Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Wrong to Be Right?
First time posting here, please be gentle.
During the holidays, I heard tales of two broken friendships. I am talking about the kind of friendships so long and so close that one could think of the friends as family. In one case, the broken friendship involves literal family, as school friends had married siblings, etc. My teen children listened to these stories avidly, wondering how adults could have this kind of drama. (Whoa, she really left your What’s App group?) I felt the need to revisit the story with them privately and talk about how to avoid such a painful experience.
To be clear, no great moral issue was at stake in either case. There was no affair, no violence, no treachery, no lies. One incident was sparked by a typical, insignificant dispute between their respective children and then how the parents had handled it. A tiny conflict that as a teacher and parent I have dealt with countless times. It should not have ruined a 30-year friendship. The other involved an innocent prank that was a common and accepted practice among the friend group but happened to fall on a bad day. However, once the disagreements were had, feelings were hurt. When the hurt parties expressed this, the others in each case responded that they were RIGHT, and that the hurt feelings were exaggerated. Escalation and ad hominems ensued. Friendship broken.
With my teens, our conclusion was that perhaps one party was more right than the other, but had that person not insisted on the rightness of the stance, but instead focused on the sincerely hurt feelings of the other party, the break in the friendship could have been avoided. The “mostly right” parties could have apologized for hurting feelings and left it that.
But now I am wondering about that lesson that my children are mulling over. In both cases, one party was mostly right, at least at the beginning! Why should they give in? Would it be worth preserving a multi-decade friendship? Or was it already too late, the fault of the over-sensitive friends? And I wonder what my own hesitation on how to resolve such conflict can imply for us as a society.
When is it wrong to insist on being right? Where do we draw the line between being a compliant sheep, a pushover, and being argumentative, unyielding. Will our 230-plus-year Republic break apart over something insignificant like these 30-year friendships?
This is why I always wear a mask when asked. I think it’s close to pointless, but is it worth the offense? But am I wrong? Is it a slippery slope?
Published in General
I agree with you, Al. It’s a cop-out, and way of virtue signalling or avoiding conflict.
I used to be as hardline, and I still am in some areas.
Where I’m still hardline is:
I start to tick off points for nationwide chain stores, but only in the public part of their “private” property. The back room that’s off limits to the public still has my hardline sympathies.
And where I really start to tick off points in the private property rights debate is monopolies.
Obviously, their wares are still theirs, but as far as regulating the public in how they enter their business, I’m not going to give them as much of a break.
As a therapist, I have my clients give specifics and then we can generalize.
It is hard for me to comment.
Welcome to posting at Ricochet.
Welcome, BretonHoosier. Excellent post.
A dear friend of mine and I have a non-aggression pact. Neither of us brings up politics, because (in her words) she is tired of having her arguments demolished. We stick to family, friends, work, sports … she is a White Sox fan, but my ability to overlook that enormous character flaw is greatly appreciated.
It could be worse. It could be the Cardinals.
Welcome to Ricochet, BH. I hope we hear more from you.
As others have noticed, it’s hard to generalize about the dynamics of conflict resolution. There’s often a tension between comity and frankness. Sometimes the principles at stake seem to justify taking a stand, sometimes they don’t. Some people are easily offended, others not so much. You’ve posed questions for which there are no closed-form solutions.
Because this is a site that emphasizes politics and culture, it’s perhaps natural to read your questions more broadly in that context. That probably wasn’t your intention when you wrote your post, but that’s the challenge many of us face today so I’m going to respond as if it were.
Many of us on the right have had to negotiate the left/right schism in our personal interactions, particularly around the holidays. I tend to put family ahead of almost everything, and will avoid any topic within the context of a family gathering if that topic triggers someone. We generally know who will go ballistic if you mention Trump, overturning Roe v. Wade, coronavirus panic, January 6th, etc., so it’s easy to just not bring up those topics during family events. (All the easily offended people I know tilt left. Fancy that.)
Everywhere else I’m an outspoken and politically incorrect conservative, and people are welcome to accept that about me or not. The principle of open discourse and free expression is one I won’t compromise. On the other hand, that doesn’t mean I’ll make listening to my voiced opinions a precondition of family encounters and socializing. That just seems boorish.
There are also those who don’t like coffee. I don’t think we should write them out of our lives on that account. Maybe be on our guard, though.
I like my coffee like I like my humor: black, and at someone else’s expense.
That’s not a sign of moral degeneracy, just possible psychopathy.
I don’t like chocolate
Just thinking forward here, maybe. The nationwide chain stores and the monopolies are owned by individual shareholders that the decision-makers are accountable to in the pursuit of profits for the shareholders. There are always exceptions, but I think we have to assume the decision-makers who set the guidelines, whatever they may be are doing so in what they think is in the best interest of said shareholders and their own jobs of course. If we disregard their guidelines about one thing, why not disregard any other guidelines. If their rights as owners can be disregarded, why not disregard anyone’s rights as owners?
When we take away someone else’s rights by making their decisions (by disregarding their decisions), be they the largest collection of shareholders or the one-man shop, how can we expect to keep the rights we have? Not to mention, it’s not just our rights that are at risk.
Sidenote on the nationwide chains and the monopolies is they are where they are because they have offered us better or lower-cost goods and services, thereby raising our standard of living. It can get out of hand and bad things happen but generally what’s good for them is good for a lot of people.
I don’t like bacon.
First, shareholders have very little say in the day to day operation of a company, and usually little interest. And if the company is listed in the stock exchange, shares ownership is a day by day thing too.
But really, I’ve become less sympathetic towards corporations. First they engage in way too much rent seeking, looking for ways the government can subsidize them at taxpayers expense. Second, they are run by business school graduates that are becoming more political. We hear more and more horror stories of HR departments putting employees through CRT hell, making them attend various struggle sessions.
We see them involving themselves, more and more, in politics, and to get promoted, you have to have the right politics.
In the U.S. we have a tradition of separation of powers that goes beyond the three branches of the federal government, as well as states rights. Corporations are another power center — indeed a corporation gets its charter from a state — and we shoudn’t let them get too big as a whole.
I don’t know how old they are, but I’ve found with myself that as I’ve gotten older (69) I don’t need or want the aggravation anymore. I have a bunch of woke classmates that I’ve gladly “unfriended” on facebook and a fraternity brother that I’ve blocked on my phone (we used to talk every week). My life couldn’t be nicer and more serene as a result. So without knowing all the facts in this case it’s hard to say anything, but in my case with the illogical, delusional, ignorant woke, – as an old timer – I don’t need it.
Whaddya mean you don’t like bacon? Vegetarians like bacon, they just try to hide it. Disliking bacon is simply not allowed.
Welcome to Ricochet , @bretonhoosier So terrific to have your voice in the community.
Or, Does a person have a right to be wrong? (“right” in a colloquial, not legal, sense; in the context of the relationship and for the issue of concern) Can we agree to disagree?
If I am certain I am right (correct), can I exist in the relationship while allowing the other person to be wrong (incorrect)? To the other person in the relationship, although I believe I am right (correct), if I actually am wrong (incorrect) and persist in my “wrongness” can we maintain the relationship?
Unfortunately, for some years now an increasing number of people have put an increasing number of issues on their list of issues for which being “wrong” is impermissible.
But chocolate covered bacon. Mmm.
Yes. And the plurality of shareholders are investment firms which own shares on behalf of their clients. Shareholders are not who you think they are.
Breton, when I read your headline, I immediately thought of a quote from Dr. Malone, being interviewed after he was dropped from twitter for misinformation. He said: I may be wrong.
But he also gave the example of the first time he was dropped from linked-in for posting misinformation. Dr. Malone said that he was a life-long vaccinologist, developed vaccines, and held 8 patents on the fundamental mRNA vaccination and transfection technology, and he challenged the banning.
And he got back a personal response from (I think) linked-in’s CEO who reinstated him and apologized, saying in essence: We don’t have anyone qualified to fact-check you.
My take away was that there are some authorities who may be wrong on something, but who have the most advanced, deep and broad information that may be had on a subject. And even if he’s wrong who knows better?
And even if he is wrong, doesn’t he have the right to discuss with and question with those who are less qualified who disagree with him?
What you are proposing smacks of scientific inquiry, and He Who Represents Science has declared the science settled!!!1!
In the land of anyone can decide, whose choice matters the most is equivalent to might makes right. No one is going to challenge my assuming the owner’s rights, so I have effectively, by my own might stolen the rights.
I’m just carrying the thoughts further down the road. I have to admit, I’ve used my might to ignore the authority of this entity or that entity and essentially stolen a right; something like parking where I did not have permission or this or that. We’ve kind of been led down this road.
Let’s take it a step further. What’s the difference between the value of the rights of the individual shareholder who has no day-to-day decision-making duties and the value of the rights of the individual citizen who has no day-to-day decision-making duties?
Rights are naturally reciprocal. They are a do unto others kind of thing. It’s fundamental that we cannot take a right without losing one.
Depends on the degree of centralization and consolidation of each.
Boundaries. I would think that some conditions are fair for debate, and others are boundary violations. Either way, the person setting the condition is announcing to you the value of your relationship to them.
Thats a handy thing to know.
And if you find the price too high, nothing is forever. The other person could well apologize later.
It doesn’t bear on this case I guess, but it’s useful for context. See my comment above.
You’ve asked the key question — is it worth the offense.
Sometimes, capitulation with credit for your graceful sacrifice is compromise enough. Likewise giving credit for a capitulation. Of course, this is only possible in personal relationship — doesn’t apply to the same question in the context of government mandates etc.
And sometimes real compromise is possible, where both agree that the half a loaf they gain is worth the missing half.
Contrary to what many say, compromise is not inherently good. It’s just another tool for resolving *resolvable* conflicts.
So back to your question — what’s it worth to you? Ego and boundaries are what you put on the table in this particular case, weighed against relationships whose value is being advertised to you.
I remember that. Waaaay back in 2021. I still think you were right. Not just specifically, but holistically.
100%
I respect private property. If they say a mask is required, I’ll either wear a mask or shop somewhere else. If they say a mask is requested, I’ll not wear one.
Good for you. That is an excellent way to behave.
I try to deal with all people that way myself. But there are conditions.
I have one long term Left-y friend who I now avoid. She ignored the one limit I put on our conversations which is “I will avoid political matters if you do to.”
She readily agreed to that, but then the last time we talked, she said “I just have to tell you this one item of political news.” Then she went on a long ramble about J Kushner’s financial dealings and how they compromise Trump.
It is neither here nor there that I tend to agree with her about Kushner. But an agreement is an agreement. She broke the agreement.
When I talk to other conservative friends, they say they are having the same experiences. We astutely keep to the bargain. But because Lefties consider us on the Right to be among the great un-washed, lacking in basic political knowledge, well, we can certainly count on our so well informed brothers and sisters on the Left to break a vow and explain to us exactly what we need to know.
Perhaps I should just feel it is sad, but it really gets my panties in a knot.