It's been a while since I've crossposted over here, and for those of you who like my stuff, sorry. My only excuse is that I've been puttin' some overtime on the UPC hub site. Anyways, a long overdue crosspost from Left of Center.
It's true. Talk until you are blue in the face. Show me strip charts, and pie charts, bar graphs, models, and the all important power point presentations. I don't care. You're wrong, and you are wrong primarily because you are not me, and therefore are not as wise, intelligent, emotionally well adjusted, and all around bad ass as I am. I am always right...
...to me.
Occasionally I can understand why lefties tend to shy away from me. I can get ruthless. I'm pragmatic, and into horse race, so what I care about is winning. I've never made any bones about it, and I never will. When my fellow brethren of the left do stupid crap, I have absolutely no qualms with laying into them.
Long time readers will know that this is never more true than when it comes to the left's battle with evangelicals. Now, I know, I too take an occasional pot shot at Pat Robertson, or some other Religious Right blowhard, but I do try and keep it toned down because to do so makes good political sense.
Sha, in a recent post, swings the most recent sword in the creationism versus evolution crusade, and I pulled up my pants, cracked my knuckles and proceded to go to work.
We had a few comments, since I like Sha I was nice, blah blah, and then I went to the bathroom.
And as everyone knows, the bathroom is the greatest place in the world to think... except public bathrooms where you are probably too busy balancing off of the wheelchair rail thingy to think.
The argument that I was about to have with Sha was already beginning to look real similar to this argument that was ongoing between she and myself on one side, with Harky on the other. This time it was about the war going on between Terri Schiavo's parents and her husband over whether or not she would be kept alive artificially, or allowed to die.And then my mind kept pacing. Both of these arguments were sounding a whole lot like the abortion argument. Seperation of Church and State.
And it became clear pretty easily what the common thread was. In all of these arguments, and so many others, you are having what is a fundamental battle not between right and wrong, but between right and right. It's a moral trap, and there are lots of pitfalls in these perilous arguments:
-No amount of evidence is good enough: Plain and simple, when it comes to your own personal morality, you have your own system of beliefs which are influenced by only those things that you accept as true, and by your own life experiences. Since we all have differing lives, we can never pull from a common source of inluence, especially if we are on different sides of the debate. Case in point, I once got into an argument with a coworker over whether or not homosexuality was right, wrong, or just something that happens. He continuously quoted the Bible as irrefutable proof, while I continuously quoted scientific studies, theories, etc. Since neither of us held the sources of evidence of the other as valid, the whole argument was a wash. I finally ended the argument by saying, "as long as you use the Bible as irrefutable proof, we can't argue, because I don't hold it as such."
-The harder you fight, the more you encourage the opposition: While objectively these arguments are one moral right against another moral right, that is never how it is perceived by the participants. Each person believes it is right versus wrong with them championing the side of right. Therefore, the more righteous the opponent is, the more explicit the argument for wrong, and therefore the more righteous must be the argument for right.
-Logic is not ever required to enter into the argument: These topics deal with how people feel. Feelings have little to do with internal logic. I say internal for a very particular reason, which will hopefully be explained here in a second. Let's take a very sad, but all too common situation. Pretty young woman madly loves her boyfriend/fiance/husband etc. Boyfriend/fiance/husband etc. has this nifty hobby of beating the everliving crap out of her every so often. Despite all the logic there is behind her leaving, she can't bring her to it, and one of the reasons why is because she loves him. Now internally, that's that, it's love mixed with fear, and she doesn't know anything else. Those of us outside the situation can look at it objectively and realize that there are a bunch of other factors there. Perhaps the young woman came from an abusive family and is continuing the pattern that she grew to associate with love. Another factor is that she doesn't have the self esteem to stand up and leave which she feels as a gut, "I can't make it without him," feeling. You get the point.
-Neither logic, nor rational thought, nor reasoned debate can change minds: This goes along with the previous pitfall. Since the most rudimentary motivation behind any of these arguments has little to do with logic, than no amount of logic can penetrate into the very heart of the subject.
-Any argument can be an insult to the other side: It is too personal, and any negative argument about what someone perceives as being right can be seen as an insult to one's own morality, to one's culture, and to one's sensibilities.
-Winning is not possible, or at the very least, incredibly improbable: See all the above pitfalls.
-Too many negative associations can be made: Ilist this one last because in a way it encompasses all of the above, as well as having a primary effect external to the specific debate. This is where you get yoru Christian Nuts, and your wild eyed liberals. When you engage in any of these kinds of debates, you represent any and everyone that might possibly have a similar opinion as you, and therefore, the almost guaranteed negative effects of this debate will be extrapolated out to every person that would take your side.
As analytical and rational as we like to think of ourselves here on the left, however, we still end up getting into these minefields of arguments, and we almost always come out battered and bruised. We can pat ourselves on our collective backs as much as we like, declaring victory the whole way, but in the end no one's mind has been changed.
What's worse, since there is no absolute moral document from a higher being that backs up many of our positions, we are the underdog.
So it's a matter of figuring out how to get around these debates. It's a matter of not falling into these pitfalls. And that's exactly what we have to do. We have to realize instantly when we have found ourselves in a right vs. right debate and change the argument to something that can be won.
It's a matter of understanding the final outcome you want, and then reframing the debate so that you can explain how this is something that the other opposing opinion would want as well.
If going back to religion in schools, find out what it is the opposing side really cares about, and appeal to that. They want to protect their religion? Then explain how keeping religion out of schools is the best way to protect religion.
And it's also a matter of understanding that there are those who will not change anything what so ever. These are the fanatics, and they should not be bated, attacked, or in any way shape or form embattled because then they become martyrs to the cause, and take up the torch for all those that might otherwise be convinced, if not in the morality of the argument, at least the final outcome.
Mr. M
No comments:
Post a Comment