Fic writing continues, as do JRTC duties

[aadler]

 
After my last post, I managed to finish the two fic segments I was talking about in a day apiece, and they’re now where sroni can see them (and, hopefully, draw inspiration from them in doing her own segments). I’m fighting off a sinus infection, so it may be awhile before I start on the intervening fic I was talking about, but I have another two weeks here (at least), and I’m positive I can manage something during that time.

One of the men under whom I’m working here at the Joint Readiness Training Center outranks me by one grade, and tentative exploration shows that we appear to stand on precisely opposite ends of the political spectrum. As it happens, my own political views are so strong that I generally avoid discussing them except with people I know agree with me, as I dislike discord or uncivil behavior. This man, though is so soft-spoken, so cautious and inoffensive in making his points and asking his questions, that we’ve been engaging in long conversations regarding the areas in which we disagree, and why.

The thing is, I can tell his attitude is the same as mine: How can someone so clearly thoughtful, analytical, and rational study the same facts available to me, and come to completely opposite conclusions? We are both genuinely mystified. It is clear that he is earnest (and not strident) in his positions, courteous and low-key, which allows me to take the same approach … but from my position, he has uncritically drunk the liberal Kool-Aid, and of course he feels precisely the same about me and my ‘far right’ views.

I wish that everyone who disagreed with me was like him. We’ll never have a meeting of the minds, not unless something changes his (which is exactly as likely as me undergoing a wholesale revision of my political/social/moral worldview), but it would make disagreement a lot more tolerable.

I’m tired. I need rum and sleep.

Comments

[texanfan.livejournal.com]

As I have often said, what is not sufficiently understood in the world is that tolerance is how you deal with people who disagree with you. It does not mean that the person who disagrees with you sees the light and comes around to your way of thinking.

[skarman.livejournal.com]

I have to agree with you on that. The thing is, those on the other side or at least the majority of them, don't understand it. The 'Kool-Aid' has rotten their brain, that is why every single time they get together, violence ensues. It is because they dismiss facts, dismiss the scientific method, empirical data etc., anything that does not fit in their worldview.

A phrase being bandied about lately by a faction of these people, specifically, the climate change/acid rain/earth is heating up etc. people is 'The science is settled'. Science, by its very nature can never be settled. Theories are proposed. They are investigated and either proven or dis-proven with the facts at hand. As time goes by and more accurate methods of research are build, more data is gathered and other theories are proposed, previously proven theories either get dis-proven or superseded by new outcomes. No self-respecting scientist will ever say that the 'science is settled'. Yet it is these people who teach at universities, who are being listened to. Logical, cogent thinking has been cast aside for dogmatic beliefs. I can recall one period of history when this was true also and that was during the first 80 years of the previous century, starting back in 1917 and 1930s.

I've stated it before a while ago and people thought I was joking but it is my firm belief that we're at the eve of a new civil war across the globe. One that is going to be about which philosophy will be the dominant one. In Western Europe and the US, it will be between conservatism/self-reliance and between liberal/entitlement while in the Middle East, it will be between those that actually want freedom and those who want to turn back the clock to the middle ages even more. And depending who wins in the West, there either will be a clash between the West and the Middle East or the West will willingly bent over and say "Thank You Master, may I have some more?"

As for debating with liberals/progressives, I've stopped doing that. It's a waste of time. Facts don't matter to them. Even people I've known for years as members of the BTVS community, who I admire as writers, as professional people, can't seem to look at the facts and figures.

[texanfan.livejournal.com]

I do understand your position. However, for civil discourse to happen, each party must show respect for the other's viewpoint without agreeing to it. As a Christian with many non-Christian friends I've had to learn to do this reasonably well. I was merely encouraged that two such diametrically opposed viewpoints as stated in the post above had, nonetheless, managed to hold civil discourse. Imagine what the world would be like if we could all do that? Agree to disagree without disrespecting one another.

[skarman.livejournal.com]

Sadly, that is not the world we live in. As a young man, I was a liberal and even today, I still identify with may of their viewpoints, yet I consider myself a conservative. For instance, I'm not anti-abortion, I believe a woman has the right to decide about that. However, it should not be used as a birth control device. There are other means for that and thus abortion should not be the industry it is now.

Those that are supposed to engage in civil discourse, like politicians, government leaders, religious leaders, all of them use bombastic rhetoric to rile up their followers while their opponents try and try to be civil, to be courteous, to make their case using facts. If their own leaders are incapable of using civil discourse, why do you expect the majority of their followers to do so?

Like I said, I've stopped trying to debate with most people. It's aggravating and mind-numbing and you don't get anywhere. And while the majority most likely won't resort to violence, the very vocal minority has no problem with it as we can see right now in the US, as we've seen in Great Britain and France and many other places. However, it does serve a purpose. Many of those who are undecided see the difference between both groups, their viewpoints and actions. It is how conservatives in my country managed to go from a single seat in parliament to a multiple, how the same conservative party got into many local city councils and even the European Parliament. It is how so many Tea Party candidates were elected.

Don't debate with the followers. Engage the undecided. They are the majority.