Letters to the Editor
-
@meffert
"Whether dealing with evolution or global warming, why same-sex marriages would ruin the united states or when is torture acceptable; both "sides" must be presented, even if one is completely wrong."
When dealing with a point of view that one deems to be "completely wrong," even when the facts bear you out, it's always constructive to analyze why the other side believes as they do; as misguided as they may seem, from inside their skin what they are saying makes sense, it "works for them." If you don't try to find out why they're sticking to a point of view that is not supported by the facts, you'll never pry them loose from their argument. I'm not talking about Coulter and Limbaugh, who do it for money but their audiences who desperately need to believe what they say is true. Or the reviewers who call Glenn "shrill" instead of "deadly accurate." What's motivating their selective blindness/deafness? I don't think some writers on the left, feeling they are totally supported by empirical fact, take the time to look at why they're not being heard. Not feeling heard, they scream louder, "Can't you see how right I am?? Look at the facts!!!" But it isn't always about facts, with people. We're not all Mr. Spock. When BushCo taps into people's fear, facts go out the window. When people perceive their economic well-being threatened by oh, say, reduced military spending, their brains go out the window. If you want to convince them that an economy that relies on instruments of death to maintain it is ultimately going to destroy the world, you have to take into account their fear of being poor, or all the screaming in the world isn't going to change their minds.
It makes for good debating to remember that the other person, inside his/her skin, subjectively, feels just as correct in what he/she is saying as you or I do. If you want to change his/her mind, you've got to get inside, not just point at facts.