Friday, September 16, 2005
Listening <–> attacking
What's with the vitriol and knee-jerk anger that so many people spew these days about politics and loads of other topics. When did heated arguments get tossed aside in favor of slamming people against the wall? Why would someone think personal attacks are helpful or effective in any way shape or form as a way to express disagreement? Why would anyone prefer to express blind fury than try to have a discussion or argument, even if it were to be intense? Slamming people and personal attacks and blind rage make it impossible to hear, let alone understand, someone else's ideas, or to clarify your own, even if the ideas or point of view were to have merit. Let's face it, if I want to be persuasive, it won't make you likely to listen to me if I start off by telling you that your ideas are stupid and the people you support are drunks and morons. These vitriolic attacks come from and to both sides of the political spectrum and, yes, there are many difficult things going on these days, but if we would listen to lots and lots of ideas, even those with which we're pretty sure we disagree, we'd learn what other people believe as well as more about our own ideas and then maybe also get a sense of how to put forth our own ideas compellingly. Look, if you really think your friends are idiots, maybe they shouldn't be your friends. But if you don't think they're idiots, then they're worth listening to.
Post a Comment