Skip to main content

Political Discussions

I'm a great believer in the idea that religion and politics have no place in polite discussion. I prefer to avoid the subjects if at all possible, because as a rule the person who brings them up has a very definite Opinion to relate, one which precludes any argument because it is the Alpha and Omega of Opinions, and therefore justifies being bellowed at a nausea-inducing volume.

It's not just the polarizing effect of Culture-War duckspeak (thanks, Orwell, for such a wonderful term). It's also the internal conundrum: generally I agree with at least part of any argument, liberal or conservative; or I at least understand where the person is coming from and why they might think that way. Instead of offering a counter-argument, I find myself either nodding and smiling or staring at them blankly. Who am I to Lay Some Truth on this so-and-so? I can't even make up my own mind about things. These people have conviction, or at least confidence, whereas I only have a blizzard of facts with no shape. Even when they are completely wrong - simply parroting a popular myth/conspiracy theory about a subject - I can only roll my eyes, knowing that they are so convinced of their own knowledge that none of my fumbling objections would make any difference. Sort of the Proverbial, "If you see a wise man and a fool argue" problem: if I argue with this idiot, won't that make me an idiot too?

Thus I find myself stuck in a "meta-political" mentality: I can see both sides of the argument, and the two insurmountable clashing viewpoints leave me in a state of conceptual paralysis. I agree partially with everyone, and agree totally with no one. I'm always trying to parse the truth of things, political, historical or otherwise, and this leaves me feeling lost. Maybe I should feel superior, but often I can't because I don't have any conviction about things. As far as I can see, the state of the world has been cycling through the same shit over and over again, everyone's political opinion has always been polarized, the world is not going to end if one side or the other "wins", and ultimately there's not a lot worth arguing about.

At the same time I resist the, "Can't we all just get along?" stance. It's naive. No, we can't get along - these things we argue about are not unimportant; they are deadly important. Arguments about politics may seem like the incoherent recitation of party lines, but in fact they do reflect attitudes that can get us into trouble. Perhaps I take things too seriously. Maybe my friend who espouses a conspiracy theory-level paranoia about law enforcement is just bullshitting to make herself more interesting. Then again, how do I know she won't pull a knife on a cop while being apprehended? How do I know that, when the chips are down, she won't act on her beliefs?

Writing this, I can see I'm a bit paranoid myself - apocalyptic, even: "In the event of a major catastrophe, watch out for the people with strong opinions". I'm going to call bullshit on myself, right now (a useful exercise I believe we should all perform once in a while). People are unpredictable. The right-wing nutjob may turn into a Fascist at the first possible opportunity, but then again he might not. The leftist fanatic may join an Anarchist death squad, but then again he might stay home and play video games. My friend the cop-hater might barricade herself in her house and hurl Molotov cocktails at the SWAT team...or she might meekly submit to arrest and call her mom for the bail money. Who knows. Who knows with anybody.

So in conclusion, I give up. I have no idea. I don't like to argue. I do have some deeply-held beliefs, but I'd rather tell someone quietly what I think, conversationally. Preferably over beer. Someone who thinks about things as deeply as I can, and who is preferably wiser than I am, and can set me straight on certain ideas. I try to remember the "Pearls before swine" Principle: don't try to impose wisdom on those who are incapable of receiving it. I wish I could be brash and confident in my own opinions, but I am not, and I don't like being around people who are convinced of their own Rightness. I'd much rather find out the truth of the world, and try to change one mind at a time.

Rick Out.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Problem with Reconstructing Deinonychus

So as you may know, I am partly obsessed with dinosaurs. Scratch that - there's a small lobe of my brain devoted to dinosaurs. I love em, God help me. I even have a super-double-plus-top-secret dinosaur comic maybe in the works...but you didn't hear it from me. Anywho... Part of my problem is in the reconstruction of said prehistoric beasties, namely those icons of American dino-obsession, Deinonychus ( Velociraptor  to you Jurassic Park  aficionados...it's not just a Hollywood bastardization, there's a complicated story behind it which I covered in this old post ). Now, we all know what Deinonychus looked like: wolf-size, sleek, toothsome head balanced by a long tail, grasping front claws and of course the eponymous "terrible claw" on its hind foot. The shape is burned into our collective unconscious; you could construct the most fantastic amalgam of different bits and pieces, but as long as you include the sickle-claw, you're golden. The devil, of...

Artist Spotlight: Tom Eaton

I wanted to do a quick artist spotlight on Tom Eaton, best known for his work in Boy's Life Magazine. I used to have a subscription to Boy's Life  when I was a kid; unfortunately I didn't keep any of them, as they just weren't...I don't know, not really worth keeping. I just remember it as being 90% toy advertisements, some "how to get along with others" advice, the same camping article reprinted 20 million times, and some half-funny comics. As the years went on, the advertisements got bigger and louder, the articles became less interesting, and the comics section got shorter and shorter. But there was one gem hidden in the midst of the mediocrity: artist Tom Eaton. He wrote and illustrated "The Wacky Adventures of Pedro" ( BL's  burro mascot), "Dink & Duff", and myriad other comics, crossword puzzles, games, and short pieces. He was the magazine's resident cartoonist, and about the only reason I actually read the magazi...

Raptors II: I might owe Luis V. Rey an apology...

Hello, patient readers. I've blogged about Raptors before, specifically Deinonychus and the problems of depicting dinosaurs in general. In an earlier post, I was wrestling with the then newly-popular preponderance of plumage on our favorite Terrible Lizards, and while I finally conceded that Deinonychus and Co. were probably fully feathered, I whined and hemmed about the amount of feathers and griped about how dinosaur lineages with no evidence for feathers at all were now being given fabulous coats. In the midst of this, I decried the new crop of bad paleo-art, using this image as my piéce de resistance: Credit: Luis V. Rey, from his blog . Essentially my big scientific argument ran along the lines of, "Looks dumb, therefore wrong". It seems now that I might have to eat that argument, slathered in Nelson Muntz' Gourmet Ha-Ha Sauce ...with one important caveat, which I'll get to later. Since writing that blog post - in fact, several years later - I'...