Alright, I just had to write something because this Reddit topic made me rage. In particular, the replies in this comment thread.
There's this persistent group of people who seem to want to take the position that they are somehow better than everyone else by accepting every belief as equally valid, seemingly only to act as a contrast to those willing to have an intellectually honest discourse.
The initial post was created with the phrase, "I respect your beliefs." When called out on how stupid that is, the reply is "I respect your freedom to believe." Two entirely different things. The latter is valid, the prior is not.
No matter what the topic, if beliefs are not a matter of respect, they are a matter of evidence. Rejecting the claim is not insulting the person. If you can't handle that, then you're right, you shouldn't be part of the discussion.
It doesn't matter what the topic, taking a neutral position is not some high ground; it's apathetic and useless. The more controversial, ironically, the more likely this faux superiority will rear its head, and the more important it is that it doesn't. If we talk about stereotypes, you cannot claim that they are all inaccurate. However, inevitably you'll get the condescending remark not to generalize. Here's the thing, generalizations aren't wrong; applying generalizations to an individual is wrong. There's a difference.
In religion, it's atheists are as dogmatic as fundamentalists for arguing or taking agnosticism as a faux middle-ground to a true or not true boolean position. In politics, it's "all parties are the same" in response to any negative action. In statistics, it's correlation != causation while ignoring there not being a claim of cause in the first place. In gaming, it's "reviews are subjective, so all opinions are equal" ignoring objective aspects.
Having the position that happens to work out that all options are equal can be a valid one; using it as a basis to discount the positions of others is a non-sequitur. It's caustic to candor and breeds apathy.
There's this persistent group of people who seem to want to take the position that they are somehow better than everyone else by accepting every belief as equally valid, seemingly only to act as a contrast to those willing to have an intellectually honest discourse.
The initial post was created with the phrase, "I respect your beliefs." When called out on how stupid that is, the reply is "I respect your freedom to believe." Two entirely different things. The latter is valid, the prior is not.
No matter what the topic, if beliefs are not a matter of respect, they are a matter of evidence. Rejecting the claim is not insulting the person. If you can't handle that, then you're right, you shouldn't be part of the discussion.
It doesn't matter what the topic, taking a neutral position is not some high ground; it's apathetic and useless. The more controversial, ironically, the more likely this faux superiority will rear its head, and the more important it is that it doesn't. If we talk about stereotypes, you cannot claim that they are all inaccurate. However, inevitably you'll get the condescending remark not to generalize. Here's the thing, generalizations aren't wrong; applying generalizations to an individual is wrong. There's a difference.
In religion, it's atheists are as dogmatic as fundamentalists for arguing or taking agnosticism as a faux middle-ground to a true or not true boolean position. In politics, it's "all parties are the same" in response to any negative action. In statistics, it's correlation != causation while ignoring there not being a claim of cause in the first place. In gaming, it's "reviews are subjective, so all opinions are equal" ignoring objective aspects.
Having the position that happens to work out that all options are equal can be a valid one; using it as a basis to discount the positions of others is a non-sequitur. It's caustic to candor and breeds apathy.
Recently Spotted:
Archangel3371 (8m)
Very well said. I think in the US people are often brought up to avoid conflict at all costs (prior to sending in the bomber planes) which as a result makes them passive aggressive and gives them that sense of superiority you speak of. How's that for a generalisation?
Also, while I agree with pretty much all you said, I don't practice all that equally well.
What I am sometimes guilty of is thinking it's not worth engaging in conversation when I feel the other party may not be capable of understanding (for whatever reason). I realise this is the manifestation of a certain level of arrogance, which I'm not proud of and which I try to work on. For example when I saw you make blanket negative remarks about hip-hop music, I decided against making a case for it because I didn't think you would understand, but I couldn't help feeling I was in the superior position for being able to appreciate (some of) it. Another example is when people trashed Blade Runner. Dvader started it as a serious question and I was originally going to present a few arguments for why I think it has merit but then people trashed it and made a joke of it so I didn't think it was worth my time and effort.
Another thing I am guilty of is abstaining from elections. The few times I had the chance to vote it really felt to me like it was a contest between the puppet on the left and the puppet on the right. None of my values were upheld by any of the candidates and I could not see the lesser of the evils. So, though I knew it was wrong to abstain and take the middle ground, I could bring myself to get up and vote.
Great blog, I really enjoyed it. Thank you.
In my case it is possible to have strong opinions and beleifs and just not care what other people think.
I'm a vegan, it's a very strong belief, born out of concerns for animal welfare. If you eat meat do I judge you? Not in the slightest. I could not care less.
I'm a socialist. If you are a capitalist do I care? No, again, I could not care less.
I'm an atheist. If you are Christian, Buddist, Muslim do I care? No.
I'm not better than anyone with different beliefs, I'm not smug, I never try to convert anyone because I JUST DON'T CARE enough about other people to change their minds on a topic (which you cannot do anyway).
So I guess my point is -- what's wrong with apathy?
well, not necessarily "judge" or even argue ... but engage. because maybe if you convince another person to see things your way then the world will be a bit better for it.
for a lot of people the problem is not knowing. lack of knowledge, not necessarily lack of intelect. for example i've had students go off meat after explaining a few facts to them in conversation
I see where you are coming from, and it is admirable.
It's difficult to phrase, which I suppose is part of the problem. It's not apathy. We can't care deeply about every single issue. The point is that by having a position at all you have reasons for doing so, and by that, provided it's not a matter of personal taste, you have an intrisic position of believing the other person is either wrong or in a worse position on that particular topic.
As you phrased it, "I'm not better than anyone with different beliefs," makes the fundamental misunderstanding of equating the entirety of the person's character with the individual belief. You may not be better than particular Scientologist, but with regard to the topic of, say, the age of the universe, you are better. It doesn't mean you have to actually care whether someone else wants to believe the universe is trillions of years old, but if you're already concluded, at least to a certain degree, that you're right and they're wrong, from what information is available to us.
Taking not caring and pushing it to suggesting criticism of an openly stated belief is then wrong because "nobody ever changes their mind, and it's all a matter of opinion." If they were apathetic, we wouldn't have to deal with them.
The "it's all a matter of opinion" crowd drives me nuts. I heard a moderator on the radio the other day talking about AUTISM the other day and ending with "well that's the thing about science, there is always two sides".
I punched the radio with my left fist.
I do think people change their minds, but I don't think many people change their minds after having had a conversation with someone with whom they disagree.
In terms of the broader topics that illicit conversation in the first place, yes, it's not something where they spin on a dime and declare "Egads! I've been wrong all this time!" Changes tend to be gradual, but are perpetuated by exposure to new ideas. Part of religious indoctrination is immersion and straw men. That nobody changes their mind at all is an easily disproved myth.
I was thinking about this blog yesterday.
When I said that "I'm no better than they are" I guess I meant, "I don't have the right to harsh anyone elses buzz." I was *not* making a statement of philosophical equivalence (that all arguments are equal).
Now if they have a public voice, or wish to expound their idiocy to an audience in my presence, then I guess I do have to say something (and I often will), just so people are not mislead. As has happened a few times on this site. But I'm not going to initiate a voicing of my strongly held beliefs -- I think that that is just socially rude.
Here's another take -- Ricky Gervais, "Why don’t you believe in God? I get that question all the time. I always try to give a sensitive, reasoned answer. This is usually awkward, time consuming and pointless. People who believe in God don’t need proof of his existence, and they certainly don’t want evidence to the contrary. They are happy with their belief. They even say things like “it’s true to me” and “it’s faith.” I still give my logical answer because I feel that not being honest would be patronizing and impolite. It is ironic therefore that “I don’t believe in God because there is absolutely no scientific evidence for his existence and from what I’ve heard the very definition is a logical impossibility in this known universe,” comes across as both patronizing and impolite."