So I Have a Friend

[billroper]

Or maybe I had a friend. Some days, it can be hard to tell.

A few months ago, he wondered cryptically in a post on my friends list about why it is that people with different political opinions than his who he enjoys discussing things with eventually get tired of talking to him on the subject and wander off in varying degrees of either silence or huffiness. I'm guessing, given the timing, that I was the particular person referenced in that post. (Cue Carly Simon and "You're So Vain".)

And today, I got a little condescension bomb from him on a dead thread. And it reminded me of why I walk away from these conversations with some people.

Because, as daisy_knotwise frequently reminds me, "What's the point?"

I have lots of opinions myself. I like to believe that they're founded in data. I even see that I've occasionally been known to change my opinion given fresh data to look at. (No, I don't feel like getting into examples right now. Take my word for it for once, ok?)

But, you know, I am just sick to death of condescension. Condescension was what got me to walk away from a particular mailing list that I was on, prompting the comment that I reference earlier in this post.

I do my best to argue honestly. I will put out a proposition or argue with someone else's proposition, but I generally try to start from a basis of fact. I assume -- until reasonably proven otherwise -- that the other person is also interested in facts. I have been known to make suggestions to liberal partisans on how to improve their arguments, because I truly believe that we are all better off if we can discuss these things rationally. I've told conservative partisans to knock off the name calling, because it's counter-productive. (I don't make that argument to my liberal friends, because I'm pretty firmly convinced it would do no good. Maybe I'm wrong.)

And there are days when all this is extremely frustrating.

This is one of those days.

Comments

[tarkrai.livejournal.com]

A conversation is supposed to be give and take. It is extremely difficult to move you off of your opinions- but that's actually a good thing. You have to defend your beliefs, and you generally have very good reasons for the opinions you have.

Which means, when you *do* alter a position, it's based on the same rock that your older position was based on. And you're open about the change in direction, and why.

[madfilkentist]

The scary thing is that LiveJournal discussions (at least the ones I frequent) tend to be pretty good compared to some other online forums. I was recently told on a non-LJ forum that supporting a certain recent much-disliked ballot initiative is the equivalent of turning high-pressure fire hoses on people. I suggested spending one minute listening to an opposed political view, then one minute being subjected to a high-pressure hose, and then thinking again about that comparison.

[also-huey.livejournal.com]

The biggest bit of my own cognitive dissonance I'm struggling with right now is the idea that I try to be open-minded and respectful, and genuinely consider the opinions of others, against the feeling that people who disagree with me are all just a buncha fuckin' snapperheads.

I'll let you know when I figure that bit out.

[billroper]

I generally try to assume that the other person is either working with a different set of facts than I'm using or that they weight them differently. This doesn't always help, but... :)

[carolf.livejournal.com]

@ also_huey

A bit downthread I talk about McCain's advice from his early mentor: Don't doubt their motives.

If you start from the assumption that they, like you, are motivated by love of country and desiring the best outcome for the country, then you start out with the major stuff in common.

You just disagree about how to get there.

[mbcrui.livejournal.com]

Some of our friends believe that the last person left arguing "wins" whether they are correct in their opinion or not. You have to figure out who those people are, and stop arguing. Yes, they think they've won. No, they have not, they have just tired everyone out and disgusted them. Sometimes it's hard to just shut your mouth instead of shaking them and yelling "Look you idiot!!!..." I consider that I have won a personal battle when I quit arguing with the 'idiots'. :)

[carolf.livejournal.com]

As one of your more liberal friends (I have my conservative moments ...) I'd like to just mention one little thing, here:

I've told conservative partisans to knock off the name calling, because it's counter-productive. (I don't make that argument to my liberal friends, because I'm pretty firmly convinced it would do no good. Maybe I'm wrong.)

See, this would put my back up, if I didn't know you. Until you make the argument to me, you don't know whether it would do any good or not. There are conservatives who won't stop name-calling, as well. In fact, I would suggest that both sides have just about an equal number of asses and angels. But, until you put it to the test, you don't know which are which.

But, you are already "pretty firmly convinced" about this.

I am equally disturbed by those liberals who are "pretty firmly convinced" that conservatives are beyond redemption, as well. Husband and I have had more than a few words on this subject. I love him dearly, but he picks up a very broad brush, sometimes.

[madfilkentist]

Perhaps he means it would do no good coming from him. It's generally easier to shake sense into people who have broader areas of agreement with you.

[billroper]

And this is also true.

[carolf.livejournal.com]

There are conservatives who won't stop name-calling, as well.

Sometimes I think that we, as human beings, are not always cognizant that we are name-calling.

For instance: My housekeeper and I are friends, but definitely not aligned politically. I sincerely wanted to know why she supported Bush in both elections, partly because I knew we could have a calm and respectful exchange, but mostly because we are so closely aligned in everything else -- including things that form my political decisions -- that I wanted to understand how we ended up in different places. Not as a put-down, but as a description of just how far apart we are, I share her response to why she supported Bush -- "Because it's so good to finally have a Christian president."

As a result of this exchange, in which I learned much, she evidently felt comfortable enough to share a little problem. See, her (liberal) mother-in-law was an extremely rude person. The examples she gave me were ample proof of just how rude MIL is. "You're a liberal," she said. "Why is [MIL] being so rude, and how do I respond?"

I did not laugh -- although I could not suppress a smile. I gently reminded her that rudeness does not follow political orientation, and, in any case, the examples she gave me were not political in nature by any definition. We then worked out some strategies outside of any political bearing.

To this day, I doubt my housekeeper is aware that, except for my sense of humor, her naive request was worded offensively.

[billroper]

That's a fair criticism. What I didn't mention was that I saw someone here on LJ make exactly that request and watched several of my liberal friends and acquaintances proceed to explain that they had perfectly good and valid reasons for the name calling. I just went through a similar (although not identical) experience on the GT list.

So my opinion is based on data, although not necessarily any data that directly reflects on you. Nor have I noticed you doing a lot of name calling.

[madfilkentist]

Is the use of an expression "name calling" or merely an accurate description? Often that's a point of dispute in itself.

[billroper]

The case that I'm thinking of here would be something like "Rethuglican" or "McSame". On the other side, one might use "Obamadroids". (Picking a few that I've seen around.)

It is one thing to say that "Republicans are thugs", or "McCain's policies are identical to Bush's in every important way", or that "Obama's supporters are part of a dangerous personality cult around the man". While these statements are potentially objectionable, they're also debatable in some civilized fashion -- at least in theory. :)

Simple name calling, not so much. It's a way to spread heat instead of light. If that's the goal, it works splendidly.

[kevinnickerson.livejournal.com]

I hadn't heard "Rethuglican" before. I'd go with offensive on that one. McSame, while a put down, does have some legitimate rhetorical flourish to it. Possibly I feel that way because I'd say pretty much the same about the long forms you give. "Republicans are thugs" is offensive and useless. "...policies are identical..." is a reasonable argumentation tact.

It probably does me no good, but I try to be meticulous in typing, oh let's say, "President Bush" even when I'm thinking "*(&%^%*#$". Well it does some good, it lets me believe I'm taking the moral high ground. At least not dragging in the gutter anyway.

[billroper]

I appreciate the effort to stay out of the gutter. :) (And I understand the temptation to go there...)

[mbcrui.livejournal.com]

When I see names like that I think about a scene from West Wing where-in the President is interviewing a new secretary wannabe (Lily Tomlin) who, at some point, was investigated by the Secret Service for making a threat to the President by suggesting that he drink poisoned water. She's hired because she referred to the office respectfully.

I respect the office. Sometimes I don't respect the person holding the office, but villain or hero, they are OUR PRESIDENT.

[carolf.livejournal.com]

What kevinnickerson said. Exactly.

Nixon *was* a crook -- and there was sufficient inquiry to prove it. But the term was used long before he broke the law by people who had no facts in either direction.

The earlier use was name-calling. The latter use, though vulgar, was accurate.

It gets more interesting, though, when the rhetoric changes the word. There is nothing dirty or shameful about "liberal." Its dictionary meaning suggests lots of warm fuzzies, in fact. But when Bush sr. talked about "card-carrying liberals" there was no doubt he was using it pejoratively.

It wasn't the word that disturbed me; it was the sneer.

[edited because the order of coments didn't make it clear to whom I was responding.]

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

That's a good point.

[carolf.livejournal.com]

Oh, I didn't assume I was one of those you accused of name-calling. For which I am glad -- I put a lot of effort, sometimes, in NOT getting personal.

No, I was merely pointing out that, were I a stranger to you, your statement swept me into your accusation, and that you could not make that statement accurately about me. That your own attitude was, consciously or not, putting you on the path towards that to which you were objecting.

And yes, I'm sure some of your friends/acquaintances respond as you mention - yeah, but I'm justified in my name calling. That still doesn't mean it's pointless to make the suggestion, nor does it mean that *every* liberal will react similarly.

A too-small data sample can be as useless as no data at all. That way prejudice lies.

[scarfman]

I like to say, maturity is knowing when to let the other guy be wrong.

[kizoku42.livejournal.com]

Don't you just _hate_ that? Makes you want to hit them with an axe. Not a good argument either, but at least you'd be rid of one moron. Sigh. You go away pissed, they go away happy. Cold comfort to know you're being the reasonable one.

Sudden epiphany. Possibly it looks like all the idiots are on the other side because you assume the people who agree with you do so for the same sensible reasons you do. You never see them showing themselves as fools because you don't get in arguments with them.

[mbcrui.livejournal.com]

Yes, of course! Obviously only an idiot would disagree with me and only an intelligent person would agree with me. I am, after all, a reasonable, intelligent person. :)

[billroper]

Oh, I know there are idiots on my side from time to time. I just try to nudge them in the direction of rationality as much as I can. :)

[kestrels-nest.livejournal.com]

Good point - we don't tend to ask reasons of the people we agree with.

[carolf.livejournal.com]

I don't know the friend in question. (Or at least, I don't know who it is, so ...)

That said, there are lots of things besides politics on which good friends can intensely disagree, yet the friendship survives, sometimes after a much-needed cooling down separation.

May this friendship be one such.

[jcw-da-dmg.livejournal.com]

I find myself in agreement with most of the sentiments carolf espouses above. There are people on both sides of any disagreement who resort to the emotional rather than the logical. I am hoping that everybody can knock off the name-calling and get down to some productive discourse, but my experience with mankind teaches me that this is not likely to be 100% successful.

[judifilksign.livejournal.com]

As a liberal, I have lurked around some of your (and other conservative friends')posts and con conversations, because I learn things. I have changed some of my leftward leanings more rightward as a result of some of the logical, well-thought out arguments presented.

I, like you, make an attempt to decide things on facts (weighted by my opinions and values, to be certain), and try to be open minded. One of the things that keeps me reading your political posts is that you are not a name caller.

When my liberal friends engage in egregious name calling, I do call them on it. I teach my students to do the same. Placards at rallies can have gimmicks; true dialog should not. One problem is that many flame-on name callers are not in fact interested in jcw_da_dmg's productive discourse, but only in getting their view (the only "right" view) out there.

Props up to you, to help balance that condescension. We might not always agree, but you always give me food for thought, and nudges for rebalancing my world viewpoint. Thank you.

[billroper]

Thanks!

I'm of the opinion that conversations built around facts present (as I'm wont to put it) the ever-present danger of actually learning something new. And I don't believe that either liberals or conservatives have a monopoly on governmental idiocy.

It seems to be an equal-opportunity affliction. :)

[kestrels-nest.livejournal.com]

I don't make that argument to my liberal friends, because I'm pretty firmly convinced it would do no good.

You know, one could take that as condescending as well, as a comment that your liberal friends can't make a reasoned argument and so resort to name-calling. I don't think you intended it so, but that is how it read on first impression.

What I've noticed is that both sides are often ready to see the worst in the other's rhetoric, so that even things that aren't intended as slams are taken so.

[wick-deer.livejournal.com]

What my wife said.

When I read the quoted line, my immediate reaction was "And he's complaining about other people being condescending? Oy!."

Neither side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on brains, logic, or respect for empirical data.

Likewise, both sides have a plethora of jerks, morons, and pompous twits.

[billroper]

That wasn't my intent. That was me saying that:

The chances of people of a different political persuasion than the speaker heading a call for more civility is limited to start with

I got a stunningly useless response from the last person I called on such behavior on a mailing list which is supposed to be primarily non-political

I saw someone on LJ make such a suggestion recently and get detailed explanations of exactly why name calling was appropriate from various people who appear to be liberals. There weren't enough conservatives represented there to make a viable sample to draw a conclusion from. :)

Given all that, I didn't see how anything I might say would help. More to the point, the people who need to hear it would ignore it; those who don't would read it as applying to them when it wasn't meant to.

[kestrels-nest.livejournal.com]

...those who don't would read it as applying to them when it wasn't meant to.

Which is exactly what happened; the saving grace was that I know you, and so didn't think you meant it as it sounded.

[catalana.livejournal.com]

More to the point, the people who need to hear it would ignore it; those who don't would read it as applying to them when it wasn't meant to.

*Wryly* As I think was evidenced by the responses to this post.

[carolf.livejournal.com]

I said, referring to "Nixon was a crook" jab that it was both a slur (before Watergate hearings) and accurate -- though vulgar.

Vulgar. Use of vulgarity is, in itself, a put-down. It demonstrates (not just implies) that the one so addressed is unworthy of better. In a similar fasion, accurate and legitimate words can be given great condescension or vulgarity through tone and usage. And here, I think, is the real problem we have in current US public discourse.

Some people refer to Republicans as "Rethuglicans." My husband (sometimes, in anger) simply assumes that all Republicans are after their own good, legal or not. The first is a clear slur -- using vulgarity. The second uses perfectly fine words, but adds anger in tone. Both are equally offensive and equally useless in discourse.

McCain commented about his early mentor who told him "never doubt their motives." Great advice - although neither he nor his partner hewed to it in the pinch. If we can agree that we work from the same patriotic motives, but disagree on the proper course to our goal, then discourse is possible. If we start from the assumption that "their" motives are suspect, even polite discourse will lead nowhere. Que "kill him" at the Palin rallies. Que "rethuglican."

The part of Bill's post I reacted to offended by his assumption of [pejorative] motivation, not from the words he used.

Somewhere, somehow, we as a society lost our conviction that reasonable people, honorable people, can disagree. That loss is reflected in how public discourse is framed, by everyone.

[catalana.livejournal.com]

Somewhere, somehow, we as a society lost our conviction that reasonable people, honorable people, can disagree.

Yeah, they should all come take a class with me. *grin*

[billroper]

It would probably help.

I've pointed out to people in the past that there's a large majority of us who agree on the ends. It's those pesky means that get us in trouble...

[carolf.livejournal.com]

details, details ...

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Food for thought.

If I have been condescending to you, I apologize.

Part of my problem here is that I'm not sure whether I have or haven't. I haven't *intended* to be, but that is not the same thing. For what it's worth, I wish to publicly state that I genuinely respect your intellect, even on those (rare) occasions I think you may have accepted as true data I consider untrustworthy.

[billroper]

We're good.

And there are many issues where I think that reasonable people can disagree, depending on what data they start with. Some of that data -- religious conviction, for example -- is indisputable. But it is possible to discuss some issues within the context of religion if you're willing to give the religion a certain amount of respect.

You can get a lot of mileage out of "Judge not, lest ye be judged."