A Look into the Toxic: Thirteen Ways Political and Social Debate is Done Wrong (Part Two)

A Look into the Toxic: Thirteen Ways Political and Social Debate is Done Wrong (Part Two)

Onto the middle four ways I’ve see so many people both in the public eye and not end up creating more toxicity in an already toxic environment in politics. As with Part One, these four do not indicate any malicious intent, do not characterize anyone who commits one or even all of them as necessarily reprehensible. They are strategies and methods that end up dividing us more often than bringing about understanding. As before I’ll not only summarize what these four mistakes are, but also why they’re so tempting to use (and why we still shouldn’t).

Favoring Method over Substance

Summary

I have said it before, and will continue to say that the way we communicate does matter. “I disagree with you” and “you are wrong”, although both may hold the same core meaning, will make a noticeable impact on the direction of a conversation. Both comments have their uses, and those uses are not necessarily the same.

However, it is common that method, the way in which we communicate, our tone, our mannerisms, the specific words we choose take priority over what we are trying to say in the first place. One of the more common ways is seeing two or more people each trying to remain calm and tactful, yet push the other person to lose their cool, the one who gets flustered first loses. Another common way is establishing rules of discourse that inhibit how we communicate. Although to a degree certain rules are to be expected, we don’t want people throwing punches as an example, but if we put too many limitations, the place, the tone, the dress, the procedure, the topics that can and can’t be talked about, those boundaries often become more defining of a conversation than the issues at hand.

The Temptation

Having some rules, some structures in place is usually a good thing. It keeps discussions organized, relevant, and clear. Each time something happens that distorts or halts the progress of a conversation, we’re tempted to try to find a solution and place more rules in place to strengthen the method in which we debate issues.

And a pleasant method is… pleasant. Tactfulness is not always the best means to speak, but in most cases it comes across better than anger does, even if that anger is more real and honest.

The temptation is also there for when somebody with an opposing view stumbles over themselves. It’s easy to point and laugh at someone’s misstep, their blunder, their embarrassment rather than let them off the hook and instead engage them on why we disagree with the substance of their arguments when it’s easier to highlight their ineptitude, or sensitivity, or something else of that nature.

The Problem

Adding new rules and structures to the methods in which we discuss and debate issues are cumulative. It’s easy to add on a rule in a reactive way to stop one incident from repeating, but it doesn’t consider how a new rule or boundary might work within existing rules. If too many rules and structures are put into place, the sum of the parts can create a stifling whole.

Focusing on the method whether it’s trying to be the most tactful and calm person in the room, or quickly jumping upon someone else’s mistake, puts the real conversation on the sideline. Perhaps a politician’s blunder may have cost them support for a piece of legislation on the short term, but the legislation itself will be much more likely to endure unless it can be challenged directly. That’s not to mention that emphasizing someone’s error is not going to create goodwill in the long term.

Solutions

Keep what’s important at the forefront both internally and externally. If the discussion is immigration, continue to hammer that point away. “We’re here to discuss immigration, not [insert some method of communication that’s brought up]”. Legitimize people. “Everyone in this discussion belongs here, regardless of where we came from, regardless of our opinions or how we express them” can help everyone accept and engage in the issue over the method, to forgive minor mistakes.

When someone makes a faux pas, don’t focus on that over why we disagree with them in the first place. “Yes, this person said something silly, but what’s really important here is…”

Leveraging Power

Summary

This is a tricky one as politics is essentially leveraging power. We elect candidates who in turn propose and pass legislation that in turn goes to administrators and front line workers to make reality. When there is a contentious issue, not everyone is going to be made happy, and we use politics to try to make our beliefs the ones that are represented.

Leveraging power in this case though pertains to two or more people engaging in discourse. For this particular blog post, I’m not interested in covering politics as a whole, but more on leveraging power when the goal is just to talk, just to share and exchange ideas to build a greater understanding.

Power comes in many forms. It can be formal such as an employer over employees. It can be informal such as the person everyone knows is more knowledgeable or more eloquent a speaker. It can be about relationships such as who is related to whom, who is a closer friend to whom. Most of us face situations where we have power over someone else, and when others have power over us. The same goes for political discussions. There will be times when we have the means to control the conversation, to leverage our position in a discussion, and when that can be used against us.

The Temptation

Often times our power is earned, or at least perceived to be earned. A manager did need to be hired or promoted to have their position. Someone may have studied more to become knowledgeable. Our sources of power can also be our sources of support. Friends, family, love ones, we can and should turn to them (more on this in Part Three). It’s very easy to cross the line of when someone is simply supporting us to where someone we care about is leveraging us to “win” a debate.

Power is difficult to let go of once we have it. I won’t go as far to say it’s an addiction, but giving up control over a situation isn’t an action that normally comes naturally. If there are ten people who believe in A, and one person who believes in B, the majority’s first instinct isn’t likely going to be to reduce their numbers. If someone has just taken a course in a specific policy subject, it’s easier to show off that knowledge than to share it.

The Problem

Outsmarting someone, outnumbering them, getting our buddy to have our back may overpower whoever we’re debating with at that moment, but when we go your separate ways it won’t stick. Similar to favoring method over substance, we’ve only proven that we can have an advantage over them, not that what we have to say is any more sound or moral.

At worst, it can create resentment. If someone feels as though they’ve “lost”, it may just trigger the backfire effect and cause them to avoid us more than engage with us again.

Solutions

We need to have confidence in ourselves, and our own ability to communicate without needing a title, numbers, or more preparation in order to talk about politics and other divisive social issues. Have the mindset that we could say the same thing whether the power of any given situation favors us or not.

Assuming our goal is to build bridges, we can do our part to make a welcoming environment. Part of that welcoming is being mindful of what advantages we have that are unrelated to the topic itself, and avoid using them. On the flip side, be mindful of what things others can leverage and point it out as unrelated should we need to.

Shutting Down

Summary

Shutting down is essentially giving up on a conversation. It’s no longer listening, no longer interacting. “I’m not going to do this anymore.” “Whatever. I don’t even care.” It’s stopping before ever getting far enough to build a sense of understanding.

This is not to be mistaken with leaving a conversation that’s going nowhere. We’re no obliged to see a conversation to its end if there is no end. Shutting down is stopping before giving it our best, to buckling when it starts to get stressful or confusing. A common example is if someone is called a racist, rather than try to find out what they did or said that caused offense and reflect upon it, to instead get upset and give up trying to hold any meaningful conversation any more.

The Temptation

Discussing politics and contentious matters is hard, it’s stressful, it’s tiresome. It’s a lot easier to talk to people we already agree with rather than spend thirty minutes trying to win small victories over someone we’ll never truly agree with.

And it hurts. I hear words like “snowflakes” and “fragility” thrown around, and I say “yes”. We are emotional, we are senstivie, we do have things we care about. If we’re getting into a heated discussion, it means we care, it means are likely to be hurt by positions and comments that go against our values, or dreams.

It’s easier to walk away.

The Problem

Shutting down turns things into a one-sided debate, and fast. If we shut down, we can no longer learn, no longer share or teach. It is surrendering to our differences, the things that separate us over that which we have in common.

Democracies are reliant upon the will of the people, and though I wouldn’t go as far to say that we’re only as a strong as our weakest link, we do need enough people with the fortitude to keep society strong. We need enough of us able and willing to endure putting up with one another to prevent society from splintering too much.

Solutions

If someone is starting to shut down, ease off. Legitimize their feelings, don’t condemn them or look down on them for metaphorically falling apart. If the conversation needs to end then and there, give an option for continue the conversation at a later time. We can allow others their moments of weakness just as we’d hope for in return.

As for our own stamina, practice makes perfect. If we can check news sites we don’t care for, read articles that contradict what we believe, we can become a bit more accustomed to it, be more resilient when it’s important. Heck, we may learn something too.

Tribalism

Summary

Tribalism is a loyalty to one’s group, however we define what our group is. Nationality, faith, race, gender, political party, community, family are but a few ways we can categorize ourselves. “This is how I was raised”, “this is what I grew up believing” are a couple ways this can show. I belong to X group, which is defined by Y belief, therefore I must believe in it as well.

Tribalism requires that there also be an “other”. If we belong to this group, there must a that group. If we are in defense of our values, there must be an aggressor we must defend those values against. If we are up, there must be a down. If we are right, there must be a left. Light and dark. Good and evil. True and false.

The Temptation

It’s natural, and likely unavoidable, to try to belong somewhere. We’re not at a point of universal brotherhood and sisterhood, and such a future is likely far, far away.

Even if we want to avoid tribalism, not to heavily favor the “same” over “otherness”, it’s hard when society lumps us into groups. Just because we want to be inclusive does not mean each of us will in turn be included.

Things like family, religion, nationality are important to us, and more often than not do good for us. They can give us purpose, direction, we have to learn from someone and somewhere, and it makes sense to find those we trust and value.

The Problem

Tribalism may be an inevitable facet of human life in today’s world, but it serves as a barrier when trying to reach across to another “tribe”. We cannot truly engage with someone else if we have on (or both) feet still planted in our traditions. If both parties remained rooted, then it doesn’t matter whether what separates us are a few feet or a few miles as neither side will budge.

Although caring about one’s family or social group is perfectly fine, if it is done at the expense of all other families, all other groups, then we won’t have the capacity to engage each other. We need enough space in our hearts, in our minds for those who aren’t familiar in order to care and share political and social discourse with them.

Solutions

When confronting tribalism, try to expand that tribe. Turn a country into a continent, turn a generation into a century, a gender into a species. We can redefine tribes to encompass everyone involved in a conversation. Failing that, recognize the gap. “I know we come from different backgrounds and experiences, so some disagreements are likely”. We can set the stage that those in a debate are not necessarily with their peers, not with those we normally speak with and be prepared for it.

And of course, it’s important for us to recognize our own “tribes”. Which ones do we cling to less and more? Which ones do we rush to less and more? It may not change how we feel, but being aware of it can keep it from becoming an issue should it come up.

***

ACTION!

The “ACTION!” for Part One was for us to recognize which of these problematics ways to discuss politics we ourselves commit. This time look to others. The Press, politicians, our family and friends, consider how things might be different if they took a different, less toxic approach.

***

What’s Next?

Part Three will cover the last five ways we make politics more toxic. Unlike the first eight, which most of the time I would say are done with good intentions, the same can’t be said for what I’ll be listing in Part Three. It will be covering the more malicious, more harmful, uglier tactics we engage with in politics. Once more I will cover the summary, temptation, problem, and solutions.

A Look into the Toxic: Thirteen Ways Political and Social Debate is Done Wrong (Part One)

A Look into the Toxic: Thirteen Ways Political and Social Debate is Done Wrong (Part One)

Oh boy.

Since posting my Ten Strategies in Engaging in Political and Social Topics, I’ve tried to use them both in person and online. What I’ve seen consistently is how messy so many these conversations, debates, and arguments are when it comes to politics and other social issues. In order to make any progress with at least some people, it hasn’t been enough to just offer ideas in a way that’s effective and ethical, but to also be able to recognize what mistakes others people are making, to be able to work with or around those mistakes.

And the list I’m making is of mistakes. At least for America (I won’t make a blanket comment about the world), we’re not taught how to negotiate with people well. There is not a “Getting Along with Others” class after Kindergarten, we take it for granted. I took debate my senior year of high school, and learned nothing helpful. To be fair, I did the minimum, just trying to win brownie points for college applications, but I do remember that debating between two groups, having a hopefully impartial judge give numbers through different criteria isn’t how life works. The knowledge I gained that did teach me how to engage better with others was mostly from the U.S. Peace Corps and taking specific electives for my Masters Degree, I had to go out of my way to learn even basic negotiating principles.

I really want to emphasize that most people’s toxic debate strategies are not done with malicious intent. We’ll be covering some of that (in Part Three), but the majority of what I’ve seen out there is well-intentioned people frustrated because they’re trying to reach across the table, to understand better, but come up short. At least for the strategies in this first part, doing any of the following doesn’t mean you or I are bad people. It means we’re bringing the wrong tools to the task at hand.

Trying to Win

Summary

This is probably the most common toxic strategy I’ve seen. It’s pretty much what it says, that entering a political or social conversation with the intent to “win”, to score more imaginary points, to bring people to our side whatever the side may be.

Similar to trying to win, is also just trying to make the other person lose. The difference is that someone trying to win is attempting to do so on their arguments while someone just trying to make the other one lose does not offer their own insights, only tries to point out the flaws in others’.

The Temptation

This is how we’re taught about debates. As I mentioned, I did a brief stint doing debate club in high school, and we were given a numerical score across several categories and told who won. Even in Presidential Debates, we like to talk about who won or who lost as if it were a competition.

And we like to win. Winning’s fun. Winning means more people agree with us about political matters, making it just a little more likely that our country will reflect our own values. Why wouldn’t we want to try to win?

The Problem

There are no scores in life to who debated better. The person who made the most coherent, evidence-based arguments does not necessarily get what they want. Most people don’t abandon long-held political and social views over one conversation, or even over half-a-dozen. In reality, we are fighting over inches, not miles. It’s easy to ask another person to change, but it’s not so simple when the situation is flipped.

And it’s easy to feel we won because we liked our own arguments while another person feels they won because they used the talking points that they felt were more relevant. It leads to nowhere.

Solutions

Seek to learn and to teach instead. That is what discussions are about, they are sharing ideas. It is about putting evidence, perspective, and context to the world, informing people, and they in turn doing the same for us.

When dealing with someone trying to win, who is clearly trying to score points, to feel that they’ve made the better ideas, just bring it up. “Hey, I know we both feel passionately about this and neither of us will change our minds. Let’s just try to understand each other’s perspectives a little bit better”. Change the rules from a competition to a dialogue. One other way to help bridge the gap is recognize their valid points. “Hey, you make a good point here, and I agree with that part. Here’s where I still feel a bit differently.” If someone wants to win, let them win a little bit to keep them engaged.

When dealing with someone trying to make us lose, then just try to learn.  We can use people like that to find flaws or weaknesses in our own arguments. They’re not going to try to learn in return, which is their loss, but that doesn’t mean that some good can’t come from it.

Misinterpretation

Summary

Not so much as a strategy per se, but an issue that constantly rises up when dealing with heavy political matters is misinterpretation. Language is imperfect, we all see the world and interact with it in different ways. Although there is certainly a range of what “freedom” means, there will be inevitable variations depending on our values and experiences along with other concepts and ideas.

Though not always, we usually treat ourselves as the protagonist of our own stories. So if another person is talking about how a political matter relates to them, it’s easy to misinterpret it and think they’re talking about how a political matter relates to us.

Example: A person living on the main street in a town may say a new bridge will help reduce traffic. The person living by where the bridge would be built can’t understand because for them it’ll create more traffic.

The Temptation

I’ll emphasize it again that we are the protagonist in our own story. To a degree, we won’t understand one another, no matter how hard we try. Different people are different. Even more universal values like love and family and prioritized and interpreted differently. This disconnect we have is frustrating to try to overcome, to open our minds to.

Cross-cultural communication and engagement is rewarding, but it’s also tiring. It’s easier to just focus on what we know and understand.

The Problem

I think this one’s pretty self-explanatory. If we don’t understand each other, it makes building bridges, learning, teaching a lot more difficult. Some misinterpretations are going to happen, but when they are not resolved, when we don’t strive to get a better understanding, the discussion is stagnant. We can still vote, can still lobby, but our ability to come to any sort of consent or consensus becomes lost.

Solutions

Empathy is a wonderful tool, sharing people’s feelings. Stepping away from our own feelings and trying to realize another person’s can accomplish a lot. When we get confused, rather than try to ask ourselves, “How do I understand this?” instead try, “How does this other person, with their different values and experiences, understand this?”

Failing that, simply ask. “Let me clarify,” “This is how I’m interpreting what you just said, am I right?” “What did you mean by so and so?” Questions are a powerful tool to overcome misunderstandings.

Oversimplification

Summary

We have to simplify political and social issues. An expert can devote their entire career to one aspect of one major issue, dealing with new information, changes in public opinion, legislation, and so on and so forth. And there are a lot of complex and contentious issues in our society today, with limited time in our daily lives to dedicate to them.

Oversimplification comes in two forms. One is leaving out crucial information. It can be leaving out any piece of information that could significantly change the perspective on a certain issue, and often it’s highlighting only the positives or only the negatives. The other form of oversimplification is not only simplifying an issue, but truly believing the issue is simple when it’s not.

The Temptation

The balance between simplifying social issues for public consumption, and oversimplifying them to the point of causing toxicity isn’t clear, and there is likely no perfect solution for all of us. When we are given the choice of how much time to talk to people about contentious issues, it’s easy to shorten that time. When deciding which main points to cover, it’s easy to focus only on the ones that support our position, or those dissenting views we feel we can easily counter.

And we want things to be simple. It’s comforting to feel we have a grasp on the world, realizing that there’s a lot we don’t know can be annoying. Spending hours and dollars on a semester-long college course, only to find that we only just scratched the surface of whatever it is we learned isn’t all that fun. It’s so much easier to stop and pat ourselves on the back, and feel we’ve conquered it. 

The Problem

When we focus only on one side of the argument, we fail to prepare ourselves for engaging with people we disagree with. Without being able to say, “I agree with this movement, though admit that it has a weakness with “X” and falls short on “Y”, we make our positions fragile. We set ourselves up to have to confess to them later, or to try to hide them. When people find out that crucial information was left out, it takes away a level of trust that’s hard to win back.

Believing that issues themselves are simple kills nuanced conversation. We start throwing out terms like “common sense” or comments like “Well I don’t know much, but what I do know is that [I’m correct when it comes to this complex, ever-changing issue that I think is simple]”. When we not only simplify an issue, but believe it to be simple, then we don’t feel a reason to sit down and talk about it.

Solutions

Accept that issues are complex that rarely any one person has all the knowledge, and thus it takes a community or more to fill in the gaps. Be skeptical when someone only thinks there are positives or negatives to any given issue, and try not to fall into that habit yourself.

Inform yourself.

When coming across someone who’s trying to dumb things down, or truly believes something is simple, bring up the scope of an issue. If we’re talking about tens or even hundreds-of-millions of people, surely we’ll all be affected a little differently. By bringing up those who may not benefit, or even be hurt, by a given position it can lead to a more nuanced discussion about how taxation, regulation, conflict, and more can be tweaked and changed to mitigate those problems. Those conversations can lead to a better dialogue.

Poor Metaphors and Comparisons

Summary

Related to simplification, metaphors and other comparisons are means to help us describe and illustrate our points. However, metaphors and comparisons aren’t inherently accurate or useful, it does take thought and effort to make them relevant.

Definition of metaphor

: a figure in speech in which a word of phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them.

In essence, it’s comparing two or more things that are not literally the same. There is a limit to what metaphors can convey, great in small dosages, not so much when we rely on them exclusively. The same applies to all comparisons, most of the time comparisons can be made in general terms, but not with specific details and nuances. “Poor” metaphors and comparisons either fail to understand these limits, or fail in even the most basic functions.

The Temptation  

Metaphors are one of those literary terms I learned, and I believe many of us learn, quite young. It’s ingrained into our minds early, and sticks with us. Metaphors can offer a visualization to whatever we’re discussing, or can put things in terms that we understand better. Do we know about geopolitics? Likely not. Do we know fast food chains? Sure. Let’s make a metaphor.

We naturally compare and contrast our world, it’s how our brains work. We categorize things. It would be an even more difficult world to communicate in without comparisons. However, sometimes those comparisons come spur of the moment before we have the time to think them through. Given the imperfect nature of comparisons, it’s easy to not worry about where they aren’t true. It’s only a comparison after all, right?

The Problem

Black Lives Matters, the Alt Right, militia groups, Antifa, and other political groups are not liberal or conservative counterparts to one another. Each has their own agenda, their own methods, their own membership, their own history, and more. The problems that Democrats face are different than the ones that Republicans face both internally and externally. This isn’t even getting into other countries. Comparing groups like these almost always generalizes and misses the point to one if not both groups.

Metaphors done wrong can compare human beings to inanimate objects, a dangerous narrative to have for those people described (more on this in Part Three). They can also be wildly inaccurate, the most famous one recently being Donald Trump Jr. comparing Syrian refugees to skittles, if we would eat a bowl if we knew some of them were poisoned. This would suggest that a single bowl’s (around 20-30) worth of refuges would have 3-4 as terrorists, which even the highest estimations get nowhere close to.

These mischaracterizations lead to misinformation, of us believing things that are inaccurate. We can’t build an understanding with one another when we ourselves are wrong about the facts.

Solutions

Don’t rely on comparisons and metaphors. Use them sparingly to complement your arguments, not define them. When we come across those who do try to make false or tenuous comparisons, push the conversation away from it. “I see where you’re going with this, but I don’t feel comfortable trying to compare this serious issue with something like fast food chains/ice cream flavors/whatever it is” or “You know, these two political groups really have nothing in common. I’m good with talking about both of them, but maybe not at the same time.”

By putting the actual situation, the actual people involved as the focus on the conversation, it’ll be easier to avoid troublesome metaphors and comparisons that mislead or misinform.

***

ACTION!

With the four toxic strategies in Part One, as well those I’ll be discussin in Parts Two and Three, identify which ones you’re prone to use. Once again, it doesn’t make you a bad person, but consider how you can avoid them, or do it less in the future. Of the first four, I admit comparisons and metaphors are my Achilles heel, and I have to always be mindful of it.

***

What’s Next?

Parts Two and Three. Part Two will cover the remaining strategies that though not ill-intended, are still toxic to creating understanding and building bridges. Part Three will cover those strategies that do cross over that line between genuine and malicious more times than not.

Breaking Nostalgia

Breaking Nostalgia

Definition: a wistful or excessively sentimental yearning for return to or of some past period or irrecoverable donation; also : something that evokes nostalgia

Nostalgia can be a powerful and comforting feeling, something that can reconnect us to our past, remind us of things we had growing up. Not only do I think there’s nothing inherently wrong with nostalgia, but I think it’s healthy now and then.

We see how powerful a drive nostalgia can be when it comes to entertainment. Reboots, remakes, sequels, a lot of movies, shows, and music find success by reaching back into the past. And I say, “Good for them”. If they can find success and profits through giving people the nostalgia they’re looking for, I don’t see anything inherently wrong with that either.

What I see as a problem is when we become beholden to our nostalgia, when we allow it to make us angry, frustrated, to lash out over cartoon shows from decades ago because they were ‘ruined’. I see people passionately fight for their nostalgia with a similar level of urgency that people struggling for equality and equity in race, religion, and gender do. There’s a reason for it, as I’ve stated many times in past posts self-identity is something we hold very dear to us.

I argue that though I grew up watching Transformers and Ninja Turtles as a child, they are not a part of my deepest, most personal identity, at least not so much as to feel that Michael Bay is personally attacking my childhood. My childhood is over, and barring a literal time machine, will remain as it is. That’s not to say Michael Bay movies are free from critique, but that “my childhood is ruined!” isn’t among the useful ones. If you want a critique of the Transformers movies, I’d recommend Lindsay Ellis’s videos starting here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRXI__Wixas

The Backfire Effect and Core Beliefs

This is the second time I’m referring readers to The Oatmeal’s comic on it found here: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe

In sum, the backfire effect is that mentally we reject ideas and concepts that challenge our core beliefs with the same part of our brain that reacts to physical, violent threats. Things that don’t matter to our core self, our identity, we can debate a lot more easily, are more flexible and less likely to be offended and shut down to alternate ideas. What is more sacred to us though requires a lot more effort and mindfulness, to not give into our impulses if we wish to learn and grow.

We all have core beliefs, things that ground us, things that shape our worldview. And that’s all right. I think to a degree having some things sacred to us is a good thing, that in the heat of the moment if someone is saying that hurting puppies is fun (as a more extreme example), I think it’s reasonable to have our first impulse be complete rejection, as anger, to be mad at the person before we try to thoughtfully and more objectively point out why that’s so terrible.

I don’t know enough about the subject matter to say what is and is not within our control to hold as core beliefs. Obviously some things like faith and family more easily become deeply rooted than our favorite brand of snack. And it is the latter that this post is concerned about. Of things like snacks, games, or movies, and how when we let nostalgia get the better of us, we lose sight of more important things.

A Few Examples

Ghostbusters

Ghostbusters. I know I’m late to the punch, but it was this spectacle that first made me wonder if nostalgia could be taken too far. Although certainly not a majority, a number of vocal individuals could not accept the idea of a female main cast for Ghostbusters. They reacted with complete rejection, anger, rigidity, everything that would suggest that the masculinity of a comedy franchise about busting ghosts was deeply important to them, potentially even a core belief. This was all before the movie was released.

To be sure, sexism certainly was a part of it, that the same level of vitriol wasn’t direct at the other things that mar the Ghostbusters franchise from a critically-mixed second movie, cartoons that were marketing schemes for selling toys, and the issues between Bill Murry and Harold Ramis that stalled and ultimately prevented the original third movie. However, there were those who passionately spoke to nostalgia, and allowed themselves to feel deeply hurt and offended before having any real critiques to go on other than it wasn’t like the old days. Other aspects of the franchise past, present, or future became lost in a debate that didn’t even reflect the movie itself. Even the greater question of gender roles in media and society was lost on those who felt their views on Ghostbusters were part of their core beliefs.

The Princess Bride

The other discussion that really brought my attention to how we treat nostalgia was Robin Wright’s role in the Princess Bride compared to Wonder Woman, and to a lesser extent how Carrie Fisher’s Leia changed from a princess the original movie to a General in The Force Awakens. I love both The Princess Bride and Star Wars A New Hope, I have fond memories of both movies (nostalgia, if you will). Part of the celebration many had, the inspiration seeing actresses playing damsels in distress later in life play much more assertive and powerful roles did hold criticism to those earlier movies. The point is there that those earlier movies I enjoyed growing up did not give women dynamic and strong roles.

There is a part of me that does have a slight urge to defend those old movies, but luckily for me I don’t feel The Princess Bride is part of my core beliefs. I can accept criticisms of the movie without it being a personal attack. More than that I can even accept some of that criticism as valid, and though I’ll still watch it again, am willing to look at it through a new lens.

Pluto

I grew up learning about nine planets in our solar system, Pluto being the ninth. We grew, we learned, we discovered that there were other celestial objects like Pluto and in light of the new information downgraded its classification to a dwarf planet.

It is an inanimate object.

No human being has touched its surface, and likely will not for a very, very long time.

It’s not like most of us are astronomers.

Yet somehow Pluto was still personified in many ways, seen as being bullied by the other, “big” planets. Here is a link to typing in “Pluto not a planet” into the google search engine for images: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHZL_enUS687US687&biw=2004&bih=1018&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=29sXWrKNNsmOjwOYhYy4Bg&q=pluto+not+a+planet&oq=pluto+not+a+planet&gs_l=psy-ab.3...0.0.0.8620.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.1VetzUuGnnU

As much as I get a good chuckle out of them, I can’t help but draw the connection to how nostalgia can make us view even the cosmos in silly ways. It may not have the toxicity that the Ghostbusters argument had, the inspiration that Robin Wright transition from damsel to warrior held, but it serves as one more anecdotal case of our nostalgia. We’ll draw sad eyes on Pluto over it.

The Choice

I will not argue in this post about whether your religion, family, career, peer group, or any number of other things belong as part of your core beliefs, those things that you will rarely if ever yield on. If you wish to place your childhood entertainment into the same space of your inner being, that is your call. I would ask you to consider whether or not it is wise though. Do you wish for a decades-old movie or show to hold the power to ruin your day should someone denounce it? As our society and the greater world grips with deeply complex social issues such as partisanship, religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, nationality, and more, digging our heels into the ground and drawing lines in the sand of us vs. them, do we really need to do that for nostalgic entertainment as well? Can we allow at least these more superficial aspects of our lives to be open to critique and analysis without it becoming contentious?

Maybe if we can break nostalgia, those heavier matters that divide us will be the next step?

***

(IN)ACTION!

The next time you hear about a remake, reboot, or re-whatever about something you loved as a child, or the next time one of those nostalgic memories is given a criticism when looked at through current-day-ethics… don’t sweat it. Don’t feel you have to take action over it.

***

What’s Next?

I think what I want to go over is to go over what I see as flawed, disingenuous, or even toxic strategies that I see are used in debates in our society today. It will likely be similar to my Ten Strategies post I made before, but will likely have to go deeper. I’ll cover some of the common strategies that halt progress, describe why it’s tempting to use them and why it’s still not worth it, and hopefully ways to counteract them.

Why philosophy is crucial to society and politics

Why philosophy is crucial to society and politics

One of the things that really stood out to me in the 2016 Presidential Campaign was when Marco Rubio said we need more welders, and less philosophers. I can see what he was saying to a point, that in general welders have a specific job while a philosopher will probably not be just a philosopher, they’ll need to actually apply their knowledge and skills to being a consultant, or a teacher, or any number of other careers. However, everyone has the capacity to be a philosopher, and to a degree are. Philosophy is often derided as being pie-in-the-sky talk of hypothetical matters, and it can be, but it’s also something that comes into play in our daily lives. In our society and politics today, I think we desperately need more of it.

How do we determine how we vote?

How do we rationalize the actions of our favored candidates and party against those we do not favor?

What offends us and what do we think is the proper response depending on who offended us and why we were offended?

I am not an expert on philosophy. I’ve never taken a class on philosophy, my knowledge of it is from things I’ve picked up over time as well as the Crash Course Philosophy videos, which I’ll link the first video for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A_CAkYt3GY

It’s okay though. We don’t have to get a PhD in Philosophy to be able to be rational, consistent, and ethical with our political discourse. In this post, I’ll be covering six brief lessons in philosophy that I think need to be used more in our current debates, followed by an example of what can happen when we don’t use a healthy amount of philosophy in our discourse.

Truth vs. Validity

It’s hard to distinguish truth from validity, and it often screws up our debates in society and politics. Something that it “true” is a fact, it is something that is empirically correct. Validity on the other hand is something that is logical, that follows a train of thought that make sense.

An example of something that is true, but not valid would be the following:

God does not like LGBT people, it causes God to punish people, therefore Hurricane Harvey and Irma devastated the United States and the Carribean.

The underlined part is a fact, two hurricanes did indeed cause a lot of damage, but there is no validity, no rational connection that shows that they were a punishment from God. There is no way to really disprove whether the claims are true or not, but we can challenge the logic behind it.

An example of something that is valid, but not true on the other hand:

Vaccinations can cause autism, your neighbors vaccinated their child, therefore the child might become autistic because of the vaccinations.

The argument is logical from start to finish, that indeed if vaccinations can cause autism, and if a child is vaccinated, then the child will be at more risk. However it is not true, there is no evidence to support this claim, except for a study that was proven false.

In both cases, the arguments leading up to the conclusion are the issue, but for different reasons. In the first case, it follows no real rhyme or reason and is paired with a very real natural disaster to try to appear legitimate, which it is not. In the latter case, it makes sense step by step but is based on bad information. These aren’t made up hypotheticals, these are arguments and beliefs some people have, but in order to counter it it’s important to be able to point out what specifically is wrong with it, knowing it is wrong in and of itself is not enough.

Human vs. Person

I really like philosophy’s distinction between a “human” and a “person”. A human is a biological species that the greatest saints, most depraved monsters, and all of us in between belong to. A person on the other hand is someone worth moral consideration, that they are worthy of having rights, privileges, respect, and so on.

Human and person as words are used interchangeably, and sadly the concepts are mixed up as well. There are too many examples where we don’t even accept another group as the same species, while on the flip side we often treat moral consideration by society as inherent to our biological makeup. This is a dangerous confusion for a society to have when the boundaries of what is our choice as a society and how we are physically born can’t be distinguished.

For most of us it’s okay to give more personhood to some than others. Most of us are all right with military veterans, and those who put themselves in harm’s way like Police and Firemen getting some extra respect and benefits. We allot them more personhood for their sacrifice, for the dangers they put themselves in. On the flip side, we take away some degree of personhood from criminals, we dole out punishments that often restrict what they can do and where they can go. However, most of us will agree that regardless of their great deeds, veterans and others are not entitled to do whatever they want, whenever they want. There are still rules that they share with the rest of us. Likewise, despite their crimes, criminals are still entitled to at least a minimum of rights and protections.

However, in today’s society we are not just debating the merits of the brave, the consequences of crime. Who has the right to protest, in what manner may the protest, what issues may the protest? Who deserves our empathy? Who deserves our condemnation? Who should be punished? These are questions we’ll continue to contend with, question of how we define “people” and sadly much of it still revolves around gender, race, religion, and other demographics meant to be protected by our laws.

Identity

What makes me, me, and what makes you, you? Although at first it might seem like one of those esoteric questions without a right answer, it plays out in our lives and in society every day. “I am an American because I do X, and therefore I’m entitled to Y” is a very prevalent sentiment in our country. When we say this we’re defining what it means to be an American, as well as what we should have because of it. Is “X” hard work, service, a mean hamburger on the grill? Is “Y” the right to free speech, representation by our officials, a middle income wage? From religion, to social class, to profession, to even what kind of hobby or sport we do can be something we feel is a vital part of who we are, and we define them with “X’s” and “Y’s”.

On a societal level we not only create a self-identity, but an identity for others. If what it means to be an America is to stand up for the Pledge of Allegiance, then Collin Kaepernick is not an American by that definition. If what it means to be an American is to practice your right to free speech, and to have a legal citizenship, then Collin Kaepernick is an American by definition. What we end up with is those who identify him as an “other”, something who is not us, and those who identify who as “same”, as someone who is one of us.

We unfortunately mistake identity for Truth though, as undisputed fact. Identity is a concept, one that we do not and will not agree upon and that is all right. What is the problem is when we fail to accept that other identities, other ways to define the world exist beyond our own. We use the same words whether citizen, patriot, American, and more to describe different worldviews that do not match.

Harmful words

Words can and do actually hurt. It doesn’t feel good to be rejected, or scolded, or threatened even if nothing physically happens. The word “snowflakes” has become all too common by people of many different political opinions to describe those who are offended by things they themselves are not offended by. Going back once more to the Ten Strategies I posted before, it’s generally not productive to delegitimize a person’s feelings.

However, it is important to distinguish how and why we’re offended. There is a difference between “dirty words” that upset our sensibilities and “hate speech” that directly attacks a person for what they are, and of course a more personal attack.

We can be offended by bad language, violence, or pornography in a game, movie, or tv show. We can be offended by irreverent behavior that we find gross or unsettling. This all falls into the dirty category, things upset our sense of properness. A good example is our rating system, kids can’t go see an R-rated movie unless accompanied by a parent or guardian.

Hate speech is meant to harm what a person is whether their gender, race, religion, nationality, sexuality, or some other part of what a person is. As opposed to offending our sense of properness, it is an attack on a person themselves, and by extension everyone else who belongs to the group that the victim was targeted for being.

And a personal attack is just that, it is something that is targeted towards a single person that can be inconsequential, could be incredibly serious and potentially dangerous, or somewhere in between. Unlike hate speech though, it is not an attack against an entire subsect of people.

I really hope the term “snowflake” goes away, though realistically if it does it’ll probably be because another catchy word has taken its place. It’s okay for us to be offended, we just have to be able to distinguish why we’re offended and respond accordingly. If as a society we find something that upsets our sensibilities, we censor it to whatever extent we choose. If as a society we run into hate speech, we should protect the group of people being attacked, understanding that more than just those directly involved are at risk. If it is a personal attack, then we handle it on an individual basis as best we can.

However, we get them mixed up and merely censor what is an attack against a group of people, we mistake a personal attack for a hate speech, we mistake hate speech for a personal attack. When we don’t understand what kind of offense has been given, as a society we can’t respond effectively.

Epistemic responsibility

I love, love, love the concept of “epistemic responsibility”, that we have responsibility for our beliefs. It is the understanding that our beliefs can have consequences both positives and negatives. We often feel that beliefs are private and personal. However, do we not share our beliefs? spread our beliefs? act upon our beliefs? If a person is a sexist, do they really go through life treating both men and women fairly and only think their sexist thoughts?

Different beliefs hold different weight. Our opinion about a beverage doesn’t hold the same weight as our belief in the treatment of other people. We don’t necessarily need to hold up every minor or trivial belief we have under a microscope. However, for those beliefs that are bigger, that do hold a very real impact for not only yourself, but those around you, consider what should matter:

-Should there be good intent?

-Should there be evidence?

-Should there be effort?

-Should there be self-reflection and criticism?

I would argue that whatever standards people use, there should be some standards. We should aspire to hold ourselves to a higher standard for those important beliefs, to accept their impact on our society, and to not take our beliefs for granted when truly we’re responsible for them.  

It’s not easy

I think one of the stereotypical visualizations we have of a philosopher is of very well educated people debating for hours on end highly complicated and subjective things like life, reality, free will, and so on without coming to a good conclusion. Yes. Even the most educated and wisest philosophers in history tripped and stumbled over questions. So will we. That’s okay.

Another thing that frustrates me in current political discourse is the myth of simplicity. Making decisions that can affect every American citizen, and potentially people all around the world, isn’t simple. Healthcare, the environment, justice reform, immigration, war, these are complicated matters that affect us all in different ways, and realistically no perfect answers exist. We must contend with which imperfect choice to make.

Just as philosophizing these issues should be difficult, so too should making the decision as aren’t our decisions based upon our own personal philosophy?

Why it’s so important to have more philosophy in our society and politics

When we cannot defend our rights intellectually, we open up the threat of having those rights taken away. When we believe that our politics is merely two sides, a group waving Nazi flags marching in Virginia can try to rationalize that “since we don’t belong to this half, we must belong to the other half!” If as a society we are unable to adequately communicate, “No, you belong to neither the Left nor the Right, but are a separate group altogether who has no valid claim to legitimacy”, then they very well may become a legitimate part of their chosen Party. If we cannot distinguish hate speech and its implications from other forms of speech, thinking it merely upsetting to our sensibilities or those specific individuals attacked, we will fail to protect the people who are now at risk. If we do not hold people morally responsible for their beliefs, we give a free pass to terrible bigotry as if there won’t be tangible actions that come of it.

If we can recognize the differences between truth and validity, strengthen and make more inclusive our identity, recognize and push for great personhood for more, I think we’ll be heading in a better direction. We just have to strive to be rational, consistent, and moral. It's not easy, but we as a society can do it.

***

ACTION!

Study up. I recommend the video link above, but failing that try to read up on the philosophical stances of what you care about. Try to think of sticky situations that might be an exception to your current beliefs, and figure out how you can rationalize it to where it is no longer an exception, or considering revising your beliefs if you cannot.

***

What’s Next?

Only thing on my list left is my thoughts on nostalgia, and how we can take it a bit too far. I’ll have to sit down and think on some other topics, perhaps look for recommendations.

A Reflection on Racism and Hate: What we can do better

A Reflection on Racism and Hate: What we can do better

Something has gone terribly wrong when Nazi flags are waved side-by-side with Confederate flags as they chant praise for the President and hate for minorities. Although there’s a part of me that feels absurd for stating what should be common sense, I have to remind myself that it isn’t actually common sense, at least not to everyone.

When I consider what I can say to someone who carries a Nazi flag proudly I come up with nothing. I cannot try to convince someone the realities of privilege when they feel they need more privileges, more rights than others. I cannot use strategies in negotiating and reaching across the table when across that table is the belief in genocide. Self-reflection is a personal choice, and cannot be forced upon those who refuse it.

And so instead I focus on those of us who know better. This blog post is focused for those of us, myself included, who understand that bigotry is wrong, but how we as a collective society have failed to not only end it, but to keep it from rising again. Whereas my last post was more on a personal level, this post is looking at broader aspects in our society.

We want to believe in a better world, one that understands better

I believe that optimism has hurt the cause of tolerance. I want to believe in a world that’s progressing, one that’s becoming more understanding. I want to believe that the Civil Rights Act was enough. At times, I have believed these things. However, this optimism makes it too easy to assume that things will work out, that people will be reasonable and eventually come together. History disagrees with this, current affairs disagree with it, but the idea of each generation doing a little bit better than the last is a narrative that’s hard to let go of.

I make the argument that the world is not necessarily better just because it naturally gets better, that understanding won’t be found unless we actively push for it and it will get worse if we don’t. Society is made up by people, and thus for society to improve, it requires people to do it.

We damn racism, but without nuance or often explanation

I grew up being taught that racism and bigotry were wrong. It causes a lot of pain and suffering. The end.

In hindsight, that wasn’t enough.

Once again, I feel weird for saying that we need to explain why racism is wrong, why treating people as less than a person based off skin color is terrible. However, without providing an explanation, it makes it too easy to rationalize how maybe racism isn’t so bad, or to define racism in convenient ways that doesn’t require us to change any aspect of our lives. I’ve heard the idea that humans aren’t born racist, they must learn it. I don’t necessarily disagree, but if there are aspects of society teaching racism, then we should push back and teach against it. Systematic racism, intersectionality, these are concepts I only discovered and learned about later in life. How much more equipped would our young people be if they understood the nuances, the different kinds of bigotry, the motivations, the scientific evidence against it? I think it would make a big impact if we treated being a good citizen, such as not being a member or sympathizer of hate groups, as a part of our education. More people deal with issues of acceptance than deal with trigonometry in their daily lives.

We aren’t great at utilizing diversity

In mainstream media we have terms like the “token” character or “diversity points”. I think there’s validity to it. Characters are often brought on a show, movie, game, or something else in a way that’s not genuine, and it’s easy to spot. It’s not necessarily ill-intended, but if we see diversity in a forced, lackluster way it won’t really show us what different groups have to offer. Worst, it can be mistaken for legitimate diversity.

On a more personal level, mediation, facilitation, and communication are skills that for many of us are optional to learn. These skills among others can help us bridge gaps, better understand different perspectives, but are treated as specializations or soft skills. We try to instill in people a sense that there’s two sides of a story (or often more than just two), but I had to seek out my own opportunities to better learn how to actually handle and accept those other sides.

We assume acceptance is easy

It’s not. Three years in the Peace Corps, meeting hundreds of other volunteers, every single one had their low moments. Every single volunteer at one point let the differences in culture and values frustrate them, anger them. Most volunteers could then step back, reflect, and grow. However, it took effort and mindfulness.

Accepting other people is not a passive action for me despite that’s what I more of less grew up believing. I believe now that it’s active, it’s something we need to do deliberately and intentionally. So long as we assume it’ll just happen, we risk acceptance not coming at all.

We’re failing to recognize the draws of racism

Hitler was a terrible, monstrous human being. He is probably the single most publicly denounced figure in the modern age, and for good reason. Yet the problem I see is we don’t really discuss why he came to power in a way that can be related to our own lives, to our own politics. I think there’s a fear that if we discuss Nazis in terms that define them as humans, we’ll somehow legitimize them. We feel compelled to dehumanize them in strongest terms to separate ourselves from them, and pretend that only the most disturbed could be attracted to their brand of bigotry.

Whether it’s finding a scapegoat, having someone to feel “better” than, to avoid the guilt of one’s advantages in life, there are real draws to either accepting racism or ignoring it and acting as a bystander. Even if we assume racists are somehow different than normal people, their minds work differently, there still must be some sort of draw, some sort of lure to make people get behind racial superiority.

I feel that only be being able to point out and identify that causes of racism, can we hope to find the cures. To do that, we have to be willing to look into what those causes are, however uncomfortable it may be.

We stereotype racists

It’s with no small amount of irony that I reflect back and see how racists were stereotyped for me. There are two versions I saw. One was of disgusting slobs (often from the South) who were dumb, ignorant, and pathetic. The second variety was the person who seemed normal at first (often a well-to-do businessman), but once confronted, we’d see them transform into the monster they truly were. Any good qualities were just a false front.

Just as with many things, I don’t think there’s a clear line between bigot and not-a-bigot. It comes in different forms, different degrees, and from different people. It’s not comfortable thinking about how friends, family, and neighbors can be intolerant (or even consider what biases we ourselves have). Just as entertainment and other public venues can do better to reflect minorities in a more full, less token way, so too can we better show the different ways racism happens and the real people behind those beliefs. More people might take racism seriously if they’re portrayed as more than a stereotype.

We’re not in control of the “rules” of the debate

Going back to my earlier post on 10 Strategies in Engaging Political and Social Topics, Rule Eight was about “not losing control of the rules”. I can’t think of a current debate where this strategy has been lost as much as in the debate on racism. So long as this is a debate of Free Speech, little progress is going to be made. Hate speech, for good or ill, is protected and has even been recently and unanimously protected by the Supreme Court.

Though the First Amendment does protect hate speech, an exception has been made for speech that causes immediate danger. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is the quintessential example, you’re at fault if you caused an unnecessary panic that led people to trample each other. So yes, a hate rally is protected by free speech unless it directly leads to immediate violence, which isn’t unreasonable to expect.

Moving beyond free speech, racism in America today has very real and tangible actions. However, they’re in many ways treated as anecdotal cases. This celebrity had their house vandalized, this individual was found innocent after years when someone took notice and saw they weren’t given a fair trial. Although attempts have been made to reflect on the overall trends, that these aren’t isolated cases, it’s still an uphill struggle to make it the generally accepted narrative.

And the other aspect of racism, and many of these recent hate groups is the core beliefs. I’ve seen a comparison between hate groups and  Black Lives Matters. Here’s an article from 2015 listing the policy goals of the BLM movement in regards to police reform: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34023751. Whether you agree or not, whether you believe in the methods of BLM or not, these are legitimate positions to take. They call for reforms, not violence. They offer specific objectives, not broad and vague generalities. The same can’t be said for hate groups, who at the core of their own policy goals lead towards preventing minorities from having equal rights, or far, far worse.

However, so long as we’re stuck on the free speech debate, it will be hard to fit in how hate groups push against the legal allowances of free speech, their actions that go beyond speech, and the core values of hate groups compared to other movements isn't the same.

In sum…

I’m thirty years old, and I only feel like I’m starting to scratch the surface on the realities of racism and bigotry, never having to deal with it personally growing up. It’s something I hope to be able to instill in others, especially future generations, so that we can do better, and future generations can do better.

***

ACTION!

Gosh, wish I knew a good source of action this time. I think the best form of action I can think of in regards to this post is to inform ourselves. Whether it’s better understanding the realities of racism in our country or better understanding the faults in media and the news in portraying both the perpetrators and victims of bigotry, we can inform ourselves. The more we know, the better we’ll know how to take action.

***

What’s Next?

I’ll be making a post on the importance of philosophy. Also will probably do a write up on some of the issues I see with nostalgia in current society. I’ve written most of what first compelled me to start this blog, and thus will move onto other topics as they come to me.