to click or watch or to buy the paper. Headlines may be misleading just to draw you in. Perspective may be slanted to make the story irresistible. They say “sex sells,” but how do you make a story irresistible? Give people something to be angry about.
In a workshop I took a few years ago, the instructor said
that anger is just a way of putting the focus on someone else. We don’t want to
look at parts of ourselves that make us uncomfortable, so we find a reason to put
our attention on another. We make them our scapegoat without considering that
other person is a human being with reasons for what they do and with desires
and needs no less worthy than ours.
I think most of us as children were taught not to discuss
religion or politics. But did anyone ever tell you why? I wasn’t from a
background that would cause discrimination for our family’s religious beliefs
or politics. So I assume it was because people in our society cannot
simply state their views and reasons and expect to receive the same without
offense.
It would be wonderful to say “I think this,” and the other
person could say “I disagree and here is why.” Or “I think you are looking at
the issue from perspective A, but these other people are looking from
perspective B.” Then the first person could say “I don’t agree” or “Oh, I
hadn’t considered that.” All without calling each other "stupid".
Some of my Facebook friends post or share posts of
impassioned mini-speeches. I’ve noticed they rarely get through a paragraph
without calling their opposition “stupid,” and those are the ones being fairly restrained.
I wonder sometimes who they think is reading their posts. Just a bunch of
like-minded friends who want to be angry about the same subject in the same
way? Or do they consider that their posts may be read by someone who disagrees?
If your post is read by someone who disagrees, do you want
to reach that person and ask them to consider a different viewpoint? If so,
calling them names, insulting them, shaming them and their side will only cause
them to reject what you say, even the reasonable parts of your argument. When
was the last time someone called you stupid, greedy, or mean and you responded
with “yeah, hey thanks – now I see the error of my ways.” It’s more likely you
would not only disagree with them, but look for other reasons to dislike them.
What kind of friends, hobbies, job or whatever do they have that could be ridiculed? Anything to get back at them. And the “discussion”
goes beyond ill thought out venting to increasing anger and so it pushes people further apart.
Maybe we need speech and debate classes to be mandatory to
teach people how to discuss a topic. They could now be "speech, debate, and internet posting" classes.
Are you trying to change someone’s mind? Then ask yourself,
are you open to having your mind changed? Do you accept the idea that you could
be wrong? If not, then don’t try to make the other person “wrong”.
This blog topic is
part of a monthly series wherein a group of bloggers will all write their take
on the same topic and publish on the same day without having read any of the
others. Here are links to the other blogs:
·
William Pora: http://williampora.com
·
Rebecca Harvey: http://bayoucitypostcards.blogspot.com/
·
James McPherson: http://jalmcpherson.com/
·
Jon Lundell: http://therealmil.blogspot.com/
·
Leslie Farnsworth: http://www.lesliefarnsworth.com/
