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.
Bridging the Abyss
It’s been difficult at times to post on Ricochet, and nearly impossible to discuss politics with anyone who isn’t a conservative outside of Ricochet. With some of these conversations erupting into conflict, I decided to shed some light on the topic of conflict. It doesn’t matter which “side” you’re on: I’m talking to you. After all, if you experience serious conflict, it’s your own fault.
Let me explain a few things before I delve further into this topic. First, I use the term “serious conflict,” because every living human being experiences conflict several times a day, every day, whether or not you visit Ricochet. So I’m not talking about minor skirmishes, choices of whether to start your diet today or tomorrow, or whether to go out for Chinese or Italian. I’m talking about the heavy duty stuff. There is no permanent elimination of conflict—at least, not until you die.
The first reality to acknowledge is there’s no objective reality. Yes, I see the conflict already in my statement. Unfortunately each of us thinks we have the clearest vision of the world, of Truth, and everyone else can and should see the world as we do, right? Wrong. No one else sees your reality or your world, or whatever you choose to call it. You may argue that there are universal truths, though. Well, good luck when you try to identify the list: all of us can state universal truths—based on our own world views. What about the objective realities of mathematics or science? One only needs to study Einstein or climate change to know there is no fixed or objective science there, either. Even with the simple experience of sitting right next to a person in a closet: you may generally describe the closet in the same way, but you’ll likely have a different experience of that closet which influences your perceptions of the closet. It gets very interesting when you try to describe what seems to be a clear-cut experience and you both describe it quite differently: who’s right? Who’s wrong? Both of you and neither of you.
Describing a closet that you occupy with another person is a relatively harmless activity. But when we begin to share our values, beliefs, preferences, biases and politics—which, by the way are precisely what form reality for all of us—we run into trouble. And that trouble is laid out in full, living color, because it isn’t enough for us to hold to the belief of our own realities. Everyone has to share our perceptions and agree with them. Our egos demand it. There is honor only when we are right, and everyone else can see that. When you are passionate about your beliefs, there is no room to allow for differences in perceptions. You have to trumpet your “rightness” and condemn the other’s wrongness.
Now I’m not saying that I am the example of even-handedness and equanimity. Hardly. I have my moments when I want to make myself right and make everyone else who disagrees with me to be foolish, self-centered, nasty, hateful—well, I trust you to identify your own predicate adjectives for your adversaries. But I’m tired of the finger-pointing, accusations, denigrations—aren’t you? I know some people thrive on conflict, stirring things up, making angry comments; it makes them feel powerful and in control. (I won’t even pursue my lecture about our having almost no control over anything.)
One of the biggest reasons people get into political arguments is because they assume that they know what the other person thinks or believes. Unless you are clairvoyant, or unless people tell you what they think or why they think that way, you don’t know. I just want to tear out my hair when someone says, “Well if you did this or you said that, then you meant or intended this.” That’s a lazy approach, and a dangerous one to follow in political discussions, unless you’re looking for an argument. Instead, how about actually asking them the reasons behind their positions? You might be surprised.
So at this point I’m just saying, “Stop it.” Know that your reaction to others is your fault, not theirs, and you are the only person who can stop it. You can’t change others—their ideas or their behaviors (and that includes my ability to influence you). And insulting them won’t change their minds. Allow people to have ideas different than your own; a person with integrity accepts that the world is filled with differences, and we can learn from our differences, if we make the effort.
If there is a huge abyss of differences that we are peering into, we are the ones—all of us—who have created it. And we are the only ones who can bridge it. You know that word that the Left thinks it owns but abuses all the time? Tolerance. I realize that tolerance is only a start: for many of us, it means barely holding it together when we want to bash the other person. But if we would only change, each of us, our own behavior instead of waiting for the other person to change, we might just have a chance for civil conversation. Isn’t it worth trying?
Published in Culture
I was not talking about violence, and I was talking about people on and off Ricochet. He chose that focus, I did not. It may not get violent here, but it can get very nasty.
Have not heard of this Midge, and it makes sense. I promise everyone that I will never, ever make my original statement again (not even here) and refer, instead, to mind projection fallacy. (BTW, I didn’t intentionally use a “punchy exaggeration.”)
I did want to add a couple of thoughts at the moment. First: I’m embarrassed. I taught people about working with conflict for 20 years, and thought I was doing a pretty good job. I probably was, except that I had distorted and misrepresented the meaning of objective reality. I am so touched at how you all corrected me with firmness and kindness; that kind of response is a gift. It is still embarrassing, but I’ll get over it.
I also appreciate something that @josephstanko said:
Of course we don’t see all of reality at once; only God is omniscient. We see one tiny slice from a particular perspective.
If I look at a mountain from a distance, I see one side, one perspective, shaded by light, distorted a bit by the atmosphere, pieces blocked by trees or clouds in the way. It might look very different to you, standing at the summit.
Still, the mountain really does exist, and I really can see it.
A lot of you “liked” it, too. The first sentence is one I’ve been mulling over. G-d is the only one who can see the true, objective reality. As humans, we do our best, and hopefully most of us do very well, most of the time. All of you have helped me see that truth.
Edit: Thanks, Midge, for your thoroughness and for your determination to get through to me!
Well, it does serve as one!
This post was drafted before our latest exchange above, but it is an expansion of some thoughts on the matter.
Put me down for strong disagreement with the postmodernist idea that there is no objective truth.
I am very happy to see this corrected in the comments.
It gets “nasty” when we get too personal, which happens when emotions run high. That should not mean that Ricochet should shy away from topics with high emotional content. We get emotionally involved because we care.
That depends.
If they are saying things that give aid and comfort to the Enemy while spreading confusion and doubt among our friends and allies, then they need to be countered with strong language.
Words are the only weapons here. We have had four recent posts in which some of our members took issue with “war” as a metaphor, so be advised that you are contributing to some members’ feelings that Ricochet is a hostile environment when you use that word.
And it’s that caring that keeps me here, MJ. I don’t have a problem with people feeling emotional. I’m unhappy when people allow their anger to manifest in accusations and anger, as if punishing the other person. Channeling that emotion and passion without attacking another person is very difficult, and I’m encouraging people to work at doing that.
It’s interesting. You say that my using the word “war” contributes to a hostile environment, yet you use the word “Enemy” with a capital E. I think you are saying that when people disagree with you, they are trying to spread confusion and doubt. So that sounds like you are saying that disagreement=intention to create confusion and doubt. I disagree. To assume that equation exists is, I think, incorrect. You may feel the intention is to spread doubt–or you may be saying that when people disagree with you, they are spreading doubt, intentionally or not. So it sounds like you’re saying that people shouldn’t disagree with you because it will have a negative outcome. If we can’t share our doubts and disagreements with each other here, where else can we do it? To assume that something insidious is going on is unfortunate. So I’m checking in to see if you really think that is going on.
To the extent that professional pundits who have established conservative credibility and standing go about aiding Leftist anti_Trumps, their writings are insidious. Especially when they appear to be cheering for the impeachment partizans.
I am comfortable with metaphors. I am comfortable with “war” as a metaphor, as in “culture war” or “cultural cold war.” I thought it was a sign of the emotional investment of the anti-Trumps that they fought so hard against a metaphor.
When you see me use “Enemy” with a capital E, I may have one of two meanings in mind.
Politically I may use it to refer to the hard Left. These are the spiritual heirs of the French Revolutionairies. They are intent on bringing down western civilization, beginning with the old institutions. The chief old institution they want to destroy is the Church. They were bombers in the 1970s and now they are respectable professors, cheering on violent street mobs. If they could they would put us on the guillotine.
Spiritually, “Enemy” refers to the Devil (Lucifer, or Satan).
The political Enemy is doing the work of our spiritual Enemy.
Most Christians are unwilling to acknowledge the Enemy has a team on the field.
By that same light, however, many Christians need to understand that in many respects, us mortals are the field, as well as agents upon it.
Ignoring the Enemy is a way of giving the Enemy your part of the field.
My concern isn’t necessarily with ignoring the enemy, it’s in identifying who the real enemy is and then working to save others from that enemy.