Conflict
I'm tired of the conflict. I mean, I like a good argument as much as the next former American Heritage TA. And if I didn't really like conflict, I wouldn't have argued three entirely different positions at different points in time in the Research Ethics discussion session today.
But I'm done. I'm done with all the hate for Muslims. I'm done with all the hate for those who hate Muslims. I'm done with Donald Trump. I'm also done with those who are under the impression that if I don't march down the streets I love Donald Trump. I recently told someone that I didn't march in the women's march, mostly because I don't really feel the need to protest for nothing in particular other than the fact that my candidate didn't win. This person literally told me to "have sexual relationships with myself." Not in as kind of words. Just because I don't want to protest doesn't mean that I agree with him. And even if I did agree with him, that doesn't really make it all good in the hood to interact with people that way. I just don't protest for the sake of it. (Please note for future reference, I do not put the airport protesters in this category. Whether you agree with them or not, they are actually protesting a real, tangible policy, and that deserves to be respected).
One of the things that I noticed as an American Heritage TA: I have a favorite historical document that was used as a source document, even though it wasn't used by every professor: Or a pair of them, because they are matched. They are a "Massachusettensis" letter by Daniel Leonard, and "Novanglus" which is a response to it by John Adams. Basically, it's a Loyalist letter to a newspaper, and John Adams responding. The reason I loved these readings is these two men COMPLETELY disagreed with one another. But they are disagreeing with each other on philosophical grounds. And throughout the document, they respond to the others' ideas--and not just straw man ideas. They both even acknowledge the validity of the others' argument, and sees the good motivations of the other man--even though they disagree.
But today, if you don't want to vote one way or the other, you are not only wrong (which is fine to think someone is wrong) but you basically support Hitler. Sometimes they literally say that. Or that by voting one way or the other, you are supporting rape. It reminds me of once when I was in college and home for the summer. Caleb, Sarah and I were going to the Hill Cumorah Pageant one night, when Caleb and I started talking about the protesters. And we basically said, "What's the point? When do you think the last time a Mormon heard the protesters, screaming through that bullhorn, and just stopped in their tracks saying, 'GREAT SCOTT YOU'RE RIGHT!"? People don't get converted through bullhorns. And when you tell someone that by not agreeing with you, you are supporting rape, they just shut down. Because when you attack like that, humans go on the defensive.
There is no such thing as civil discourse anymore. And don't even think about supporting a politician on x, y and z, but then supporting their rival on p, q and r.
Why can't we have civil political discussions anymore? Ones where we actually talk about issues and not just attack people anymore?
(This message brought to you by Hannah's Book of Mormon reading: Helaman 16:22, "For Satan did stir them up to do iniquity continually; yea, spreading rumors and contentions upon all the face of the land.")
But I'm done. I'm done with all the hate for Muslims. I'm done with all the hate for those who hate Muslims. I'm done with Donald Trump. I'm also done with those who are under the impression that if I don't march down the streets I love Donald Trump. I recently told someone that I didn't march in the women's march, mostly because I don't really feel the need to protest for nothing in particular other than the fact that my candidate didn't win. This person literally told me to "have sexual relationships with myself." Not in as kind of words. Just because I don't want to protest doesn't mean that I agree with him. And even if I did agree with him, that doesn't really make it all good in the hood to interact with people that way. I just don't protest for the sake of it. (Please note for future reference, I do not put the airport protesters in this category. Whether you agree with them or not, they are actually protesting a real, tangible policy, and that deserves to be respected).
One of the things that I noticed as an American Heritage TA: I have a favorite historical document that was used as a source document, even though it wasn't used by every professor: Or a pair of them, because they are matched. They are a "Massachusettensis" letter by Daniel Leonard, and "Novanglus" which is a response to it by John Adams. Basically, it's a Loyalist letter to a newspaper, and John Adams responding. The reason I loved these readings is these two men COMPLETELY disagreed with one another. But they are disagreeing with each other on philosophical grounds. And throughout the document, they respond to the others' ideas--and not just straw man ideas. They both even acknowledge the validity of the others' argument, and sees the good motivations of the other man--even though they disagree.
But today, if you don't want to vote one way or the other, you are not only wrong (which is fine to think someone is wrong) but you basically support Hitler. Sometimes they literally say that. Or that by voting one way or the other, you are supporting rape. It reminds me of once when I was in college and home for the summer. Caleb, Sarah and I were going to the Hill Cumorah Pageant one night, when Caleb and I started talking about the protesters. And we basically said, "What's the point? When do you think the last time a Mormon heard the protesters, screaming through that bullhorn, and just stopped in their tracks saying, 'GREAT SCOTT YOU'RE RIGHT!"? People don't get converted through bullhorns. And when you tell someone that by not agreeing with you, you are supporting rape, they just shut down. Because when you attack like that, humans go on the defensive.
There is no such thing as civil discourse anymore. And don't even think about supporting a politician on x, y and z, but then supporting their rival on p, q and r.
Why can't we have civil political discussions anymore? Ones where we actually talk about issues and not just attack people anymore?
(This message brought to you by Hannah's Book of Mormon reading: Helaman 16:22, "For Satan did stir them up to do iniquity continually; yea, spreading rumors and contentions upon all the face of the land.")
Comments