I have touched on it before, but recent events have prompted me to post elaborate on the issue- Acceptance Theory means accepting and respecting the opinions and traits of others, regardless of personal belief(or lackthereof, as is often the case) one places in such values. One thing we must accept is the reality that there are others who refuse to accept such a balance- people who refuse to live and let live, people who would reject Acceptance Theory for some assumption of superiority one way or another, and potentially foster hate for such reasoning.
The reality is such people exist, and sadly, some of them cannot be reasoned with. However, it is possible to accept someone as a human being and inflict no harm to them without having to subscribe to way they say or allow their negative influence in one's life. It is a matter of simply agreeing to disagree. Now, one might argue that agreeing to disagree is a feat that requires maturity on the part of both parties, but this is not true. If one of two groups simply refuses to give any ground on a matter, whilst providing no rational support for their positions(Hint, there is no rational evidence to support discrimination based on factors such as race, gender, age, religion, etc- namely, anything other than character, but quite a lot of evidence to the contrary), then agreeing to disagree is simply removing oneself from dialogues with them.
This is not abandonment, nor rejection- such a move is merely a matter of contributing one's time and energy in situations that actually matter for the good of the self, and the good of society. If one is dealing with a closed mind, the message does not matter; there is no room for discussion, and until such a person opens their heart to the possibility of alternative views, the best thing one can do is lead by example- talking to others, people open to reason, to debate, to challenging the opponent's beliefs and their own.
How does one know whom one can speak with and who is best avoided? The nature of Acceptance Theory suggests that everyone is given a chance- that is fair and equal, for appearances can be deceiving, but words and actions can often prove intent, even(or especially) when they conflict one another. So I do encourage everyone to speak even with those whom stand diametrically against them(provided there is no immediate threat to personal safety) because while some may have skewed beliefs, one may have reasons for those that can be challenged, abated, and perhaps understanding can be reached.
I myself have challenged in my discussions people whom were(and possibly still are) racist, or sexist, or homophobic- and more often than not, my words brought them to some level of thought, even while I understood how personal experiences may have led them to believe what they did. But I digress.
If one attempts to engage in discussion with someone who must immediately rule certain arguments out of the equation, then one is dealing with a close minded opponent, and therefore wasting time. People who cannot effectively discuss reasons(regardless of whether or not they can disprove them) are people who are not interested in legitimate discussion or understanding.
Personal attacks are another indicator- if a person, when challenged, resorts quickly to insulting those who open dialogue with them, it is clear that they have no evidence to support their beliefs, or again, at least a lack of interest in discussing such things, likely both.
Additionally, if a person offers no support or evidence for their claims, but continues to insist the validity of their view while denouncing the opposition(regardless of the opponent's evidence), they present themselves as close minded.We all have reasons(valid or not) for the things we believe- but a person who believes 'for no reason' is unlikely to change even when reason is presented.
Typically, it is easy to identify those who are open to discussion and those who are not rather quickly- it's a matter of watching how the initial dialogue unfolds. The above examples tend to appear immediately. Again, I encourage giving chances when it is reasonably possible to do so(words should always be the first, and best option) but if people are unreceptive to discussion, then one is better off speaking with others.
If after time, such a person desires to open themselves to legitimate discussion, it will be a decision they make, for their reasons. The adage goes, "You can lead a horse to water..." In the meantime, if they must wander in the desert, that is the decision they have made for themselves.
*Note- I am in no way saying to judge others before one gets to know them- only to exercise caution in their approach. Likewise, I am not advocating the abandonment, marginalization, or mistreatment of even the most stubborn individuals- they are still people after all, and they may eventually come around- but one does not need to continually 'debate' with them, nor suffer their harassment.
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
Saturday, April 18, 2015
Taking a Stand
The previous two posts in blog deal with me posting comments to alleviate hatred I found online. This post deals with the reasoning behind my actions.
For those who are curious, the article in question can be found here:
http://news.yahoo.com/officers-shoot-kill-man-knife-st-louis-suburb-153024453.html?bcmt=1429386425672-a7749708-5d0a-4136-8349-3cae7ce5238b_00002g000000000000000000000000-be6d34c3-3d2d-4190-9a61-6020e1bd9c94&bcmt_s=u#mediacommentsugc_container
My comment was removed- but that fact, nor the reasons why are not the point of this post.
Something I've been doing lately is scrolling through articles I find. Typically they relate to issues of police shootings/conduct, or issues of inequality, namely racial.
Note:
I do not believe that all police are bad, corrupt, or abusive of their positions.
I do believe that some are.
I do not believe that all of any given group apprehended by, assaulted by, or killed by police are all innocent.
I do believe that some are.
I read the articles in question, hoping to find people calling out the real issues, hoping for the outrage of the situation(typically a lack of information more than anything we are told happens), and maybe reaffirming the truth that bias among groups is not dead.
After finding very few of the former, and very much of the latter, I realized something. If there were people like me, outraged at the baiting(of all sides, not just a few), they were likely doing the same as I was- hoping to find someone else aware of the real problem.
No one wants to go first.
This is true for a lot of things, especially apologizing or engaging in battles. People like to assume that the first person to apologize is the only person who did wrong, and therefore the only one worthy of retribution or required to pay reparation.
People don't like to be the first on the field where they may be attacked in the open by those who launch attacks in great numbers from the safety of the sidelines.
It is easy to pick a side, roll with a majority on hating one side or another, or at least following along. It is easy to say nothing and give no opinion. It is difficult to call attention to the true issues, or say the unpopular thing, for then people may turn their hate on you, and they may seek your image, your possessions, your life.
I'm realizing now that as long as I stay silent, waiting, watching, others like me who might see the things I do will do the same- waiting, watching, hoping- and do so unaware that they are not alone in seeing a bigger picture.
That's what oppressors count on- the silence of people who know what's going on isn't right, the fear of being judged for speaking out against the majority. After all, if no one complains, those who hold the power can assume there is no problem, even if they know there is.
That is not the Acceptance Theory that I believe in. I believe in accepting people, regardless of their background, taking measures only against their character- how they treat other people. I don't believe in accepting hate, or suffering, or a corrupt and biased society, where some people have to fear being who they are because 'that's just how things are'. Things are as they are because people tolerate them.
Society can be better. It can be a place where all people have a chance to live, learn, and grow without being persecuted or limited arbitrarily- but if we want to truly live in such a society, we have to remind ourselves that we are not, in fact, okay with the inequalities, the violence, the starvation and the suffering. We have to make these concerns heard, truly heard.
And yes. Sometimes, we have to go first.
For those who are curious, the article in question can be found here:
http://news.yahoo.com/officers-shoot-kill-man-knife-st-louis-suburb-153024453.html?bcmt=1429386425672-a7749708-5d0a-4136-8349-3cae7ce5238b_00002g000000000000000000000000-be6d34c3-3d2d-4190-9a61-6020e1bd9c94&bcmt_s=u#mediacommentsugc_container
My comment was removed- but that fact, nor the reasons why are not the point of this post.
Something I've been doing lately is scrolling through articles I find. Typically they relate to issues of police shootings/conduct, or issues of inequality, namely racial.
Note:
I do not believe that all police are bad, corrupt, or abusive of their positions.
I do believe that some are.
I do not believe that all of any given group apprehended by, assaulted by, or killed by police are all innocent.
I do believe that some are.
I read the articles in question, hoping to find people calling out the real issues, hoping for the outrage of the situation(typically a lack of information more than anything we are told happens), and maybe reaffirming the truth that bias among groups is not dead.
After finding very few of the former, and very much of the latter, I realized something. If there were people like me, outraged at the baiting(of all sides, not just a few), they were likely doing the same as I was- hoping to find someone else aware of the real problem.
No one wants to go first.
This is true for a lot of things, especially apologizing or engaging in battles. People like to assume that the first person to apologize is the only person who did wrong, and therefore the only one worthy of retribution or required to pay reparation.
People don't like to be the first on the field where they may be attacked in the open by those who launch attacks in great numbers from the safety of the sidelines.
It is easy to pick a side, roll with a majority on hating one side or another, or at least following along. It is easy to say nothing and give no opinion. It is difficult to call attention to the true issues, or say the unpopular thing, for then people may turn their hate on you, and they may seek your image, your possessions, your life.
I'm realizing now that as long as I stay silent, waiting, watching, others like me who might see the things I do will do the same- waiting, watching, hoping- and do so unaware that they are not alone in seeing a bigger picture.
That's what oppressors count on- the silence of people who know what's going on isn't right, the fear of being judged for speaking out against the majority. After all, if no one complains, those who hold the power can assume there is no problem, even if they know there is.
That is not the Acceptance Theory that I believe in. I believe in accepting people, regardless of their background, taking measures only against their character- how they treat other people. I don't believe in accepting hate, or suffering, or a corrupt and biased society, where some people have to fear being who they are because 'that's just how things are'. Things are as they are because people tolerate them.
Society can be better. It can be a place where all people have a chance to live, learn, and grow without being persecuted or limited arbitrarily- but if we want to truly live in such a society, we have to remind ourselves that we are not, in fact, okay with the inequalities, the violence, the starvation and the suffering. We have to make these concerns heard, truly heard.
And yes. Sometimes, we have to go first.
Commentary on the Article
My last post indicated that I had made an attempt to bring understanding to a community mired in various forms of hatred. I'm posting that comment here for the consideration of the reader; I feel it should have its own place apart from my previous post, because the ideas, while similar, are best thoroughly considered one after the other.
Note, this comment is no longer on the original messageboard, here:
http://news.yahoo.com/officers-shoot-kill-man-knife-st-louis-suburb-153024453.html?bcmt=1429386425672-a7749708-5d0a-4136-8349-3cae7ce5238b_00002g000000000000000000000000-be6d34c3-3d2d-4190-9a61-6020e1bd9c94&bcmt_s=u#mediacommentsugc_container
while numerous other comments advocating hatred remain.
Note, this comment is no longer on the original messageboard, here:
http://news.yahoo.com/officers-shoot-kill-man-knife-st-louis-suburb-153024453.html?bcmt=1429386425672-a7749708-5d0a-4136-8349-3cae7ce5238b_00002g000000000000000000000000-be6d34c3-3d2d-4190-9a61-6020e1bd9c94&bcmt_s=u#mediacommentsugc_container
while numerous other comments advocating hatred remain.
On the subject of this latest St. Louis Police shooting and similar events:
"It's really a shame that there's so much racism in the
comments, which reflects the racism of the country as a whole. No, I'm not
talking about this shooting. This shooting was justified- armed suspect,
rushing police, use of non-lethal rounds. Fine, do what must be done.
But this incident is also in the minority. There are a lot
of other shootings that are
questionable. Situations where, in all likelihood, neither
police nor suspect are completely innocent or guilty.
What I'm talking about when I say racism is the confirmation
bias and selective news consumption that so many people exhibit, and the
assumptions they make about the black community at large without even
considering the forces at play behind the scenes. If one takes everything at
face value and don't question anything that they see, then of course the black
community looks horrific. If one looks at statistics regarding such things,
without looking at what goes into such statistics, then again, of course it
looks bad- but people are looking at symptoms, not causes.
It's been proven by studies that minorities get more time
for the same crimes, get tailed or challenged as suspects of crimes more often,
and are perceived to be more aggressive/more of a threat(even children) in
given circumstances.
It's been proven that people are less likely to trust or
value minorities for things like housing and employment, even assuming all
factors are equal in terms of qualifications and financial status.
It's been proven that people are more likely to assume
minorities have stolen/intend to steal expensive items, because others find it
hard to believe that a person of color could be successful.
And yet people constantly complain that blacks can't or
won't make something of themselves, and assume that they have the same
opportunities as everyone else, while mistrusting them all and lumping them all
in negative categories.
Fact: One can't better their situation(through legal means),
regardless of qualifications, if no one will hire them.
If a person doesn’t have a job, then they have no means to
support themselves and any dependents. Faced
with starvation/eviction, suddenly illegal activity seems a whole lot more
appealing. It doesn't make it right, but the fewer options a person has, the
more desperate they tend to get.
Black on black violence? Everyone likes to claim that all
black neighborhoods are proof of their inability to be productive members of
society- and that the fact that other races flee from these areas is proof of
the black population’s inability to cohabitate well.
For starters, black people don’t own these neighborhoods-
they just, because of those limited opportunities, happen to live there,
because that is all they can afford.
The violence comes in when you overcrowd a small area and
limit the resources available. It’s not about hate of one’s kind, it’s about
personal/kin survival. Just like if a mugger pulls a knife on his target, and
it’s their life or his, there’s only enough food/supplies for one family, so it’s one family or the other. It’s not a
quality inherent in black people; if the same happened to any race, or even a
mixed race situation, the results would be the same after a few
generations.
People don’t realize that this is encouraged by those in
power. The Black community is encouraged to fight amongst themselves. The rest
of America is encouraged to fight with blacks. People claim Blacks are
worthless because they can do nothing great on their own, but don’t consider
the fact that the accomplishments and successes of black people are kept under
wraps, downplayed, or erased from taught history. Just like the encouraging of the
destruction of the black community via drugs, negative messages from the media,
etc. But people refuse to even acknowledge that such is a possibility- that
maybe just maybe they are being played or misled. Yet they are so quick to
acknowledge the media lies to people, or that political parties have thinly
veiled agendas. Again, it’s confirmation bias. If you are so sure that your opponents
are being misled, then acknowledge the possibility that you’re not getting the
full, honest picture either... because you’re not."
The Truth About Hatred
Please excuse the absence. Life has been happening, and I am not sure how to continue.
Today, I happened across an article about a man who was shot dead by police. If you're in America, then likely you are aware of the controversies, especially current, involving the police's use of force, African Americans, and the correlations between the two.
I'd argue that there is a problem of people being killed by police unjustly, African American and otherwise. However, it's not something all police do- and sometimes such kills are legitimate. As was the case in the aforementioned article.
The link, if you care to see the story, is here. http://news.yahoo.com/officers-shoot-kill-man-knife-st-louis-suburb-153024453.html?bcmt=1429386425672-a7749708-5d0a-4136-8349-3cae7ce5238b_00002g000000000000000000000000-be6d34c3-3d2d-4190-9a61-6020e1bd9c94&bcmt_s=u#mediacommentsugc_container
However, others reading the article took that opportunity to spew hatred for police, or for African Americans, and that brings us to my point about hatred. Truth be told, it is encouraged.
Given enough hatred, people lose sight of other goals and aspirations.
Given enough hatred, people develop various health problems, directly, and indirectly.
Given enough hatred, people become easy to manipulate or destroy.
I know firsthand, as I used to be a hateful person. Thankfully I had understanding friends who helped me overcome my hatred. So obviously, I am of the mind that on a personal level, hatred is detrimental. Of course, it also goes against the concept of Acceptance Theory, for hatred does not lead to acceptance, and it typically makes acceptance impossible. Hate breeds more hate, and leads us back to the rule of three above-
People:
lose aspirations
suffer poor health
are easily manipulated
Truth is, hatred keeps people from coming together. Why is this bad? Because people who come together tend to accomplish great things, and more often than not, work for the greater good of the group.
I said earlier that hatred is encouraged, and I meant it. Which means that coming together is discouraged. So now you're wondering "If coming together leads to the greater good of society, who would possibly be against that?"
To that, I say, look around you. Who has the most to lose in situations where resources are redistributed to create a greater, more stable, more balanced quality of life for EVERYONE?
To return to the article, I made the personal decision to post after reading comment after comment of hatred- and people agreeing with such. My comment dealt with the larger picture, calling out the uninformed and the misguided and encouraging them to think instead of assigning blame one way or another.
Those comments are still on the page.
My comment is not.
What do you think about that?
Today, I happened across an article about a man who was shot dead by police. If you're in America, then likely you are aware of the controversies, especially current, involving the police's use of force, African Americans, and the correlations between the two.
I'd argue that there is a problem of people being killed by police unjustly, African American and otherwise. However, it's not something all police do- and sometimes such kills are legitimate. As was the case in the aforementioned article.
The link, if you care to see the story, is here. http://news.yahoo.com/officers-shoot-kill-man-knife-st-louis-suburb-153024453.html?bcmt=1429386425672-a7749708-5d0a-4136-8349-3cae7ce5238b_00002g000000000000000000000000-be6d34c3-3d2d-4190-9a61-6020e1bd9c94&bcmt_s=u#mediacommentsugc_container
However, others reading the article took that opportunity to spew hatred for police, or for African Americans, and that brings us to my point about hatred. Truth be told, it is encouraged.
Given enough hatred, people lose sight of other goals and aspirations.
Given enough hatred, people develop various health problems, directly, and indirectly.
Given enough hatred, people become easy to manipulate or destroy.
I know firsthand, as I used to be a hateful person. Thankfully I had understanding friends who helped me overcome my hatred. So obviously, I am of the mind that on a personal level, hatred is detrimental. Of course, it also goes against the concept of Acceptance Theory, for hatred does not lead to acceptance, and it typically makes acceptance impossible. Hate breeds more hate, and leads us back to the rule of three above-
People:
lose aspirations
suffer poor health
are easily manipulated
Truth is, hatred keeps people from coming together. Why is this bad? Because people who come together tend to accomplish great things, and more often than not, work for the greater good of the group.
I said earlier that hatred is encouraged, and I meant it. Which means that coming together is discouraged. So now you're wondering "If coming together leads to the greater good of society, who would possibly be against that?"
To that, I say, look around you. Who has the most to lose in situations where resources are redistributed to create a greater, more stable, more balanced quality of life for EVERYONE?
To return to the article, I made the personal decision to post after reading comment after comment of hatred- and people agreeing with such. My comment dealt with the larger picture, calling out the uninformed and the misguided and encouraging them to think instead of assigning blame one way or another.
Those comments are still on the page.
My comment is not.
What do you think about that?