The Four Things Ruining Discourse

1. Easy Labeling of Our Opponents: It is not hard to understand the temptation to “tag” our ideological opponents to simplistic terms. It reduces them to a type and their idea a result of them being that type and therefore can be dismissed without question. The methodology goes something like this: That person is an X (because I say they are), therefore their argument must be Y, so they can be shut down outright. On the flip side, their argument is Y (and me thinking it is makes it so), so they must be an X and don’t deserve a platform. Reducing a person and their argument into a stereotype allows you to build up a moral superiority from which one can feel justified in dismissing them easily. This is a folly for people are complex and few fit neat ideological terms. Likewise views and stances are complicated and arrived at through unique experiences, backgrounds and lenses. It is dangerous and dishonest (not to mention lazy) to dismiss an argument because of the speaker or a speaker because of their stance. Take people on their own terms and let’s try to listen before knee-jerking labeling.

 

2. Emotive Over Critical Responses: It’s human nature to leap out against anything that challenges our sensibilities or what we think is right or challenges deeply held beliefs. It is very few issues, however, especially the most hotly debated ones, in which morality is relegated to only one end of it. Remember that it is not necessarily villainy to not align in sympathy with you. Additionally, this is also a biproduct of a simplistic understanding of many issues since so few have easy solutions. And the solution that seems the most emotionally satisfying is seldom without drawbacks or unintended consequences, usually for those on the other side of it. The answer that makes us feel the best should not be confused with the best answer.

 

3. Pride: All too often I meet people who would rather continue to stubbornly defend a narrow view on something than admit they were wrong or that, at least, the issue is more complicated than their narrow take on it. This is a by-product of identifying so closely with out ideologies to the point that they become integral to our identity. Any attack or weakening of them is an attack on our psychological make-up. This is an erroneous way of thinking of our beliefs, political or otherwise, since ideologies are transitory things, ever shifting due to exposure, research, and learning. Admitting when our ideas were wrong is a sign of growth, not weakness.

 

4. Strawman-ing: I trust I need not explain this one and yet it happens all the time.