Warning, huge generalisations below
Published: Tue, 01/22/13
After my last posting someone unsubscribed from my email list. It
happens occasionally and there is a turnover on the facebook group.
I mentioned Jimmy Saville and apparently that was too much and he
un-subscribed and let me know the reason, perfectly politely but he
did it all the same. Even if one tries to avoid saying anything
contentious the most innocuous comments can be misunderstood.
There is a school of thought that says that for each person you
offend and drive away there will be two people who are drawn closer
because they appreciate a forthright approach. There is something
in that attitude but I have reservations about deliberately
polarizing opinions. The American writer Lionel Schriver is now
mainly resident in London but I heard her say in a radio interview
that on a recent trip to New York she was at a social occasion and
someone asked her what she thought about UK politics. Apparently
when she said that she tended towards the Conservative party as led
by David Cameron she was frozen out as this was taken to mean that
she showing support for Republicans. It seems that no one was
actually interested in discussing the nature of British politics,
Conservative = Republican and this was a gathering of people who
were supposed to share Liberal = Democrat sympathies so Ms
Schriver had made a major faux paux. I am generalising to an
extent but it is common in the USA to use a couple of key issues to
label someone politically and socially. Having identified the
label you will then know exactly how that person will vote and
respond to various key issues. Classic examples being
pro-life/pro-choice, gay rights, guns or ride a Harley or a
rice-burner. Stake out a position on any of these issues and you
attract one audience and drive away another, the more extreme your
statements and the more your attracted audience will love you.
In the UK there is more of a polite consensus that everyone is
somehow assumed to agree with and there are unspoken limits on how
far one can go with contrary opinions before it is considered,
well, a bit weird shall we say. The problem is that both of these
approaches destroy any real possibility of sensible discussion
about very serious issues. The American approach means that you
don't have to discuss anything really, positions are assumed
from the beginning, barricades set up and insults hurled forward
and back. In the UK a polite acceptance of a politically correct
position is expected and any really controversial opinion is
regarded as very bad form and again, any real discussion is
avoided.
Of course in either situation it is easy to upset some people and
please others and there is some fun taking advantage of this
tendency. However just polarizing people doesn't usually
deepen anyone's understanding of a subject or free anyone's
mind to see the world more clearly. Personally I am more
interested in looking at the principles that really matter in any
situation. I don't think convincing anyone to agree with a
particular point of view matters. What does matter is showing ways
of seeing situations more clearly by exploring the principles
underlying the issues of the day. That sounds to be a pretty
innocuous goal until a cherished delusion is challenged. I have an
example for tomorrow, and I will recommend deleting without
reading if you don't want to be challenged, I will put a
warning in the subject line.
Also, this coming Saturday is the first UK Stav Course of this year
in Salisbury http://www.iceandfire.org.uk/train.html and we have a
date, 11 to 13th May for a USA training, if I am still welcome
other there of course. I will post link for the USA course as soon
as the site is updated.