![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kniteracyMy journal is not a forum for political or social debate. I am pretty clear about that. The short reason for this is that I do not like debating. The other short reason is that this is my little corner of the LJ universe, and I get to say what is and isn't acceptable here. If you're interested in the long version, I invite you to read on.
Trust me, if I felt I had to be right about everything or that my views were the only worthwhile ones to have, I wouldn't post half the stuff I post even to friendslist level in this journal: I'm aware that like everyone else on earth, I'm capable of jumping to conclusions, getting the facts wrong, misanalysing and misunderstanding. There is, I've found, a fine line between what feels like a respectful fact correction and what feels like an attack with bonus insults. Because I know that I cannot explain where this line lies to you, I choose to note that I do not want to debate political points in my journal, particularly when I'm just presenting an article or link I found amusing or thought provoking.
I know that some of you enjoy engaging other people in arguments wherein you demand evidence of everything, up to and including the colour of the sky, and if your opponent cannot produce, that means he's wrong, a wimp, or unwilling to accept the fact that You Are Right--possibly all three. You may assume that I am using the male pronoun generically if you like: this kind of attitudinal, combative arguing is something I tend to associate with men, although I have seen some women engage in it from time to time. This kind of arguing makes me want to run and hide under a table, and I'm not interested in engaging in it, although I am interested in presenting things that I found interesting or thought-provoking. Now, I'm going to use an extreme example below the cut-tag, so be warned.
Tell us what you didn't post yesterday, Harper....
Yesterday, my friend![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
earthmystic posted a link to an article from Beliefnet that drew a correlation between Roe v. Wade and the drop in crime in the US in the 1990s. The article is here, if you want to read it, but please be aware that it may offend people across every stripe of the political spectrum.
Although I found this article interesting, I felt its controversial conclusions would upset people and that they might not be able to keep their opinions to themselves or start debates or express their outrage in their own journals rather than attacking me in mine. So I didn't post it. Because, you see, this is the kind of argument I wanted to avoid:
Me: *posts article*
Reader 1: *gets offended and posts an angry, reactive comment in my journal about how this article is wrong, wrong, wrong.*
Me: *feels like crap because I offended someone*
Me: *tries to diffuse argument by noting that it was presented to provoke thought and not anger*
R1: *asks me to come up with other examples that the conclusions reached by this fellow are TRUE, or apologise for having posted it in the first place, since it was clearly a Lie Lie Lie, completely avoids the thought vs. anger comment, because his (or her) "debate" does not have anything to do with anger, despite the fact that he (or she) is speaking provocatively and accusingly to me*
Me: *wants to hide under the couch*
Me: *has no desire to spend all day searching around for obscure proof for an article I posted because it was thought provoking, not because I wished to spend the rest of the day "debating" its conclusions with someone who requires that I present chapter-and-verse-style proof for every single point made therein*
Me: *Says as much*
R1: *accuses me of being stupid/wimpy/wrong/a liar/unwilling to play the game he (or she: this subject matter actually incenses lots of women, too) wants to play, plus bonus damning to hell if R1 is religious*
R1: *Says that if I am not willing to provide "proof" of my "assertions" (which I didn't actually make) then I am not worthy as a person, stalks off my friends list in a huff because he (or she) is sooooo angry because I won't let him (or her) provoke me*
Yes, that's an extreme example. I know, however, that we have seen arguments like this take place all over the net, particularly on USENET, where such abuse (yes, I said abuse) disguised as debate exists in such volume that I simply don't go there anymore. I know how it feels to be verbally hammered at until I am reluctant to express or present my opinions at all, thank you: I was married to that for eight years and I prefer not to relive those experiences now that I have a better life. For those people to whom this kind of behaviour is sport, who just think it's fun to wind other people up, I have absolutely no consideration or respect, particularly if they choose to engage in provoking me after I have specifically said I have no desire to debate or be provoked. Period.
I hope that I will not offend half my friendslist when I say that the worst offenders, with regard to provoking for sport, really tend to be self-declared American libertarians. My ex was one such, and the way he shouted people down and alpha-dogged his way through arguments, breezily making up statistics as he went, shocked and offended me more than once when he did it to other people. When he did it to me, well. I shut the fuck up, I'll tell you that much. I have seen this from the other side: I know that people take pleasure in treating other people this way when they "debate" with them. I am not interested in feeling the way I did when I had to endure that kind of nit-picking, soul-killing, back-it-up-with-verifiable-facts-from-a-source-that-I-trust-and-I-get-to-pick-the-source kind of barrage. Ever again.
I have political and social opinions. They are what Americans would call 'liberal' and what people anywhere else would call 'socialist,' and probably *gasp* 'pacifist' as well, fairly firmly rooted, have been evolving for my whole life, and I believe what I believe, as do most of us. There was a time in my youth where I expressed these opinions openly, and then there was a time in my adulthood where I was made to understand that expressing my opinions would get me at the very least belittled and made fun of in front of other people, if not called an idiot outright. So I clammed up. Now, I live with someone who supports and understands these beliefs that I have held and nurtured for all these years, and so I have occasionally run into some problems with a few people who knew me before I felt it was safe to talk about what I think, even in the very bland sense of, say, posting a link to an article I enjoyed. I guess that most people, myself included, seem to begin from a position of, well, if someone is smart and interesting, they must believe the same things that we do. That's an assumption many people seem to make. So when people see political and social liberalism coming out of my journal, maybe they're shocked and offended that a nice, smart, talented person like me could hold such views; I don't know. But because my friends are my friends and they understand me, even the ones I have serious political differences with don't feel the need to make our relationship all about that. I could name names here and let you know who those wonderful people, with whom I disagree on serious political and social points but who I would still do anything for, are, but I'd leave somebody out and I think they know who they are, anyway.
I have kept this journal for four years. In that time, with a friendslist that hovers around three hundred people on occasion, only two people have left my friends list because they did not seem comfortable with my reluctance to debate political points in my journal. Both people were kept on my friends list for a long time after they dropped me, because some people make decisions rashly and then feel bad about them later. For that reason alone, I feel like it's a pretty simple and easy-to-follow rule, particularly since I tend to note it gently every time I post or link to something that might incite screaming political arguments. I have set this rule. This is my journal. You are here because I invited you to be here, and there will have been a reason for that. Please don't make our relationship all about politics and debate. There are places you can go online (like USENET), where people love to scream at one another. This is not one of those places.
So to sum up, it's fine to disagree with me: I'm OK with that. What I don't like are combative debates in my journal or anywhere else that make me feel terrible. I don't care if you enjoy those things: getting off on making me feel terrible without my consent is not OK. Dropping me from your friendslist if you think you can't abide by this simple rule is OK. I will probably keep you on my list for awhile after that in case you decide you made a mistake. Trolling my journal after you've dropped me, just to add a snarky comment or try to provoke me for sport now and then, is not OK.
Trust me, if I felt I had to be right about everything or that my views were the only worthwhile ones to have, I wouldn't post half the stuff I post even to friendslist level in this journal: I'm aware that like everyone else on earth, I'm capable of jumping to conclusions, getting the facts wrong, misanalysing and misunderstanding. There is, I've found, a fine line between what feels like a respectful fact correction and what feels like an attack with bonus insults. Because I know that I cannot explain where this line lies to you, I choose to note that I do not want to debate political points in my journal, particularly when I'm just presenting an article or link I found amusing or thought provoking.
I know that some of you enjoy engaging other people in arguments wherein you demand evidence of everything, up to and including the colour of the sky, and if your opponent cannot produce, that means he's wrong, a wimp, or unwilling to accept the fact that You Are Right--possibly all three. You may assume that I am using the male pronoun generically if you like: this kind of attitudinal, combative arguing is something I tend to associate with men, although I have seen some women engage in it from time to time. This kind of arguing makes me want to run and hide under a table, and I'm not interested in engaging in it, although I am interested in presenting things that I found interesting or thought-provoking. Now, I'm going to use an extreme example below the cut-tag, so be warned.
Tell us what you didn't post yesterday, Harper....
Yesterday, my friend
earthmystic posted a link to an article from Beliefnet that drew a correlation between Roe v. Wade and the drop in crime in the US in the 1990s. The article is here, if you want to read it, but please be aware that it may offend people across every stripe of the political spectrum. Although I found this article interesting, I felt its controversial conclusions would upset people and that they might not be able to keep their opinions to themselves or start debates or express their outrage in their own journals rather than attacking me in mine. So I didn't post it. Because, you see, this is the kind of argument I wanted to avoid:
Me: *posts article*
Reader 1: *gets offended and posts an angry, reactive comment in my journal about how this article is wrong, wrong, wrong.*
Me: *feels like crap because I offended someone*
Me: *tries to diffuse argument by noting that it was presented to provoke thought and not anger*
R1: *asks me to come up with other examples that the conclusions reached by this fellow are TRUE, or apologise for having posted it in the first place, since it was clearly a Lie Lie Lie, completely avoids the thought vs. anger comment, because his (or her) "debate" does not have anything to do with anger, despite the fact that he (or she) is speaking provocatively and accusingly to me*
Me: *wants to hide under the couch*
Me: *has no desire to spend all day searching around for obscure proof for an article I posted because it was thought provoking, not because I wished to spend the rest of the day "debating" its conclusions with someone who requires that I present chapter-and-verse-style proof for every single point made therein*
Me: *Says as much*
R1: *accuses me of being stupid/wimpy/wrong/a liar/unwilling to play the game he (or she: this subject matter actually incenses lots of women, too) wants to play, plus bonus damning to hell if R1 is religious*
R1: *Says that if I am not willing to provide "proof" of my "assertions" (which I didn't actually make) then I am not worthy as a person, stalks off my friends list in a huff because he (or she) is sooooo angry because I won't let him (or her) provoke me*
Yes, that's an extreme example. I know, however, that we have seen arguments like this take place all over the net, particularly on USENET, where such abuse (yes, I said abuse) disguised as debate exists in such volume that I simply don't go there anymore. I know how it feels to be verbally hammered at until I am reluctant to express or present my opinions at all, thank you: I was married to that for eight years and I prefer not to relive those experiences now that I have a better life. For those people to whom this kind of behaviour is sport, who just think it's fun to wind other people up, I have absolutely no consideration or respect, particularly if they choose to engage in provoking me after I have specifically said I have no desire to debate or be provoked. Period.
I hope that I will not offend half my friendslist when I say that the worst offenders, with regard to provoking for sport, really tend to be self-declared American libertarians. My ex was one such, and the way he shouted people down and alpha-dogged his way through arguments, breezily making up statistics as he went, shocked and offended me more than once when he did it to other people. When he did it to me, well. I shut the fuck up, I'll tell you that much. I have seen this from the other side: I know that people take pleasure in treating other people this way when they "debate" with them. I am not interested in feeling the way I did when I had to endure that kind of nit-picking, soul-killing, back-it-up-with-verifiable-facts-from-a-source-that-I-trust-and-I-get-to-pick-the-source kind of barrage. Ever again.
I have political and social opinions. They are what Americans would call 'liberal' and what people anywhere else would call 'socialist,' and probably *gasp* 'pacifist' as well, fairly firmly rooted, have been evolving for my whole life, and I believe what I believe, as do most of us. There was a time in my youth where I expressed these opinions openly, and then there was a time in my adulthood where I was made to understand that expressing my opinions would get me at the very least belittled and made fun of in front of other people, if not called an idiot outright. So I clammed up. Now, I live with someone who supports and understands these beliefs that I have held and nurtured for all these years, and so I have occasionally run into some problems with a few people who knew me before I felt it was safe to talk about what I think, even in the very bland sense of, say, posting a link to an article I enjoyed. I guess that most people, myself included, seem to begin from a position of, well, if someone is smart and interesting, they must believe the same things that we do. That's an assumption many people seem to make. So when people see political and social liberalism coming out of my journal, maybe they're shocked and offended that a nice, smart, talented person like me could hold such views; I don't know. But because my friends are my friends and they understand me, even the ones I have serious political differences with don't feel the need to make our relationship all about that. I could name names here and let you know who those wonderful people, with whom I disagree on serious political and social points but who I would still do anything for, are, but I'd leave somebody out and I think they know who they are, anyway.
I have kept this journal for four years. In that time, with a friendslist that hovers around three hundred people on occasion, only two people have left my friends list because they did not seem comfortable with my reluctance to debate political points in my journal. Both people were kept on my friends list for a long time after they dropped me, because some people make decisions rashly and then feel bad about them later. For that reason alone, I feel like it's a pretty simple and easy-to-follow rule, particularly since I tend to note it gently every time I post or link to something that might incite screaming political arguments. I have set this rule. This is my journal. You are here because I invited you to be here, and there will have been a reason for that. Please don't make our relationship all about politics and debate. There are places you can go online (like USENET), where people love to scream at one another. This is not one of those places.
So to sum up, it's fine to disagree with me: I'm OK with that. What I don't like are combative debates in my journal or anywhere else that make me feel terrible. I don't care if you enjoy those things: getting off on making me feel terrible without my consent is not OK. Dropping me from your friendslist if you think you can't abide by this simple rule is OK. I will probably keep you on my list for awhile after that in case you decide you made a mistake. Trolling my journal after you've dropped me, just to add a snarky comment or try to provoke me for sport now and then, is not OK.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 10:23 am (UTC)I think my SO discusses like that, that's why we get on. It was a very strange thing to find out that some of my friends list found even that combative/upsetting because he holds very different opinions on stuff.
(sorry, a bit rambly.)
no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 10:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 10:29 am (UTC)*trembles in fear*
no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 10:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 10:34 am (UTC)Come to think of it, I find the would-be-Hyde-Park-Corner artistes do but themselves confound - faced with noisy/aggressive folk, I am inclined to go off quietly and do the exact opposite of whatever line they are pushing...
no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 10:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 11:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 11:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 11:58 am (UTC)Thanks for helping me with the last paragraph there.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 12:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 12:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 12:05 pm (UTC)Come to think of it, I find the would-be-Hyde-Park-Corner artistes do but themselves confound - faced with noisy/aggressive folk, I am inclined to go off quietly and do the exact opposite of whatever line they are pushing...
I think I'm with you on this one, too. Does that make me a rebel? ;)
no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 12:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 12:09 pm (UTC)Half the time I have no idea how to answer it, even when I'm staring my son in the face. 8)
no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 12:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 12:18 pm (UTC)There's a Chesterton quote that fits here, but I can't remember it properly...(and no, I don't mean "What do we do now, Doctor?")
no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 12:19 pm (UTC)Now that I'm living with a conservative socialist ex-military Brit, well, we have our differences. But we respect each other's opinions and tend not to discuss politics often. There are so many other interesting things to talk about! When we do discuss these things, he genuinely tries to understand my point of view, which is a refreshing change from outright dismissal.
Interestingly, I have some good political discussions with my beloved friend
no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 12:49 pm (UTC)They really should come with instructions. Individualized, since they're all different.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 12:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 12:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 01:26 pm (UTC)Second, thank you for this article. It's very thought-provoking and I plan to forward it to some folks who work in the sexual health field. While pregnancy prevention is preferable, it doesn't always happen (50% of ALL pregnancies are unplanned).
I'd also add that in addition to being single and poor, sociological research has pointed to having a father figure (with a real relationship) as correlated with preventing for boys being involved in crime and overall the astonishingly simple, sitting down to dinner as a family and talking most evenings of the week.
And I'll add correlation doesn't equal causation, but boy it makes you think.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 01:46 pm (UTC)I'm a lot more feisty and even tho I crave approval, (as do you I notice), I'm not one to go and hide from disagreement, and have been accused of being quite disagreeable for it.
I get a lot of flack for not backing down in arguments- for standing my ground and speaking my mind, even if popular opinion (in whatever form) is against me.
But still, there's a difference between vigorously defending what you believe and holding someone to a high factual and logical standard if you are to be convinced, and trying to force your opinion down someone's throat.
Alot of the bullying you describe is something I fling right back.
(But I will accept that I get some cache from being big and ferocious looking-that helps me be able to get away with it)
My final stance on arguing these things comes in as something like: "I don't NEED you to agree with me about everything, but if you want ME to believe what you believe, you've got to convince me that you know better than I do."
And when confronted occasionally with a jerk who simply can't believe that I think (whatever it is they don't think I should think) and they're saying something like "HOW can you possibly BELIEVE/THINK such a thing?" I have a really great snarky response when it's obvious that they're more interested in domination than debate:
I blink, look at them, and say "Like *this*".
Sometimes it takes a few tries before they finally get it. When they do, if they're interested, they can *try* to convince me, but usually when they realise that I am not only very comfortable not believing as they do, but that there's nothing they can do about it (short of truly convincing me), they are compelled to give up.
But contrary to my reputation I will admit that I was wrong on that rare occasion when I actually am.
Actually, it's been a very hard journey for me in the conduct of my life and my career, which inevitably found me relying on others who disagreed with which way "we" should go, because I HAVE been too willing to let people with proven BAD track records call the shots and then suffered for it, just to preserve harmony (which didn't work- surprise surprise). Which led me to the ever unpopular "being a jerk" because I finally learned to stand my ground and say "NO" to people who were leading me astray and did NOT have my best interest at heart. My problem kept being that the people with whom I've had to disagree and stand my ground kept being very popular and attractive to my other friends, which *naturally* meant that *I* was the troublemaker. sigh.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 01:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 01:55 pm (UTC)You said, I'm not one to go and hide from disagreement.
Just because I do not like debate does not mean I'm a lily-livered coward who hides from disagreement. I'm just sayin'.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 02:16 pm (UTC)Also a terrific link; there were a couple of public-radio items about this a month or two ago. I've long been of the opinion that the public health and economic benefits of legalized abortion need to be considered; but then, I was a teenager in the 1960's before it was legal in Connecticut.