A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a column for this newspaper on protest. I basically said I believe loud protests are not as effective as demonstrations involving logical arguments and literature.
Two weeks and 26 comments later, I realize readers are angry at the column, regardless of what I had stated, simply because the initial thought involved a demonstration by a group supporting an alternative lifestyle.
The column was not intended as a criticism of the group, merely an observation on the effectiveness of their methods. However, I was accused of being a bigot and a hate monger. I realized from this experience we are a society anxious to be offended.
We want to be offended because it means we do not have to process arguments that oppose our own. It blurs the content of the message with our own feelings, allowing us to dismiss it immediately. Do we keep objectivity? It is important to be able to separate feelings, especially anger, from issues. Pride and personal connection to the issue can cause this to be difficult, but if we allow emotions to filter our view of an argument, we do not allow the ideas of others to change us.
A large and easily identifiable example of this is the state of politics in the United States.
Both parties are based in good and true principles, but each party allows these principles to become dominant in discussion and refuses to build on common ground.
For example, the health care debate involves the principles of social democracy and innovation in free enterprise. Both principles are important to our society and have merit.
Everyone agrees reform is needed, but due to ideological differences and mental filtering the discussion has gone nowhere. It became so polarized earlier this year Sen. Harry Reid accused those who disagree with him of starting an “Astroturf” movement — an artificial, interest-group funded opposition.
It is important to separate ourselves when we feel this mental block coming. Important questions to ask are, “What is the purpose of this discussion?” or, “What is the author really saying?”
Other filters that commonly block true communication and discussion stem from the source of the argument. I know I have sometimes refused to truly listen to people because of their political ideology or past experience with that person. This is clearly wrong. A person can have good ideas even if we do not agree with that person.
Democratic progress is founded on the idea of discussion. Through discussion and argumentation, we can identify the problems within our argument and the strengths thereof. This allows for ideas to become truly developed and make them more effective. If we believe one person has all the right answers (namely, ourselves), then why are we not elected “dictator of the world for life”?
Besides missing the point of arguments, why else should we avoid being offended easily? The simple and obvious answer is that being offended easily creates a miserable life. I hate the feeling of being offended and I assume others do too. Why would we choose to feel this often?
Yet, we do choose this. Many people do not understand this last and very important truth: We are in control of our emotions. Society teaches we are animals, unable to control urges of hunger, thirst, anger, offense, lust or envy. This is entirely untrue. We can always choose our reactions to stimuli and we are always in control, unless we voluntarily give up this right.
For some reason, we do not expect of ourselves what we expect of others. We think we have the right to be upset, rude and generally mean when we ourselves are being disagreeable to the lady at the store or the man at the repair shop. What gives us this right? Nothing. We have believed the lie we can lose control in society while others cannot.
The point to this column is merely to state we are in a position of power in our own lives. We cannot, nor should we, filter messages with our emotions or preconceived notions of those who deliver those messages, even when we disagree. We also should not allow ourselves to lose control of ourselves when we encounter new information which opposes our beliefs and values. Let us engage in logical discussion to process opposing viewpoints and understand how they can improve our own ideas and perspectives of the world.
21 comments
Being that this is now 2009 that makes this movement a 40 year movement. If in fact this is a quick radical change; it’s the slowest I have ever seen or heard about. In this editorial here, you again make ignorant statements about "alternative lifestyle" and later in your editorial state we are “unable to control urges of hunger, thirst, anger, offense, lust or envy." (3/4)
I am a member and an officer of the Gay-Straight Alliance, and I did in fact read your previous editorial. As was stated before you made a comment that our group was protesting a "perceived" injustice, and that people do not react well to angry yelling and shouts of derision. First of all I would like to state that as a gay man I would not be able to marry a man that I love nor be able to see him if he was on his death bed. Second I would like to say I am well versed in the history of the Civil Rights movement. As far as I can see loud protests have made a change. As of now you can see that African Americans have their rights. As you can see women have their rights.
(1/4)
no matter what is to come, i believe there will always be a divide in the gay community; thus, making the Gay-Straight Alliance to be only a small representation of GLBTQ views in this city.
we all have opinions, so im expressing mineby the way mr long, being gay is not an alternative lifestyle, its a characteristic like having dark hair and brown eyes: we didnt choose it.
no matter what is to come, i believe there will always be a divide in the gay community; thus, making the Gay-Straight Alliance to be only a small representation of GLBTQ views in this city.
we all have opinions, so im expressing mineby the way mr long, being gay is not an alternative lifestyle, its a characteristic like having dark hair and brown eyes: we didnt choose it.
I think Mr. Long has adequately proven his point (perhaps accidentally.) When you read "percieved injustice" your mind shut off because you suddenly felt attacked, just as he did walking through the free speech area.
Tue Dec 1 2009 15:29
It's interesting to see how many people refuse to comment on Long's articles because they don't want to offend either side of the opinions. "the Joker" isn't one of those people, apparently, which is fine. You can be opinionated and it's acceptable to make yourself heard. But don't argue ignorantly. Our species is only one of many that has openly homosexual members, and I don't really think dolphins are trying to stamp out their GLBT community. I am an ally to the GSA, and so you know, I'm pointing my finger at you.Well unlike you I will not point my finger. Just as you have given me the right to have my opinion, I'll openly accept yours. However, we as a human race are much more unique in the fact that we have the ability to think rationally, believe in a cause and fight for it, and we have a desire to understand and influence our environment. However, with that uniqueness comes the ability to manipulate our own species through science, philosophy, mythology, religion, etc...I was only pointing out Mr. Long's hypocrisy as his agenda was clear from the beginning of his last column. If you indeed are an ally, then perhaps you shouldn't be pointing fingers, correct?
I just want to point out that....the LGBT community is ALWAYS called out by straight people for being "different" or for leading "alternative lifestyles"...have we ever called the straight community out for being "wrong", "unnatural", or "alternative"? No. We don't do that. Because really...all we believe in is LOVE. Loving who we want, male or female. And you say that there's no "homosexual gene" which may be true but do you REALLY think we CHOOSE to be this way? WHY would we choose to be this way when we KNOW how most of the world thinks about the LGBT community? So we chose to be hated just because? Hmmm? Think about that.
Perhaps you are the one who is anxious to be offended Mr. Long when you obviously were pushing a different agenda as evidenced by the many people that responded to your last column. That is what I like to call irony. So he states in this column:
"We want to be offended because it means we do not have to process arguments that oppose our own. It blurs the content of the message with our own feelings, allowing us to dismiss it immediately. Do we keep objectivity? It is important to be able to separate feelings, especially anger, from issues. Pride and personal connection to the issue can cause this to be difficult, but if we allow emotions to filter our view of an argument, we do not allow the ideas of others to change us."But he says in his last column:
"Did this assault on the peace of my day affect me? Absolutely. It made me less sympathetic to their cause"Making a statement like that in the beginning paragraph already demonstrated his bias, which resulted in people becoming offended. Maybe they didn't get their point across to Mr. Long, but they have a right to their opinions and last time I checked it wasn't in the opinions section of the Toreador if you catch my drift.And he states this gem in his last column also:
Obviously, calling to others on the sidelines is a method to bring attention to your message, but loud, vocal, angry calls of derision make most rational people cringe. It does not create effective conversation. Both left and right often use anger as a tool to promote radical social change and it is almost always ineffective. I would have to disagree with Mr. Long as the church does a great job of appealing to emotion, so maybe he wanted to offend most of the Lubbock community too.Truth be told, Mr. Long tried to formulate an opinion in his column that was already bias and that is why he had to write a second column to explain himself.
Crazy BehaviorPeople may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has
legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. Lamps are next.4. Straight Marriage Has Been Around A Long Time And Hasn't Changed At AllHence why women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.5. Straight Marriage Will Be Less Meaningful If Gay Marriage Were AllowedAnd we can't let the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage be destroyed.6. Straight Marriages Are Valid Because They Produce ChildrenSo therefore, gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our population isn't out of control, our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.7. Obviously Gay Parents Will Raise Gay ChildrenSince, of course, straight parents only raise straight children.8. Gay Marriage Is Not Supported By ReligionIn a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.9. Children Can Never Succeed Without A Male And A Female Role ModelWhich is exactly why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.10. Gay Marriage Will Change The Foundation Of Society; We Could Never Adapt To New Social NormsJust like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.