Disagreeable

 

I have strong opinions. I believe in absolute truths. My day job involves being on a side, helping my clients get something done.

 

However. Keeping an open mind is paramount. When presented with inconvenient evidence, I may want to argue it away but what I should do is deal with it, confess that I might’ve been wrong, and learn to change.

 

That’s how science works, how econ works, how civic life should work.

 

And yet. I see too much selective adherence to facts. When we’re proven right we lambaste those who disagree with us. When we’re proven wrong we deny or obfuscate or just yell louder.

 

“Objectivity” has ceased to mean we accede to experts, and now just means I have my experts who are right and you have your experts who are stupid.

 

“Fair” has ceased to mean anything more than life goes the way I think it should go; crying “unfair” means something didn’t go the way I think it should.

 

The truth, whether it’s science or politics or society, is usually more complex and random than we’re comfortable with. Life is more unfair and capricious than we’d like.

 

Pick a hot topic. COVID? Affordable housing? Police? Extremely complicated, extremely charged, extremely important. That’s how most critical issues are. We’ve got to get these right. Yet we spend so much time absolutely crushing those who think differently from us. Not only is there no possibility of even a kernel of truth to their positions that we might gain from in moving things forward, but a vehement need to silence and smear any opposing school of thought.

 

Modern American discourse has metastasized into factions, dehumanization, and winning. We imagine the worst of those who disagree with us, so much so that we must not only not give room for opposing points of view but actively extinguish them because we believe they in turn are out to extinguish our very existence.

 

Perhaps I am speaking from a haughty place of privilege and cluelessness, but the vast majority of people who I disagree with are people who I personally like and whose contrary opinions I benefit from. I think we want the same things even if we have polar differences in how to get them. I earnestly want folks to have full voice for their concerns, and I greatly desire to hear and learn from them.

Yes, in some cases those on the other side threaten eternal damnation or actively seek to extinguish our very existence. Dialing up to 11 is an appropriate response. And it should be reserved for such situations, not kept at that level for any and all disagreements.

 

I’m lucky to have a diverse group of people in my social circle. Ardent maskers and anti-vaxxers, NIMBYs and YIMBYs, pro-police and abolish the police. I’m lucky to have leaned into their positions and learned something from each angle. I’m personally better for it, and society could be closer to progress if we only gave berth to all the different perspectives that together make up our pluralistic society.

I must acknowledge that what people call micro-aggressions ought to be taken seriously. In our ignorance we can say or do things that are quite triggering for and hurtful to others. Some humility is in order, as well as on most occasions some outright repentance of our own sins, confession of complicity in structural sins, and acknowledgement of past sins. 

I must also argue that pushing back against someone who is trying to advance a certain agenda is not necessarily condoning the opposite opinion. Done in the right spirit and with the right intentions, pushing back can also mean wanting to understand better and seeking a deeper awareness of what is really going on. Alas, "questioning" has become a reason for people to drop the hammer on you - "I can't believe you're not supporting me on this thing I feel strongly about" - rather than being received in a spirit of someone knowing less than you do and wanting you to tell them more.

Similarly, some of us have made determinations about certain issues - most prominently and recently things like COVID and climate change - that cause us to be extremely unwelcoming of contrary positions even if the nature of science is to make room for testing and retesting of hypotheses. 

As noted above, whether we're talking about science or econ or civic discourse, things are more complicated than the binary simplicity we try to bend the world towards. You are free to feel very strongly about your position, to fight with vehemence for your perspective to be heard and respected. I certainly do. I just don't think it's fair for that vehemence to cause you to shout down or vilify opposing viewpoints without actually giving space for those viewpoints to be fully articulated.