Someone close to me, whom I respect very much, has called me inconsistent twice in the past two days [when concerning discussions of my particularly anarcho beliefs on any-given topic].
My instinct is that they simply haven’t had the breadth of knowledge-base for what I’m discussing, and thus don’t understand the initial argument. Instead of them having to admit their pride is in the way of the discussion, they dismiss my argument by saying I’m inconsistent.
How have you all dealt with such confrontations and situations?
There’s never a solution when you suppose that “they” are the problem, whether you suspect its their pride or lack of understanding- its of no help to you. If there is no inconsistency in your argument, perhaps have them point out to you what they are finding that doesn’t match. It is most probably a communication problem.
I’ve found that anytime someone said I was being incosistent- there were a few possibilities.
#1- I was inconsistent
#2- I assumed too much about the person I was communicating with- so I would end up creating fallacies in my position when there would be none without those assumptions.
Not that I could see. They got irritated and wouldn’t really specify what my inconsistency was, they just stated I was inconsistent. They got more irritated if I probed for an explanation. That’s what leads me to believe their ego was part of the problem in the discussion.
And no, my beliefs are solid, though I’m still evolving them and learning, whether I misrepresent them or not.
Let me make my 2nd point a bit more clear- haha this is still something I have to work on, I didn’t mean to say I’d create fallacies in my argument but rather lets say I assume that the person I’m talking to has a pride issue, as soon as I’ve done that there is a very high chance that opinion I’ve created of the other person is going to come off in the way I talk. So it would be no wonder that they would get irritated and write off whatever I have to say as inconsistent, stupid, mean, or whatever else. The only way to have a discussion where their ego isn’t getting in the way, is to make sure yours isn’t first.
If they really just don’t want to tell you what they find inconsistent- then whats the point of having the discussion? Perhaps instead of coming from an angle where you are trying to “win” - come from a place where you’re trying to understand where they are coming from. I mean there could be an endless number of causes of why a person behaves the way they do when having a conversation, so I wouldn’t focus too much on that.
Condescension isn’t my goal when talking to anyone, though I could easily see how that perception exists, particularly in modern society, where the predominant ideology is a statist ideology.
The person used a phrase today that made me cringe, while they admitted that “maybe it shouldn’t be that way” – that “might makes right”. They conceded that even while that might just be a misgotten perception, it was still the case. I didn’t disagree and even conceded myself that my viewpoints were still the ideological minority, even if they are beginning to prevail through different outlets.
[We were discussing the viability of anarchist ideas ever coming to be the predominant viewpoint, thus becoming a viable option as a system of social order.]
Maybe they will in 50 years, 100 years, or maybe never. Everything is viable as long as theres effort- there’s just no point in stressing that things aren’t perfect “now”. I think if that person conceded to your points and just isn’t sure that those in power will do the same- that’s not so bad at all.
I suppose that’s true. I hadn’t looked at it from that point of view.
Thanks for the different perspective.
I just worry, similarly to my friend, that perhaps there isn’t enough support. I suppose I just have more optimism and patience, whereas they’re a bit fatalistic about it all – it could never happen, regardless of how sound the ideas are, because the powers that be/the mass of people would never support the ideas simply because they perceive it wouldn’t be permitted or wouldn’t work due to people in power.
Thus, they feel it’s not even worth the trouble, and therefore we should just go along to get along.
There probably isn’t enough support. But if what you want to do is garner more support- just focus on that. It takes people time- if someone doesn’t think that it could ever happen, that’s ok - they don’t seem to be on the side of preventing the ideas from getting a foothold.
Ideas do have a way of changing people and their actions. Years ago I was ready to join the NYPD(passed the exam, got called in and everything)- and never thought the government could do any wrong- after a lot of learning I changed my entire goal and I could never do such a thing like arrest people and put them in prison.
I think that the truth is good enough for its own sake, whether or not things will actually change needs not be of any concern. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t put in any effort, just no need to get attached to the “when” and “if” of results.
It’s vexing, but many people simply don’t use their critical thinking skills enough to divulge what is being said. They hear a metaphor or an analogy half the time, and take it literally without thinking about what contrast or comparison was being made. Or they misinterpret wildly because they have one set of ideals in their mind and…not that they CAN’T fathom new ones…they simply choose not to. That might actually be worse…