Heterogeneous Opinions Do Not Have To Collide.
I want to talk about a problem. I’ve held it in for so long. It now sits like gall in my throat.
This problem is a malady that’s slowly devouring our world of every modicum of sanity.
To talk about this problem, I’ll start with a question.
Since when did it require anyone’s permission to be objective?
You look everywhere and you see people unwilling to understand that their perspective on life is not the absolute. This unwillingness stems from being intentionally oblivious to the fact that diverseness has always been the actuality of our world.
You ask counterintuitive questions in public spaces (especially virtual public spaces, which is our contemporary town hall) regarding certain ideas and you’re immediately marauded by a herd of ferociously vexed “bulls” ready to devour, besmirch, and trample on you. All under the guise of “airing their opinions.”
What cuts deep the most about this problem is that, this somewhat “amorphous” Thought Police claim to be of the “To Each His Own” school of thoughts.
So how is it that when others state “their own” and you do not agree, you attack them with a fusillade of annihilative words? Launch an ad hominem in the most degrading way possible and make sure no one ever believes anything they try to say again?
What a vicious double-standard.
Two reasons I think this problem thrives.
One: a lot of people barely know the facts and evidence of whatever conviction they hold on dearly to. So when faced with objections, they are hurt and the natural instinct is attack instead of stating facts and presenting evidence.
No surprises here, as many folks let the news/others do the thinking for them. It’s quite unfortunate that a large majority of media houses are controlled by the “Thought police,” and so they tell you what and how to think.
Many will not even read the details for themselves. It’s a world of fast things after all. They let others do the reading.
The problem with not reading the details and knowing the facts for yourself is: anyone can read up, interpret the information in the light of their very own perspectives and preexisting bias, and summarize it into chunks of tweets (or what have you). And then disciples hit the like button and yell “RT!” — literally and figuratively.
And what happens to the one who objects or asks questions? I refer to the one who innocently presents a counterintuitive notion?
He is immediately descended upon. Stripped of self-worth and torn apart — layer by layer.
The question is not about who is wrong or who is right. The big question is: Since when did anyone become obligated to agree with you?
A really humbling fact that is hard to accept is: NOBODY IS OBLIGATED TO AGREE WITH YOU. When we choose to accept this truth, then we’d see counterintuitive ideas as an opportunity instead of an attack. We’d receive it as an opportunity to examine, explain or discuss what we conceive as true.
The wise thing to do when you don’t have the facts, but a deep-seated feeling that your conviction is true is to swallow the heat of emotions, clear your thoughts and kindly state “I have a feeling what I think is true” and let it end. Or better still, avoid the conversation.
The choice to dig more and be informed on your worldview or not is in your hands.
Just don’t fall into the trap of attacking and arguing. It’s just an emotional upheaval. Sometimes, the root of your “anger” will be from the fact that you lack the facts and so there’s a tendency to cover this up with rash words and ad hominems.
Another reason for which I think this problem bourgeons is Pride. We tend to over-exaggerate the importance of our opinions. Forgetting that, just as ours ring true to us without a benefit of doubt, so does the other person’s.
So, what happens when someone questions what we uphold as truth? The immediate reaction is to bump them with the raised shoulders; be it orthographically (in writing), verbally, graphically, or even physically.
We cannot achieve a united society in this way. Ironically, unity lies in our willingness to work with our diversities. To continue in this way is to water down the salt of independent thinking, and the colours of diversity will start to fade. If we all saw the world in one way, who will shed new lights?
In drawing the curtains, (this is me giving some Shakespearean-stage-play vibe. Hope it worked?)
What I’d suggest is, first off, be humble.
As Gagan Biyani puts it in his Super Powers tweet thread, “Humility is understanding that you’re but one person with one perspective and the world is a vast place.” When we remind ourselves of this fact, rather than cuss and launch attacks, we’d know the facts of what convictions we hold on to.
And then when we speak, it comes from a place of understanding. This is not to the end that we “win.” It’s not a fight. It’s to the end that we discuss. To the intent that we allow ourselves examine our ideas and opinions in full spectrum; to the joyous aim of having interesting confabulations around heterogeneous views.
I’ll share this excerpt from The Autobiography of Malcolm X as told to Alex Haley:
“…One day, I remember, a dirty glass of water was on a counter and Mr. Muhammad put a clean glass of water beside it. “You want to know how to spread my teachings?” he said, and he pointed to the glasses of water. “Don’t condemn if you see a person has a dirty glass of water,” he said, “just show them the clean glass of water that you have. When they inspect it, you won’t have to say that yours is better.”
In other words, if your intent is to prove the rightness of your perspective, then work your talk. It’s easy to write threads (I’ve read a lot of great threads, by the way). But the real convictions are worked out offline. Rather than try to shove your opinion down the other person’s throat, live your convictions. State them when you need to. Then let the other person decide, not if your way is best, but if your way is best for them.
Like I always stop to think, If all humans were born with one leg, then the two-legged man would be the disabled.
Thank you for reading.
