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.
No comments:
Post a Comment