This diary was inspired by the houflah that erupted in response to Kid Oakland's recent
diary.
And while I wanted to ask this question of Armando, it is one that we should all ask ourselves when we enter into discourse and debate.
What is your purpose for entering into any given discourse/debate?
It seems that there are two reasons that most people here join in:
a) to say what they think
b) to change how someone else thinks
What is your reason? Your answer should dictate how you participate in said discourse.
If your reason is the first, then, by all means, say what you want, however the hell you want. In my eyes, part of being liberal is accepting that everyone has an opinion, and they all have the right to share it. Even if I disagree wholeheartedly with what they say, or it offends me, I would never dream of denying them the right to express what they want to express. If someone wants to call me a stupid hick from Wisconsin, go ahead. If someone wants to tell me that my ideas aren't worth shit and I should just go kill myself, alright. Fire away. I can take it. You can think what you want. It doesn't affect me much.
That is why I find it so perplexing that people launched into attacks on Armando for saying what he wanted in whatever fashion he wanted to. He said what he thought, and he had the right to do that. We all have that right.
If, however, your reason is the second, I would offer up that you don't ever change someone's mind by getting angry at them. Anger and defensiveness go hand in hand, and you can't change someone's thinking when they have their walls up. Sure, it's ok to be angry at someone, but if you want to have meaningful discourse with them, it's better if they don't know you're angry! That anger is for you! It should motivate you to do a better job of expressing your opinions and beliefs in order to change their mind and eliminate the cause of your anger. A quick reaction made in anger will, in almost any situation in life, usually end up being an action you regret.
Anger is a great commodity, but it is something best shown to your supporters and hidden from your opponents. When someone agrees with you already, a righteous anger can help rally them around a cause. That can be especially useful in the arena of politics. Honestly, most of us here are pissed off about the same things, and that's what brings us all together! If someone doesn't agree with you, however, that anger will further alienate them, and rally them around opposing you! Take, for example, the infamous "Dean Scream." I bet most of us here were giddy about that scream. Finally, someone who was emotional about the cause and willing to show it! Sure, that "scream" was given to a group of supporters (the ideal place for it), but unfortunately, the opponents were paying attention as well. What happened? People who didn't know if they supported him were driven away. It got blown out of proportion, and ended up causing great harm to his campaign.
So, let me discuss a bit about the thread that prompted me to write this. To be honest, I don't usually delve into the comments of a diary. I live in Japan, and by the time I read them, the threads have usually gone stale anyway. Sure, I know there is a lot of great stuff being discussed in the comments, but there is a lot of not so great stuff as well. As I don't read the comments, I have no idea how Armando or anyone else usually conduct themselves. Today, however, I was interested enough to read all the way to the bottom. I have no idea who is actually in the right here, but based on this thread alone, I would have to say I lean towards Kid Oakland's point of view. Why? Because of how he and Armando present their cases. K/O lays out what he thinks in a reasonable and well thought-out fashion. He doesn't get emotional, he just lays out his ideas. He has specific points, but he doesn't cram them down my throat. Does that mean his points are more valid? No, just that I am more likely to be swayed by them.
Armando has a lot of energy, and I even admire that energy, but in some cases it is not appropriate. Too much emotion can block your message, no matter how valid it may be. You might have the best case in the world, but I will shy away from the force of it.
Does that mean I am an mindless idiot likely to be manipulated by the person with the best tone and word choice? Maybe. But it is not enough to be right. You have to convince me that you are! To do that, you need to get inside my defensive walls. To do that, you have to seem non-threatening. To do that, you can't be obviously angry at me.
I would like to say before I finish it off that I respect the opinions, or rather the right to have them, of everyone here. Especially Armando and Kid Oakland. I think the two of you are both capable of eloquent, persuasive prose. I'm sure both of you have entered into discourse for both reasons listed above. Please just remember that you should be mindful of which reason you are choosing. K/O, from your choice of words and your tone, it was obvious that you chose reason B this time around. Armando, from your choice of words and your tone, I cannot say the same thing. I don't mean that as an attack. In one of your comments, you pointed out that you do not shy away from controversial topics. I think that is wonderful, and that none of us should. I think you could accomplish more, however, if you were to change your tone. Don't change your message, fight for what you believe in, but don't hurt your own cause by ensuring that someone won't agree with you or even budge towards your position.
Again, while I began by asking this question of Armando, we should all ask it of ourselves.
What is my purpose when I enter into discourse?
But, hey, what do I know? I'm just a dumb hick from Wisconsin. At least, that's what the well-spoken, polite man I met the other day told me.