Desert_Seg
07-21-2006, 05:00 AM
Warning - This topic requires the reader to open their mind beyond what they might be desirous of doing. If you seek not to expand your horizons, or at least entertain the notion of expanding your horizons, then stop now. There is no need to read any further.
Caveat - This is a topic that I have debated countless times, never seeking a winning side, rather only seeking to engender dialogue. There is no RIGHT or WRONG in this debate, all that is required is your ability to break any barriers there might be to your seeing that there are two sides to every argument. Additionally, please note that although the current conflict between Israel and Lebanon may seem as the catalyst for this discussion, it is NOT. This is a discussion about polarization and not about debating the merits of any hot topics I mention.
- - - - - - - - - -
Mankind, in its most basic form, is one that enjoys debate. It could be about sports, elections, war, love, hate, film, anything. It is so pervasive in out society that every morning, regardless of where you are in the world, millions of people debate the sports match from the day before. Be it the World Cup, the World Series, the Super Bowl, or even a simple neighborhood cricket match, we will always draw sides and always have our say against a call, a goal, or even just a head butt (sorry, had to say it). Simply put, debating is part of our ilk, part of our fiber, part of our psyche.
Funny enough, we used to be able to debate in a civilized manner. Shoot, we even have a whole series of rules on debating, the oft cited Robert's Rules of Order (www.robertsrules.com, in case you are wondering). Now, while I always wondered who died and put Robert in charge, I was taught them as a youngster and have followed them throughout most of my life. Unfortunately, Robert's has lost some of his "power" and while some people still try to see the opposing view, most people have become polarized and lost their ability to fight a clean fight, to look at topics unemotionally, and be willing, much less able, to debate a topic AND understand that there is often a valid and opposing viewpoint.
Even more disturbing, mankind has become so polarized that most people have lost their willingness to listen to an opposing point of view and rationally making a decision. Oh sure, you have the odd person or two who says they are so affected by an event and are too emotionally involved to make any other decision and to them I say..............
Why is it like this? What has changed in our society to make us this way. After all, we haven't evolved that much in such a short time. Or have we?
For one, our on-air media, whether it be Al Jazeera, BBC, talk shows such as Larry King, or even nightly news that promises to be "Fair and Balanced", has changed dramatically. Rather then presenting a balanced unbiased view, today's on-air personalities lean towards making us polarized. After all, what sells ads better than getting the right kind of viewership? The news is no longer fairly presented and lives on 30 second sound bites that try to convey a message in simple terms so everybody understands. Words that often are meant to shock and horrify us and then push us towards a specific thought pattern, words that don't necessarily present the news and rather are presenting a viewpoint.
Even worse, the talk shows that have become the norm on TV have become more about SHOUT TV than about education and dialogue. SHOUT TV, btw, is what I call those shows in which the moderator (you name them) tries to talk louder than his guest, especially if it a point he (or she) doesn't want to hear. On the flip side, the guest is quite often more vocal and sometimes even louder. Again, no dialogue and only one viewpoint can be right.
Print media doesn't get off lightly either. Just recently a local paper printed cover pictures of Israeli children "signing" mortar rounds before they were fired and then, in a horrific way, tied them to a gruesome page 4 shot of a dismembered child. Why? What does this gain? Nothing. In fact, it only serves to incite an already tense situation and further polarizes those who read it. It doesn't provide any news and taken out of context they just "prove" the point that newspaper wants to prove, rightly or wrongly.
And then there is the internet which, while a great thing, has created an even greater vacuum of knowledge. Now, if desired, you can visit the page of your choice and get the news you want to see, and only what you want to see, rather than opening your minds to outside views and possibly learning from discourse and dialogue. Why even bother doing research anymore. Obviously somebody has already done and you just don't have time to make up your own mind.
All this lack of dialogue has another effect, one worse than a seeming lack of knowledge. It is the pure, and often evil, hostility that is created via this polarization. We've seen the roots of it in every aspect of our society, from chat rooms to blogs, to the press, and, unfortunately, even in our personal lives. It is seen countless times in the anti-Jewish / anti-Muslim, anti-Arabic / anti-Israeli rhetoric. It is seen in the "who won the Bush / Gore election" or in the abortion / pro choice debate, or even a topic such as global warming / save the earth. Why do things have to get hostile when each of us can have an opposing view and still be friendly? We can live side by side if we try, even if we don't necessarily agree with each other. All we have to do is try. Why can't you support an view that is opposing to what you believe in? I can.
As an example....in my personal life (that is, in decisions that I control), I am anti-abortion but in the grand scheme of things I am pro choice. HUH? How can that be you ask? Simple. I would not want anybody to abort a child that I helped create BUT I also acknowledge the fact that it isn't always my decision. For me, personally, no abortion....for you, the decision stops are different and YOU must make that decision. I cannot presume to make it for you, nor will I.
Simple, right? Not at all. Why is it that we, as individuals, believe more and more that we have the right to dictate what others do? Why do we feel we have the right to condemn somebody for what they did? Why don't we try to understand? Because we are polarized, we are forming our opinions and making our decisions based on our emotions, rather than on rational thought.
Of course, there in lies the problem. After all, when we feel the urge (and this is an important point), we want absolute, black and white, opinions. I ask you now, why does everything have to be an absolute? More importantly, why are some things absolutes and others (rolling stops, breaking the speed limit, or jay walking) so debatable?
It's simple, because we aren't yet polarized by some topics as they haven't yet become newsworthy. Just wait until the whining about our driving leaves the "Letters" page and becomes a legislative debate and the rules start coming down (or being enforced)...we will quickly become polarized. You see, I believe polarization happens when a topic becomes a 30 second sound bite, when it becomes represented by tragic pictures on the front of the newspaper or your homepage, when it becomes nothing more than a headline and a tag line. All providing news, but none providing the whole picture, the TWO sides to very argument. YOU then pick the appropriate emotional side and off we go!
Of course, the blame doesn't solely rest on the press or the way the information is provided. The blame also sits squarely on YOUR shoulders. We could eliminate much of the polarization if YOU made even the smallest effort to understand your neighbor's point of view, if YOU didn't presume you were the only one who knew what was right and what was wrong. Back in the day, when I was on the radio, we tried to polarize our viewers. Yes, I admit it, we tried to get you involved in our discourse. We provided both sides of the argument and asked you to call in, asked you to get involved. And, in the end, if you opened your mind, you learned something. You might not change your point of view but you learned something.
That's all I ask, open your minds and try to learn something. These aren't absolutes, they really aren't. I don't mean to create any angst about the rights or the wrongs of the topics I mention, rather I mean to stir the pot enough that we quit arguing and start a CIVILIZED debate.
Why can't we admit there might be two sides to every argument?
Why can't we admit that by listening to the other side we aren't harming anybody.
Why can't we stop arguing and start listening?
So I challenge you, let's start a civilized debate about those hot topics. Let's learn how to listen. Let's learn how to talk to each other. If not for me, or not for you, then for the children. We might actually learn something.
The author's views do not necessarily represent those of this publication. If you wish to dialogue directly with him, you can find him most mornings, holding court, at his favorite coffee shop.
--------
Steven
Caveat - This is a topic that I have debated countless times, never seeking a winning side, rather only seeking to engender dialogue. There is no RIGHT or WRONG in this debate, all that is required is your ability to break any barriers there might be to your seeing that there are two sides to every argument. Additionally, please note that although the current conflict between Israel and Lebanon may seem as the catalyst for this discussion, it is NOT. This is a discussion about polarization and not about debating the merits of any hot topics I mention.
- - - - - - - - - -
Mankind, in its most basic form, is one that enjoys debate. It could be about sports, elections, war, love, hate, film, anything. It is so pervasive in out society that every morning, regardless of where you are in the world, millions of people debate the sports match from the day before. Be it the World Cup, the World Series, the Super Bowl, or even a simple neighborhood cricket match, we will always draw sides and always have our say against a call, a goal, or even just a head butt (sorry, had to say it). Simply put, debating is part of our ilk, part of our fiber, part of our psyche.
Funny enough, we used to be able to debate in a civilized manner. Shoot, we even have a whole series of rules on debating, the oft cited Robert's Rules of Order (www.robertsrules.com, in case you are wondering). Now, while I always wondered who died and put Robert in charge, I was taught them as a youngster and have followed them throughout most of my life. Unfortunately, Robert's has lost some of his "power" and while some people still try to see the opposing view, most people have become polarized and lost their ability to fight a clean fight, to look at topics unemotionally, and be willing, much less able, to debate a topic AND understand that there is often a valid and opposing viewpoint.
Even more disturbing, mankind has become so polarized that most people have lost their willingness to listen to an opposing point of view and rationally making a decision. Oh sure, you have the odd person or two who says they are so affected by an event and are too emotionally involved to make any other decision and to them I say..............
Why is it like this? What has changed in our society to make us this way. After all, we haven't evolved that much in such a short time. Or have we?
For one, our on-air media, whether it be Al Jazeera, BBC, talk shows such as Larry King, or even nightly news that promises to be "Fair and Balanced", has changed dramatically. Rather then presenting a balanced unbiased view, today's on-air personalities lean towards making us polarized. After all, what sells ads better than getting the right kind of viewership? The news is no longer fairly presented and lives on 30 second sound bites that try to convey a message in simple terms so everybody understands. Words that often are meant to shock and horrify us and then push us towards a specific thought pattern, words that don't necessarily present the news and rather are presenting a viewpoint.
Even worse, the talk shows that have become the norm on TV have become more about SHOUT TV than about education and dialogue. SHOUT TV, btw, is what I call those shows in which the moderator (you name them) tries to talk louder than his guest, especially if it a point he (or she) doesn't want to hear. On the flip side, the guest is quite often more vocal and sometimes even louder. Again, no dialogue and only one viewpoint can be right.
Print media doesn't get off lightly either. Just recently a local paper printed cover pictures of Israeli children "signing" mortar rounds before they were fired and then, in a horrific way, tied them to a gruesome page 4 shot of a dismembered child. Why? What does this gain? Nothing. In fact, it only serves to incite an already tense situation and further polarizes those who read it. It doesn't provide any news and taken out of context they just "prove" the point that newspaper wants to prove, rightly or wrongly.
And then there is the internet which, while a great thing, has created an even greater vacuum of knowledge. Now, if desired, you can visit the page of your choice and get the news you want to see, and only what you want to see, rather than opening your minds to outside views and possibly learning from discourse and dialogue. Why even bother doing research anymore. Obviously somebody has already done and you just don't have time to make up your own mind.
All this lack of dialogue has another effect, one worse than a seeming lack of knowledge. It is the pure, and often evil, hostility that is created via this polarization. We've seen the roots of it in every aspect of our society, from chat rooms to blogs, to the press, and, unfortunately, even in our personal lives. It is seen countless times in the anti-Jewish / anti-Muslim, anti-Arabic / anti-Israeli rhetoric. It is seen in the "who won the Bush / Gore election" or in the abortion / pro choice debate, or even a topic such as global warming / save the earth. Why do things have to get hostile when each of us can have an opposing view and still be friendly? We can live side by side if we try, even if we don't necessarily agree with each other. All we have to do is try. Why can't you support an view that is opposing to what you believe in? I can.
As an example....in my personal life (that is, in decisions that I control), I am anti-abortion but in the grand scheme of things I am pro choice. HUH? How can that be you ask? Simple. I would not want anybody to abort a child that I helped create BUT I also acknowledge the fact that it isn't always my decision. For me, personally, no abortion....for you, the decision stops are different and YOU must make that decision. I cannot presume to make it for you, nor will I.
Simple, right? Not at all. Why is it that we, as individuals, believe more and more that we have the right to dictate what others do? Why do we feel we have the right to condemn somebody for what they did? Why don't we try to understand? Because we are polarized, we are forming our opinions and making our decisions based on our emotions, rather than on rational thought.
Of course, there in lies the problem. After all, when we feel the urge (and this is an important point), we want absolute, black and white, opinions. I ask you now, why does everything have to be an absolute? More importantly, why are some things absolutes and others (rolling stops, breaking the speed limit, or jay walking) so debatable?
It's simple, because we aren't yet polarized by some topics as they haven't yet become newsworthy. Just wait until the whining about our driving leaves the "Letters" page and becomes a legislative debate and the rules start coming down (or being enforced)...we will quickly become polarized. You see, I believe polarization happens when a topic becomes a 30 second sound bite, when it becomes represented by tragic pictures on the front of the newspaper or your homepage, when it becomes nothing more than a headline and a tag line. All providing news, but none providing the whole picture, the TWO sides to very argument. YOU then pick the appropriate emotional side and off we go!
Of course, the blame doesn't solely rest on the press or the way the information is provided. The blame also sits squarely on YOUR shoulders. We could eliminate much of the polarization if YOU made even the smallest effort to understand your neighbor's point of view, if YOU didn't presume you were the only one who knew what was right and what was wrong. Back in the day, when I was on the radio, we tried to polarize our viewers. Yes, I admit it, we tried to get you involved in our discourse. We provided both sides of the argument and asked you to call in, asked you to get involved. And, in the end, if you opened your mind, you learned something. You might not change your point of view but you learned something.
That's all I ask, open your minds and try to learn something. These aren't absolutes, they really aren't. I don't mean to create any angst about the rights or the wrongs of the topics I mention, rather I mean to stir the pot enough that we quit arguing and start a CIVILIZED debate.
Why can't we admit there might be two sides to every argument?
Why can't we admit that by listening to the other side we aren't harming anybody.
Why can't we stop arguing and start listening?
So I challenge you, let's start a civilized debate about those hot topics. Let's learn how to listen. Let's learn how to talk to each other. If not for me, or not for you, then for the children. We might actually learn something.
The author's views do not necessarily represent those of this publication. If you wish to dialogue directly with him, you can find him most mornings, holding court, at his favorite coffee shop.
--------
Steven