Discourse

I have opinions, some of them quite strong, about a wide variety of topics. I have never felt the need for my friends or family to share those opinions, possibly because I am generally acutely aware of the possibility that I might be WRONG. Many of my friends and family have opinions quite different from mine.

As I was growing up, I had one particular friend who had opinions pretty much opposite from me on most topics, yet we had very enjoyable, non-rancorous discussions on these topics. I look back on those discussions quite fondly. The thing that made our discussions so enjoyable, and possibly productive, was honesty, and the absence of "spin". Truth remains truth, whether one is a Republican, Democrat, Independent, Marxist, Vegan, or Philatelist. When one of us made a good point, the other would acknowledge that it was a good point. When one of us had a glaring weakness in our position, we would both acknowledge that it was a glaring weakness. When there were facts beyond reasonable dispute, we would both acknowledge that they were facts beyond reasonable dispute.

These characteristics are absent from too many discussions today, especially discussions regarding politics. In politics, both parties commonly mask the truth, and do everything possible to avoid acknowledging that anyone from "the other side" can ever be right about ANYTHING. In fact, people are sometimes reluctant to voice an opinion on an idea before learning the source of that idea -- if it came from someone on "our side", then it can be labeled a good idea; if it came from someone on "the other side", then it must be labeled a bad idea, or at least ignored.

I have strong opinions about politics, but am sometimes reluctant to state them, for fear that those who disagree with me on any one statement will feel compelled to automatically discount my ideas on every statement that follows.

Another problem in discussions is jumping from one topic to another, in an effort to "win" the discussion. For example, if I criticize a particular politician, the politician's defender may respond by criticizing a completely different politician, rather than defending the politician to which I am referring. BOTH politicians may be worthy of criticism, but this approach does little to advance communication. We should both discuss either politician "A" or politician "B". There is little to be gained by one of us talking about apples while the other is talking about oranges.

Then there is the fact that even the best idea may have flaws, or the worst idea may have positive points. There is little to be gained by denying this. Truth is complicated. Few things in life are one hundred percent good or one hundred percent bad, and to argue otherwise impedes true communication, and casts suspicion upon ALL our statements and beliefs.

Finally, there is the fact that for some people, in some circumstances, the goal of discourse is "victory" rather than communication. While this may occasionally be necessary, I find it to be very sad, and I personally have little use for such discourse.

I am not sure I have stated anything here that I have not stated elsewhere in this blog. Truth is complicated.