h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

2 instances in recent days:

Visiting my parents on Sunday, my father brandished the "opinion" piece in the Sunday paper (a fairly right wing one) - something about the law being an ass, how could someone not be prosecuted for a crime he'd confessed to, bring back hanging etc. I read it, nodded, and said "I think we can agree that there are an awful lot of bad things happening, and a lot of puzzling and obviously stupid things too"

The other one worries me more. The son of my cousin (who died of cancer earlier this year) has been expressing frankly racist opinions on Facebook. I'm tempted to unfriend him

I've always found that as long as people are able to listen to ideas other than the ones they have, and are able to give reasoned debate then you can discuss pretty much anything, religion, politics, even musical and fashion tastes.

The problem is when people believe that their view is right, and that everything else must be wrong regardless of how well reasoned and backed up it is. I actually find this curious, because their view will have come to them at some point so they must have listened to an outside opinion at least once. Which makes me wonder are these people just so incredibly trusting that they believe everything that they're told? I doubt it, but it's a possibility.

I think it more likely that they are either lazy thinkers or ones who find reasoned arguing difficult. It's far easier to fall back on a standard view point than it is to work through in your mind why it's the right one. For example, people may well start off thinking that Labour is the better political party because they're there for the workers (media rolled out drivel, but it'll do for this example) but when it comes to discussing *why* that is, they don't know. They've been told that this is the case, and with just enough semi-facts to make them believe it. But once these are run out, they have nothing left to argue with, and no-one likes being attacked ( physically or mentally ) so they often fall back into a defensive mode, the "I know I'm right" one. Because that's far easier than admitting you may be wrong, or finding out the facts needed to prove you're right.

I've seen this a lot in pubs, especially when I was in Oxford and you got quite a few political students in there. You could tell the ones who were going to go far because rather than flat out arguing their case, they drew the other persons ideas, views and facts out of them slowly, one by one, and discussed them with them. There was no argument at all in some of them, more a probing of what the other person believed, which left the other person then *thinking* about what they believed.

"The problem is when people believe that their view is right, and that everything else must be wrong regardless of how well reasoned and backed up it is."

Yeah, some people are like that when you're talking about beer. Let alone politics.

Yeah, but beer is a whole other issue

Aye, but it's one that tends to exacerbate the difference of political opinion...

We had a friend around to dinner, who had done some pro-bono legal work for us and we were very grateful. She was lovely, but she started launching into a rant on various right wing political opinions that I really disagreed with. I ended up not saying anything to her because I felt bad.

Oh, you may not agree with them Z, but it's always a good idea to hear them. To get the person to talk about why they actually believe them. You *might* find common ground on some small part (okay, unlikely, but always worth trying). I suppose it's that because you are the one willing to listen, to take them seriously, that shows that you are the one with the open mind. Whereas if you refuse to even hear their opinions then it makes you the same.

Not, *you* you, but people in general. If you've got your own view on things, but aren't willing to listen to others, then that makes you just as closed as them. Again, a people in general, not in specific.

I agree. I think what was difficult is that she assumed that I agreed with her on various political opinions, or even that they were political opinions. Her day job is to help large corporations pay less tax, and it had never occurred to her that some people might see it is a moral issue, rather than a legal issue.

That said looking back I can't see why I found it as awkward as I did.

" Her day job is to help large corporations pay less tax, and it had never occurred to her that some people might see it is a moral issue, rather than a legal issue"

Interesting point. Here's how I'd rationalise that if I were you.

You believe it's a moral issue? Fair enough. She believes it's a legal issue? She's right. And here's the thing - her job is to work within the law as it stands. It would be unprofessional and I believe immoral for her to ignore the law and operate according to her own personal moral code. If she or you feel strongly that the rules are immoral, the correct course of action is to take it up not with those responsible for following the law, but rather with those who have the power to change it. Your friend is not one of those people.

An analogy: there are, I assume, legal requirements placed upon you as a practicing doctor, some of which you may disagree with or feel are immoral, wrong, redundant or otherwise harmful. However, it's not your place as an individual to disregard those requirements according to your personal code - that way anarchy lies. Also, you're not necessarily qualified to pronounce on whether rule X is in fact harmful until you've done the research. Hence, again, the proper course of action if you disagree with a rule is get the rule changed, rather than ignoring it.

I disagree with indiscriminate use of UAV drones to hit targets in the middle east. However, I don't take that up with those friends of mine who are responsible for the design and production of those drones.

When my sister was younger she was a rabid Tory.I was a rabid Labourite.
We didn't discuss politics.

Now 40 years on we are incomplete agreement..that today's politicians(all parties) are a bunch of self-serving,snout in trough jerks.We discuss politics now.

As some Greeks and then Fred [Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche] et al., pointed out long ago in hoity-toity reasoning, there is no right or wrong. If you trust in logic, and you take it to its inevitable conclusion, there is no God and thus no right or wrong. Fred was left with a value system reminiscent of hedonism.

Today, that hedonistic idea is being translated into a value system that equates money with right [punny noted]. Not many really know Fred, but he, and others like him, have influenced our age.

Friends may debate moral issues at some low level, but in today’s climate, the issues have been taken to such extremes that our sense of decency is offended. “People on the dole are destroying our way of life!” Or conversely, “Austerity is wrong, just make the wealthy pay a fair share!” Common people on one side or the other are so polarized by the issues that their sense of common decency is violated in a ways that reek of revolt. “The march is on,” or “Beat the rabble into submission.”

It is like hearing someone support eugenics; it could be down right repugnant or even obscene. At that level, logic is no longer virile. Logic can justify killing babies, but for most of us that is repugnant. Logic supports the notion that “collateral damage” is unavoidable, even if babies are involved. Now we are back to eugenics.

What I suggest is that we all learn to better appreciate the Corpus Callosum and let the right brain talk to the left brain in some respectful manor.

Intetesting posts. Esp hoov and AE Hill:

I suspect there are a range of political opinions one is willing to be friends with. I'd be happily friends with a Tory, but not a member of the Nazi party. I would be friends with Catholics, but not people so pro life they'd bomb abortion clinics. And so on.. It's like a bubble of reasonable opinions.

I regularly shock my colleagues who do animal work by being vegan, and vegans by collaborating with said colleagues. Both would never be friends with each other, but I'm friends with both.

One of my new uni friends is a die hard green nut...my exact arguments will remain off this page, but suffice to say I disagreed thoroughly with him
Due to several arguments (I tend to argue with people, he has an unfortunate tendancy to argue at people - something we are hoping to cure him of) I started an agreement to ban any mention of British politics within our group - a shared society means international politics have to be debated, but thus far he hasn't stretched his opinions on it too far, so we can't actually disagree

It's his attempts to argue philosophy (badly) with me (studying philosophy) and the theologian and insist he's right...we may not have been doing it that long, but i don't attempt to argue his enzymes with him

Still, so long as certain bits can be deemed offlimits I think it all works out well - around 20 family members practice this with one radical uncle

I have never had a serious argument with friends in RL about politics. Generally if someone airs views on stuff that are a bit contentious, the conversation gets steered in another direction. Mainly because in RL I don't like confrontations or discord.

Who just laughed

I did. But it was off key.
Because the silence of cyberspace
creates discordance that would never
be heard in Real Life.

Discord - dischord - dissonance.

There's a lot of arrhythmia here-abouts too
but nothing like in RL.

~jwf~

swl,

I am not laughing at all [maybe smiling a bit].

I think you bring up an interesting circumstance.

You are normal in that you do not like too much discord. In the long run, that fact would put you in a world of people that reinforce your view of the world. If then, your view were left or right, your experience of the world would *prove* that the real world were that way as well.

I assert that this CAN go to such extremes that people see the other side as daffy.
I am not saying that you are that way, but this is one example of a *normal* path that some people travel that can lead to a distorted view of the world.

AE

Viva the dissidents [smiles]

swl, I just read that and had to change my trousers.

even though I was sitting at the back and everyone was glaring at me suspiciously, like, I was laughing

I kept a straight face me

and didn't pee my pants

I'm the bravest man on the internet I am.