I don't think I'm going to post things on Facebook anymore. It feels like any time I do, it turns into a fight. I think people make assumptions about my political leanings, assume that since I'm a Mormon from Utah I must be super conservative, therefore, anything I post must be super conservative, and they must argue against what I've posted. Regardless.
No, really. I can say that abusive, questionably rape-like relationships are bad and I'm wrong.
Which is funny because I'm actually right in the middle as far as politics go. Fiscally conservative, socially moderate. I'm a registered independent, and according to this political quiz, I'm basically in the middle but slightly skewed left. And I'm finding that being in the middle is pretty tough because everyone collectively hates you (or the very worst they question my testimony because apparently science and religion are mutually exclusive....???):
- I'm a tree-hugging, anti-religious, crazy liberal to my super conservative friends and family for believing in global warming and evolution. I guess I just like the earth and think that not being soley dependent on oil wouldn't be the worst thing, oh and how dare I treat my gay friends with love and acceptance (which I'm pretty sure is what Christ would do, but apparently I'm wrong about that too).
- And yet somehow I'm also an anti-science, anti-free speech, crazy conservative to my liberal friends for thinking that pornography is damaging and for being annoyed that the government takes 40% of my paycheck, (and that the government is the biggest waste of money and mostly ineffective, inefficient, and useless, bloated corpse of what it should be).
Posts
3 comments:
Amen Linds...I have a saying I stand by and that is social media is used as the a communication source for the spineless soul...meaning those who are spineless and can't have face to face interactions b/c they are so hot headed and narrow minded they might explode, unleash on social media w a relentless assault on who ever they can instead of taking the time to consistently and cognitively consider all points of view and understanding. I can't do facebook. I can barely do instagram. And I can not do twitter!
Whoa! I inspired a blog post? I'd like to start by saying I don't disagree about the book in the FB post you linked; I'm sure it's terrible for many many reasons. That's why I don't think you understood what I was saying, but that's not the point of my reply.
I feel like many people are too shy about sharing ideas and letting people having opposing views against them. That's a critical part of knowledge. Any idea not able to stand up to criticism isn't a thought worth having. As a result I have a critical approach to everything. Take your post for example, I agreed with the conclusion of the article you posted but I didn't feel it created a sound argument so I criticized the argument. It also saddens me than many people take criticism of their ideas as a sign that the person hates them. Two people can have different opinions and not hate each other.
To end this comment I'm going to have to take umbrage with the notion that social media is a communication source for the "spineless soul". I'm perfectly happy to have these kinds of discussions in person, in fact I'd prefer it that way. As recently as last night I had a debate about the values of Libertarianism with somebody I disagreed with after playing tennis. At the end the person who I had the discussion with commented on how they always enjoyed discussing things with me. Social media is just simply another method of communicating, sharing, and challenging ideas to me. In modern society we tend to live in echo chambers where we only get to hear points of view that we agree with (think Fox News and MSNBC) so engaging in discourse is as important now as ever.
Oh Bill don't flatter yourself ;) Most of that post was poking fun at my dad for his super conservative ways and how he thinks I'm a bleeding heart liberal if you can believe that.
And I did understand your comment on 50 shades, but I just never would have thought that you would have taken the side for the book given your feminist ways. I realize you weren't really defending the book and were more just criticizing my argument that the scene referenced was actually rape, but you did somehow manage to end up on the same side of the debate as that other girl who claims that book IS feminist, which I know makes you happy :)
I think engaging in discourse about really important topics like religion and politics and the environment are great too. The problem is 99% of people aren't as informed as you and certainly don't even entertain the thought of changing their opinion. I don't mind "arguing" with you because I know you are open to ideas that may contradict your own, and most importantly, you don't take it personally when someone disagrees with you.
However, you are the exception, not the rule. Most people take it personally when you disagree with them. Most people can't separate the idea that believing in different things politically doesn't mean you're a bad person. Most people have their beliefs because of things they've read in email forwards or on facebook posts, and when they get into a discussion about it, they just dig their heels in deeper and it just ends up being divisive and contentious and it's exhausting. I'm just not a fan of confrontation I guess and I don't want to offend people so unless it's something I feel super strongly about (like pornography or feminism), I just don't bother.
Plus I'd much rather do it in person because you can never know how someone may react to things in writing when they don't have the advantage of body language, tone of voice, etc.
Post a Comment