Reply
Mon 10 Oct, 2005 10:32 pm
What I mean by the topic is that we tend to pigeonhole each other, to the benefit of no one and nothing. It doesn't make for more interesting discussions; it doesn't enhance our own positions on issues. Let me try to explain.
IMO, no decent, thinking human is all of one thing or another, but we somehow can't seem to steer the discussion vehicle out of that gutter. It is most clearly illustrated in the discussions about abortion. One side tries to paint the other side as baby killers. The other side tries to slap the close-minded, holy roller label on their opponents. Folks like me, who can see instances of where some of either side might apply, have no chance of participating in the give-and-take. I'd like to think I belong to a silent majority. A majority who, in the case of abortions for instance, could imagine a situation where aborting the pregnancy might be the best course- BUT, who sees serious problems with terminating the life of a being close to term. Where are the real humans with real dichotomies of thought? - the real people? Where are those of us - I know we're around somewhere - who for instance could buy into the death penalty if it could be meted out with equanimity and without racial or financial lopsidedness? Where are the ones who can live and work with and come to know and love gay people and still have hesitations about legalizing gay marriage? Is there only room on A2K for the rock throwing fanatics, who have to keep everyone into tight little camps so that their rocks can find easy targets?
Does it come from a deep insecurity - an insecurity that dreads being found out as not 100% sure about EVERYTHING and EVERY ISSUE? Or is it something much more simple and mundane, like intellectual laziness?
There are some of us who would have nothing at all to say if it wasn't spoken in the context of this two-dimensional world, where everyone is 'either fer us, or agin us'. Am I imagining things, or wouldn't it be much more interesting if we were all allowed to have opinions that can't necessarily be branded with an 'ism'?
" Anyone out there feel me?"
I believe that would be harassment....wink....
But.....sure, and we tend to assert our beliefs in fierce debate more forcefully and one dimensionally than we would normally, I believe, hence tending to cement in a persona in outhers' eyes.
Sorry, dlowan - I edited the "feel me" out. (Didn't think it would skronk in here)
Skronk?
The point about wanting to be right is a good one, and is particularly an artefact of heated and hostile debate, I think.
Heehee...it becomes a bit like a gladiatorial contest, and is dumb, I know.
Interestingly, some folk can pull off no holds barred debate without doing that...eg I really miss my hours long fights with Craven about stuff, which was absolutely intense and focussed, but not about not admitting you don't know stuff and all.
It seems harder to do in a forum context...I do it a lot in real life.
Quote:Am I imagining things, or wouldn't it be much more interesting if we were all allowed to have opinions that can't necessarily be branded with an 'ism'?
The thing is that people understand you based on their own knowledge, not what knowledge you offer. If what you're saying sounds like an ism, any ism, people start attacking that ideology instead of your words, assuming that since there are some likenesses, it is the same thing.
It is all because of dull wits and selfish motives, but it's not all bad. This way we get to break on eachother like the sea on the shore, and we can grow as individuals, wich is what it's all about if you ask me.
Nice, Cyracuz. I like that answer.
snood-
There may be an intellectual laziness in the reading of posts as well.
Or intellectual condesention? (If that's not a contradiction in terms)
If I jumped in here to call Snood a baby killer just to get a cheap laugh, would that be bad?
Only if he has actually killed a baby.
DD-
I presume,and I would hope,it would get you thrown off the forum.
I think it was just a joke (I hope).
Verily I say I believe it was.
Ack, I know what you're talking about.
It seems to happen in real life as well as here.
I think there are a lot of reasons for it. Intellectual laziness, emotional involvement, defense against flaming and nitpicking (it's easier to defend a clearly marked territory than an ambiguous one).
Plus, debate isn't really a great vehicle for exploring thought (in a lot of ways). It is a competition in many respects, and so much brainstorming and meandering is cut off short.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace