Everything is polarizing now.
You know what I don't get? How over the years we have stopped analyzing the world around us and instead opted for identity politics. And I'm not just talking about politics. I'm just stealing the concept and applying it more liberally.
I had a debate/argument with my brother over the Thanksgiving weekend. I told him I felt Justin Trudeau was the best option we had for a Prime Minister at the time. He took this to mean that I agreed with everything he did. And not only that, but also that I was against everything the other party leaders proposed.
This is patently false. In fact, on the whole, while I felt the all of the parties were near enough on most major platform items for me, I actually felt that the NDP had the better overall platform for me. Yes, I disagreed with their position on some things. As I did with the Liberals, and with Conservative party. Likewise, where the parties differed, I could find myself in agreement with different parties depending on the topic.
If I felt the NDP's had a better overall platform, why would I stand by another party as being the best option? Simple, in addition to feeling they were all very close the NDP made statements which were reckless if they followed through on them and the Conservatives I felt couldn't be trusted.
The NDP had basically stated that they wouldn't work with other parties to form a coalition government and they had very little chance of getting a majority. So, had they won, and won a minority government they basically promised to land the country in a state where we'd immediately need ANOTHER election. And, if they had won a majority, well, that statement basically means that they feel their views are incompatible with the other parties. In short, they don't care about their constituents, they care about their platform. For me, that is easily a non-starter.
The Conservatives on the other hand had taken their repeated re-elections to erode visibility and accountability. That government despite being elected on a campaign of openness originally, made it possible to conduct more government business than ever behind closed doors. Altered rules to allow them infinite leeway to avoid answering questions entirely during question period where there was no accountability to the truth any way. And they had their heads so far up the asses of the US and the oil community we were basically setting ourselves up for long term failure.
On the Liberal side of things, we had a progressive (if young and untested) leader who was willing to work with other parties. He had campaigned on openness and even proven to be willing to follow through by forcing his party to publicly disclose their expenses. He converted all senate seats from the liberal party into independents. And, he allowed his MPs to vote how they wanted aside from on votes related directly to the parties stated platform objectives. All very reasonable things. In fact, that last one should matter to every Canadian. It is frankly a shame that a leader had to go on the record to permit this. It is the basis of our democracy. We don't ACTUALLY vote for a PM. We vote for MP's and we expect them to listen to their constituents and vote accordingly. When the party leaders controls their MP's votes it breaks our system.
But, that isn't my point. Well, it is kind of related. But not the topic I'm covering today. Politics seem to be the best way of illustrating the point. I voted Liberal because it made the most sense. Not because I agreed with everything they wanted to do or disagreed with everything the opposition wanted. Therefore, I shouldn't be barred from believing it was right the decision then, while concurrently disagreeing with some (or even all) of the things that the party is doing now.
Likewise, in any argument or debate, I shouldn't have to "take sides". I should be able to agree or disagree with individual points based on their merits. Shouldn't I? I don't know if this is just growing up or what. When I was a kid it was totally possible. Everyone these days seems to be forced to choose a side or a camp and is that expected to stay there and agree with everything their side says and disagree with anything anyone else says.
Even if I'm talking with someone I respect and largely agree with... I'll probably still disagree with say 5-15% of what they say. It is natural. I'm not that person. Many things they say, or believe, or think are shaped by their knowledge and experiences. I have a different set of experiences and I have varying degrees of knowledge depending on the topics involved. And so, NATURALLY, we will find areas where I'm more knowledgeable or my experiences have lead me down a different path and I will disagree with someone. Perhaps even in their own field of expertise. I may end up being wrong and having to adjust my position later. But that too is natural. In fact, that is basically a crash course in how human beings LEARN THINGS.
If you're not engaging with people in this fashion, you're no longer learning. You're either being manipulated or manipulating or participating in mutual ignorance.
I don't take anyone else's side. I take my own. It may simply happen that it aligns more or less with one person or another's at any given time. Repeated incidence of alignment with single entity should be largely happenstance. I won't say entirely, escaping all forms of bias is largely impossible.
If you want to be a better person, or a smarter person, or really improve yourself in way you need to stop assuming that anyone (including yourself) is either always right or always wrong. You must be open to the possibility that no matter what you WANT to accept, that it may be that position which is the wrong one. If you're not willing look at the merits of a position and evaluate them (and potentially re-evaluate them in the future as new evidence arises), then you have no basis for any claim of the validity of the outcome.
Don't tell me I'm wrong. Teach me why I am, and I will gladly accept your position if it is valid and better than my own.
I had a debate/argument with my brother over the Thanksgiving weekend. I told him I felt Justin Trudeau was the best option we had for a Prime Minister at the time. He took this to mean that I agreed with everything he did. And not only that, but also that I was against everything the other party leaders proposed.
This is patently false. In fact, on the whole, while I felt the all of the parties were near enough on most major platform items for me, I actually felt that the NDP had the better overall platform for me. Yes, I disagreed with their position on some things. As I did with the Liberals, and with Conservative party. Likewise, where the parties differed, I could find myself in agreement with different parties depending on the topic.
If I felt the NDP's had a better overall platform, why would I stand by another party as being the best option? Simple, in addition to feeling they were all very close the NDP made statements which were reckless if they followed through on them and the Conservatives I felt couldn't be trusted.
The NDP had basically stated that they wouldn't work with other parties to form a coalition government and they had very little chance of getting a majority. So, had they won, and won a minority government they basically promised to land the country in a state where we'd immediately need ANOTHER election. And, if they had won a majority, well, that statement basically means that they feel their views are incompatible with the other parties. In short, they don't care about their constituents, they care about their platform. For me, that is easily a non-starter.
The Conservatives on the other hand had taken their repeated re-elections to erode visibility and accountability. That government despite being elected on a campaign of openness originally, made it possible to conduct more government business than ever behind closed doors. Altered rules to allow them infinite leeway to avoid answering questions entirely during question period where there was no accountability to the truth any way. And they had their heads so far up the asses of the US and the oil community we were basically setting ourselves up for long term failure.
On the Liberal side of things, we had a progressive (if young and untested) leader who was willing to work with other parties. He had campaigned on openness and even proven to be willing to follow through by forcing his party to publicly disclose their expenses. He converted all senate seats from the liberal party into independents. And, he allowed his MPs to vote how they wanted aside from on votes related directly to the parties stated platform objectives. All very reasonable things. In fact, that last one should matter to every Canadian. It is frankly a shame that a leader had to go on the record to permit this. It is the basis of our democracy. We don't ACTUALLY vote for a PM. We vote for MP's and we expect them to listen to their constituents and vote accordingly. When the party leaders controls their MP's votes it breaks our system.
But, that isn't my point. Well, it is kind of related. But not the topic I'm covering today. Politics seem to be the best way of illustrating the point. I voted Liberal because it made the most sense. Not because I agreed with everything they wanted to do or disagreed with everything the opposition wanted. Therefore, I shouldn't be barred from believing it was right the decision then, while concurrently disagreeing with some (or even all) of the things that the party is doing now.
Likewise, in any argument or debate, I shouldn't have to "take sides". I should be able to agree or disagree with individual points based on their merits. Shouldn't I? I don't know if this is just growing up or what. When I was a kid it was totally possible. Everyone these days seems to be forced to choose a side or a camp and is that expected to stay there and agree with everything their side says and disagree with anything anyone else says.
Even if I'm talking with someone I respect and largely agree with... I'll probably still disagree with say 5-15% of what they say. It is natural. I'm not that person. Many things they say, or believe, or think are shaped by their knowledge and experiences. I have a different set of experiences and I have varying degrees of knowledge depending on the topics involved. And so, NATURALLY, we will find areas where I'm more knowledgeable or my experiences have lead me down a different path and I will disagree with someone. Perhaps even in their own field of expertise. I may end up being wrong and having to adjust my position later. But that too is natural. In fact, that is basically a crash course in how human beings LEARN THINGS.
If you're not engaging with people in this fashion, you're no longer learning. You're either being manipulated or manipulating or participating in mutual ignorance.
I don't take anyone else's side. I take my own. It may simply happen that it aligns more or less with one person or another's at any given time. Repeated incidence of alignment with single entity should be largely happenstance. I won't say entirely, escaping all forms of bias is largely impossible.
If you want to be a better person, or a smarter person, or really improve yourself in way you need to stop assuming that anyone (including yourself) is either always right or always wrong. You must be open to the possibility that no matter what you WANT to accept, that it may be that position which is the wrong one. If you're not willing look at the merits of a position and evaluate them (and potentially re-evaluate them in the future as new evidence arises), then you have no basis for any claim of the validity of the outcome.
Don't tell me I'm wrong. Teach me why I am, and I will gladly accept your position if it is valid and better than my own.
Comments
Post a Comment