I got into an interesting yet frustrating discussion the other night regarding the election. I was joined by two fellow "younger" progressives, as well as two more middle-aged conservatives. The two conservatives were "excited" about Donald Trump's election, while the three progressives often provided a WTF look in response to their seeming giddiness. Opinions were flung around faster than you can say "o-face," voices were raised, interruptions were frequent, and it came to the point where I felt the need to raise my hand so I could be called upon to speak. When I finally got my chance to talk, interruptions and denials were fast and frequent, before I finally spoke up about these rude breaks in my responses, and heard, "I'm/We're listening." This, of course, wasn't the case, and I feel is a key factor in our country's seemingly increasing problem of being (un)able to engage in civilized discourse with those on the other side of the political spectrum. Hearing the sound of a person's voice does not equate to actually listening to the words being spoken. Preparing one's rebuttal while the other is speaking prevents the possibility of fully listening to and comprehending their message. Also, I'm sorry, but simply saying one is listening does not constitute as actually listening.
Another critical factor in our seemingly increasing difficulty in civilly discussing issues with those whom differ politically from us is a growing inability of differentiating fact from opinion. Throughout the discussion, I heard numerous already-debunked conspiracy theories used to justify a person's opinion. When I fact-checked these theories and proved they were in fact bunk, I'd have another one thrown at me - that or the claim that fact-checkers are liberally-biased. I also heard common talking points - like that our military is weak under President Obama and we need to spend more money on defense. To this, I pointed out the fact that the United States spends more on its military than the next seven countries combined. How did the conservatives respond? "That's BS!"
According to SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute), in 2014, the United States spent $610 billion on defense. The next seven countries: China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, United Kingdom, India, and Germany combined to spend $601 billion on defense.
When we began discussing Trump's Access Hollywood leak and his sexual assault allegers, the conservatives basically said that Trump's language was just "locker room talk" and that the timing of the allegers was mighty fishy. They also appeared to be ignorant on just how many allegers there have actually been.
Here's part of what Donald Trump said in the Access Hollywood leak:
"Yeah, that's her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I'm automatically attracted to beautiful - I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."
He added, "Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."
Okay, so it can be debated that, with the second quote, Trump wasn't admitting that he had partaken in such an act before and was only speaking hypothetically, but that wasn't the case with his first quote. He admitted to sexually harassing/assaulting women by kissing them without any consent and insinuating he could get away with grabbing them by the "pussy" because of who he is. I'm not sure how my two conservative friends could have heard it any differently, but once again, hearing and listening are starkly different concepts.
As far as the women who alleged Donald Trump sexually assaulted them, they didn't come forward with their claims until after Trump denied he had ever followed through with what he said in the Access Hollywood video. Once he denied this during a nationally-televised debate, the women came forward, and here they are:
1) Ninni Laaksonen
2) Jessica Drake
3) Karena Virginia
4) Cathy Heller
5) Summer Zervos
6) Kristin Anderson
7) Natasha Stoynoff
8) Jessica Leeds
9) Rachel Crooks
10) Mindy McGillivray
11) Erin Burnett's friend
12) Cassandra Searles
13) Temple Taggart
14) Jill Harth
15) Ivana Trump
That isn't even going into claims Trump regularly walked in on Miss Universe and Miss Teen USA contestants while (un)dressing, that he raped a then 13-year-old, or told 10- and 14-year-old girls he'd start dating them in a few years.
So, as I was driving home that night, I got to thinking, "How to I talk to these people? Is it even possible?" Three days later and I'm still at a loss. I've tried the mainly-listening-minimally-talking route, but that just seems to validate their views, even when they're inaccurate. I've tried the match-them-tit-for-tat route, but that seems to do nothing but make matters worse, as, instead of just one angry person, two or more individuals become inflamed. I've gone the shut-up-and-fact-check route, but that doesn't seem to accomplish anything either. I've even gone the shrug-your-shoulders-and-ignore-it route, but once again, that seems to make speakers feel that their opinions are being justified. When I write satire, it tends to just play to the choir, as, while there may be a few conservatives who can get a few chuckles out of my work, a large majority of my readers are fellow progressives. So how do I reach such individuals? How do I try finding a way of connecting with someone who hears, but doesn't listen; who subscribes to debunked conspiracy theories over fact-checks; and seems to allow their opinions to dictate facts instead of allowing facts to dictate their opinions? While it's perfectly fine for one to form an opinion on a subject, why do so many attempt to justify said opinions with false information? At the end of the day, I just have to wonder if even attempting to hold such discussions is pointless because, regardless of what the reality is regarding a particular topic, many simply believe in the reality they've formed in their own minds and will reject any ideas which prove contrary to them. I just wish more people would better attempt to listen, wait, and learn rather than hear, interrupt, and be heard.
http://crfb.org/blogs/us-spends-more-its-military-next-10-countries-combined
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-transcript.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/10/12/trump_sexual_assault_allegations_the_floodgates_are_open.html
Another critical factor in our seemingly increasing difficulty in civilly discussing issues with those whom differ politically from us is a growing inability of differentiating fact from opinion. Throughout the discussion, I heard numerous already-debunked conspiracy theories used to justify a person's opinion. When I fact-checked these theories and proved they were in fact bunk, I'd have another one thrown at me - that or the claim that fact-checkers are liberally-biased. I also heard common talking points - like that our military is weak under President Obama and we need to spend more money on defense. To this, I pointed out the fact that the United States spends more on its military than the next seven countries combined. How did the conservatives respond? "That's BS!"
According to SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute), in 2014, the United States spent $610 billion on defense. The next seven countries: China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, United Kingdom, India, and Germany combined to spend $601 billion on defense.
When we began discussing Trump's Access Hollywood leak and his sexual assault allegers, the conservatives basically said that Trump's language was just "locker room talk" and that the timing of the allegers was mighty fishy. They also appeared to be ignorant on just how many allegers there have actually been.
Here's part of what Donald Trump said in the Access Hollywood leak:
"Yeah, that's her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I'm automatically attracted to beautiful - I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."
He added, "Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."
Okay, so it can be debated that, with the second quote, Trump wasn't admitting that he had partaken in such an act before and was only speaking hypothetically, but that wasn't the case with his first quote. He admitted to sexually harassing/assaulting women by kissing them without any consent and insinuating he could get away with grabbing them by the "pussy" because of who he is. I'm not sure how my two conservative friends could have heard it any differently, but once again, hearing and listening are starkly different concepts.
As far as the women who alleged Donald Trump sexually assaulted them, they didn't come forward with their claims until after Trump denied he had ever followed through with what he said in the Access Hollywood video. Once he denied this during a nationally-televised debate, the women came forward, and here they are:
1) Ninni Laaksonen
2) Jessica Drake
3) Karena Virginia
4) Cathy Heller
5) Summer Zervos
6) Kristin Anderson
7) Natasha Stoynoff
8) Jessica Leeds
9) Rachel Crooks
10) Mindy McGillivray
11) Erin Burnett's friend
12) Cassandra Searles
13) Temple Taggart
14) Jill Harth
15) Ivana Trump
That isn't even going into claims Trump regularly walked in on Miss Universe and Miss Teen USA contestants while (un)dressing, that he raped a then 13-year-old, or told 10- and 14-year-old girls he'd start dating them in a few years.
So, as I was driving home that night, I got to thinking, "How to I talk to these people? Is it even possible?" Three days later and I'm still at a loss. I've tried the mainly-listening-minimally-talking route, but that just seems to validate their views, even when they're inaccurate. I've tried the match-them-tit-for-tat route, but that seems to do nothing but make matters worse, as, instead of just one angry person, two or more individuals become inflamed. I've gone the shut-up-and-fact-check route, but that doesn't seem to accomplish anything either. I've even gone the shrug-your-shoulders-and-ignore-it route, but once again, that seems to make speakers feel that their opinions are being justified. When I write satire, it tends to just play to the choir, as, while there may be a few conservatives who can get a few chuckles out of my work, a large majority of my readers are fellow progressives. So how do I reach such individuals? How do I try finding a way of connecting with someone who hears, but doesn't listen; who subscribes to debunked conspiracy theories over fact-checks; and seems to allow their opinions to dictate facts instead of allowing facts to dictate their opinions? While it's perfectly fine for one to form an opinion on a subject, why do so many attempt to justify said opinions with false information? At the end of the day, I just have to wonder if even attempting to hold such discussions is pointless because, regardless of what the reality is regarding a particular topic, many simply believe in the reality they've formed in their own minds and will reject any ideas which prove contrary to them. I just wish more people would better attempt to listen, wait, and learn rather than hear, interrupt, and be heard.
http://crfb.org/blogs/us-spends-more-its-military-next-10-countries-combined
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-transcript.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/10/12/trump_sexual_assault_allegations_the_floodgates_are_open.html
Comments
Post a Comment