How do you handle disagreements in your interpersonal relationships? Online & Real Life.
When you offer up your opinion on a topic, especially a topic like politics, to someone who sees things from the other side, what are your ultimate intentions to achieve at the end of the conversation? Is it to say, "I win!!!"? "You're wrong, I'm right, nana nana boo boo!"? I hope not, but many people seem to think this way.
The reason I mentioned politics specifically is that most people have a grip so tight on their particular political beliefs that they can't even see past their nose. Any information that may go against their views is chalked up as a one-off, a minor inconvenience in the overall.
Debating political philosophy is not a game in which one can win and one can lose. I wouldn't even qualify it as a game. It's a conversation that by then end of it, should bring both people closer to the truth. That's something we all want, the truth, yes?
Most voters would agree with me that voluntary interactions are preferable to coercive and forceful actions, but in the next breath say that we need government. We believe the same things, I would argue, they just haven't put all the pieces to the puzzle together yet.
I don't spread my beliefs because I want to win, I spread my beliefs because I want you to be free, and I also want to be free. A question often asked that I have never gotten an answer to is "If taking 100% of someone's income is slavery, at what % is it not?". Please comment below if you have the answer :)
Clearly, these ideas are not shared by everyone. My most recent example would be here on Steemit. If you had a disagreement with someone in real life over politics, would you never speak to them again? Would you block them, mute them, unfriend them? I find that quite childish to be honest with you. If your own ideas and beliefs can't stand up to any critical thought or objections, maybe you need to rethink your beliefs. I was recently muted by a self-described socialist. What's funny is that I had written a post a day or two prior stating my non-objections with anyone who believed in any form of anarchy, you can read it here. The goal was to unite fellow anarchists, regardless of economical preference, to defeat the state. I don't mind getting blocked, muted, unfriended, whatever, it's happened before and I am sure it will happen again. BUT, what does that say about that person and their character? To be so close minded as to block out someone with a differing viewpoint doesn't seem very progressive to me. If anything, it seems like they prefer their echo chamber of approval.
Politics is the great divider in this country (USA) and I would imagine it is more or less in lots of other countries. In fact, my own brother had a huge falling out with his best friend over this last election. My brother was the best man in his wedding, college roommates, that friend you could count on or call on any time you needed. It's no more. My brothers friend stated that he wouldn't care if he ever saw or talked to my brother again...may I remind you that this is over politics. It seems so silly to me. "I want this ruler and you want that ruler, I hate you and we're not friends anymore" is the way I see it. I give my brother mad props for reaching out to his friend to try and reconcile, but his friend wants no part of it. It is such a sad sight to see, honestly. There is nothing in society that can fracture and disembowel close family and friend relationships, like the political process.
The current political process we are in today is no more than a game, and that is by design. When you make something into a winner vs. a loser, the context no longer matters, it's just about winning. Politician A is great but wants to kill puppies. Politician B is great, but advocates for child slavery. In our current system, there would be one side on the fence who would be sincerely happy that their politician was the one who won....regardless of their ridiculous and utter reprehensible beliefs towards either puppies or kids. I imagine it sounding a lot like this, "Yeah, I'm not a fan of his hatred towards the puppies, but he was the lesser of two evils", or "Yeah, I don't like child slavery, but that other guy wanted to kill puppies!".
I have most definitely grown farther away from my good friends growing up, and I conclude that most of that is due to my anti-political beliefs. You don't keep (or make) a lot of friends by telling them that they are stuck in the Matrix. But I can't go back, knowing what I know now. All I can do is try and comprehend their illusions and speak factually and honest.
So what's your purpose when you discuss politics with other people? Is it to hear them say that they agree with you on every level? Is it to argue to eventually win the debate? To get them on your side?
Or is to understand? To see what they see? To put yourself in their shoes and walk a mile?
I would hope now after reading this, that you choose the latter, and if you do end up in a massive disagreement, be the bigger and better person.
You have a minor misspelling in the following sentence:
It should be politician instead of politican.