- Uncategorized (54)
- December 23, 2008: Home for the holidays
- December 23, 2008: Can't Wrap this
- October 29, 2008: Creative God
- October 13, 2008: Playing nice
- August 31, 2008: The Elevator Speech
- August 13, 2008: I can tell my grandkids...
- August 12, 2008: Update on EMT-B
- August 12, 2008: This is a pretty cool video
- August 5, 2008: A Spiritual Re-awakening
- July 29, 2008: Bible in 90 starts September 14
Playing nice
Wrote the following on Desperate Preacher in response to a discussion about political discourse. See what you think:
SanBPam wrote: let me be clear that “playing nice” applies to all. I understand exactly what you mean about how a policy of niceness can be applied unequally. It is a deep concern of mine. So, ground rules would seem to include such things as avoiding name calling, attempting to express ourselves respectfully, and posting with the purpose of dialogue, not attack.
My response: IMHO, it is not the equality of playing nice, it’s the belief that playing nice is the higher good. “Can’t we all just get along” seems to be the pinnacle of achievement way too often. Anything that is conflictual (even respectful debate) is to be avoided. Ideas are not so much mulled over and picked apart as much as folks are marginalized (often quite nicely) for questioning the “culture of nice.” Feelings are more important than facts. Being nice is more important than being right.
Before you accuse me of wanting an all out brawl, I’m not asking for that at all. What I am asking for is the realization that the only way ideas get better is when we allow them to be picked apart, argued about, and debated: vigorously. Conflict is not the enemy. Complacency and the live and let live philosophy is. As Glenn Beck would say, “It’s not about Left and Right, it’s about Right and Wrong.” Our society is not so much debating the merit of ideas, but is making certain ideas and notions (that Al Gore is wrong for one) as forbidden so that the favored ideas (right or wrong) can triumph.
Examples of forbidding ideas:
Anyone voting against Sarah Palin is sexist.
Anyone voting against Barack Obama is racist.
Examples of debating ideas:
Sarah Palin’s choice to keep her son instead of aborting him is made possible by her families ability to care for him. I’m not sure her policies would allow more folks to be able to make that choice.
Barack Obama seems to be more concerned about making abortion legal, rather than doing every thing he can to make it rare to nonexistent. He is not so much pro-choice as he is pro-abortion according to his limited voting record.
Do you see the difference? The first two shut down debate and do not allow for there to be any other viewpoint. The second two allow for different ideas and interpretations and open the floor for debate. In the midst of debate, there may not be views changed as much as refined. Saying someone is wrong is not the same as the first two.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.