I'm disagreeable - we all are at times. Every one of us should be capable of respectfully disagreeing with the views of those around us. The only alternative would be downright frightening. I can't imagine how horrible it would be to go through life like a modified bobble-head doll that is only able to nod in assent. That's not for me - I like being able to assert my own opinions and to express disagreement with those held by others on occasion.
There is a huge difference between expressing an opposing point of view and being disrespectful. Every contrary opinion that's expressed shouldn't be seen as an attack on views that you hold or beliefs that you value. I have enough faith in humanity to dismiss the notion that most people devote their time to expressing ideas or re-posting quotes with the intention of irritating me or anyone else. Having said that, I will point out that sometimes on social media, people can simply feel bombarded by the sheer volume of disagreeable posts circulated by friends, and retaliate by letting the online world know that they feel differently.
I got fed up at one point because a few "friends" on my list had issues with the same bees buzzing endlessly in their bonnets, and I removed them from my friends list. None of these people were particularly close to me, and since I had no meaningful interaction with them and got sick of their endless tyrannical preaching, it seemed the wisest course of action. Most of us soon tire of people who seemingly have only one topic of discussion. This is especially true when our views on that subject are in strong opposition to theirs, and when those people adopt an attitude that reeks of such a superiority complex that their every comment drips with insinuation that anyone who sees the matter differently is an idiot - period.
Often we're too emotionally affected by a subject, or too closed-minded, to discuss our differences rationally - and that's when we should refrain from engaging in debate. In the instance I mentioned, the people involved were entirely disinterested in hearing opposing opinions. They were looking for converts to their cause, not honest discussion. They asked for alternate opinions so that they could belittle those who thought differently. Their like-minded friends bullied those who expressed other viewpoints. There was name-calling and unkindness in every chain. Ad hominem attacks abounded. I knew it was useless to engage on any subject with people who were so unprepared to listen respectfully, and so I did myself a favour and deleted them before I became too tempted to sink to their level. Their behaviors too often demonstrated a willingness to cross boundaries of civility that I had no intention of becoming comfortable crossing.
Boundaries:
My domain is limited -
the space I see as mine;
long ago I staked a claim
and drew a borderline.
I cannot grant free access
to everything I feel.
Some deep wounds must be covered
before they start to heal.
Some thoughts I have are private
and so I keep them fenced -
enclosed and safely locked up
when other views are sensed.
Opinions are like tourists,
their visits should be brief.
And they shouldn't emigrate
unless they seek relief.
My silence should speak volumes,
I simply don't agree.
None of your "greater wisdom"
will change the world I see.
Don't trespass on my feelings;
respect what I believe.
Don't climb upon my fences
or you'll be asked to leave.
By Sharon Flood Kasenberg, (May 2010)
Deleting friends on social media over ideological differences isn't something I recommend doing in most circumstances. If there is any level of real friendship, mutual respect or common and fond history between you then you should be able to ignore disagreeable posts or disagree agreeably. The much easier solution to seeing less that you object to is to control your news feed. There's a little grey inverted V that appears in the top right corner next to every status update on Facebook. Click on it, and you can hide the offending post or even discontinue seeing all future posts from that individual or source. (My Facebook feed has become so much more pleasant since I've started systematically eliminating all evangelical sources of religious rah rah and network marketing from my sight : )) You don't even have to see every source of annoyance out there, let alone comment on it.
When you feel that you must register your disagreement, do your best to be kind and show respect toward those who obviously see things differently. Respectful disagreement might involve sharing what you perceive as factual evidence to the contrary, but bear in mind that not everyone will see your sources of information as valid. (Consider the questionable validity of a certain television doctor who is too quick to push unproven therapies on uneducated masses. His fans, who tune in daily, will accept whatever he tells them, but the rest of us are more skeptical.) Does your "expert" have an axe to grind, or is he/she truly sharing the results of unbiased research? If the facts shared are matters of public record - well documented dates or historical accounts that are not easily falsified - most should see them as reliable. Still, you need to accept that if they challenge a cherished belief in any way, they are apt to be discredited. The humility to accept that an error in judgement has been made can be a very hard pill to swallow.
No matter how reliable your facts are, people are often biased by their feelings, and in those instances, no amount of debate, respectful or otherwise, will ever change their opinions. Remember that others may be too invested (monetarily or otherwise) to consider another point of view. (You can present all kinds of reliable evidence that a particular dietary supplement might not be everything it's cracked up to be, but if the person you're trying to tell this to has just invested a thousand dollars and a hundred hours so that they can sell this product, they won't be very inclined to listen to you.) We all have biases, and before we engage in sharing contrary opinions we need to consider whether this person is willing to listen respectfully to what we have to say. If not, we should save our sanity and move on.
Don't make the mistake of expecting others to be swayed by whatever argument you give them, and don't ever expect people to understand what you think, what you mean, or what you feel. Feelings are especially problematic. Who can explain feelings logically? All are driven by emotions and their associated experiences. Logic is great - until someone presents it to us in such a way that we feel an expectation to exchange our soft, squishy feelings for cold hard facts.
For example, I might feel really good about giving to a particular charity. Don't expect me to tell you why I feel this way - my feelings might be influenced by something I've never consciously taken note of. Maybe my grandma said she thought that charity was noble waaay back when I was three and her comment just subconsciously lodged in the back of my head. So now when I send off a cheque to these folks I feel good. You might feel differently, and you might even have evidence that my pet charity doesn't make the wisest use of its funds. You can share it with me - it might prompt me to choose another group to contribute to. But if I have had numerous occasions when I felt good contributing my time or money to further the causes of this charity, then I might not be willing to change my donation habits. I might even think you're being mean-spirited for criticizing something that I've always had good experiences with.
There's no denying that we can all get our knickers knotted because somebody sees something differently and says so. We might be secretly upset with ourselves because we can feel our comfortable world view being challenged. We might feel a bit annoyed because there was an implication that we'd know more if we studied up a bit. We might bristle at a carelessly worded thought or become downright testy if unkindness reared its ugly head in the course of our disagreement. We're allowed to feel insulted if a personal attack was made on our standards, actions, intellect or choices during an exchange of differing opinions. These are risks we all take when we share our opinions. I think it's a risk worth taking in the name of freedom of expression. There is beauty in diversity, and it really is okay to share the planet with those who have differing perspectives.
We can't really expect anyone else to understand what we do, what causes we support, or what matters to us, let alone hold out hope that we'll influence them to change their point of view. It's unrealistic. (Some might say it's even a bit masochistic.) One day, in frustration, I wrote the following lines as a Facebook status update:
The paths we tread may go unseen by the unaided eye -
and difficulty of terrain we often can't deny.
You may not know the reasons for the path that I select.
My route is not yours to approve, but only to respect.
Sharon Flood Kasenberg, December 2013
Any time you post anything in a public forum, there's a decent chance that someone will have an adverse reaction to it. For the most part, adequate civility exists to enable our blissful ignorance of how thoughtlessly irritating we can truly be.
You may think you're sharing impeccable wisdom with your friends. You may think you're offering an opportunity that they perceive as nothing but an annoyance. You may be trying to sell something that few want to buy. You may see a post or a quote as a profound "truth" - and others may vehemently object. What you might find uplifting, others will sneer at. You might respond with a resounding "Amen" to something that will only motivate me to think, or even say,
"Respectfully, I disagree."
No comments:
Post a Comment