This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
"...but I'll defend to the death your right to say it… Really?"
Voltaire once said “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it” Would I? Really? While maybe not dead, civility is definitely paralyzed in our country, in our communities, and in our homes. At what point did it become easier to antagonize, patronize, and vilify the “other” instead of conducting a reasoned discussion about the perplexing issues that surround us? Well into the machinations of the most recent elections it was being reported by various media sources that Americans were more divided than during any other time in history. There is simply something that does not sound quite right about that statement. Is it possible to have an honest and reasoned discussion? Is it possible to objectively consider an opposing point of view? Do we even agree on what the problems are? Disagreements are inevitable but being disagreeable is not. What do you think?
Marlon Jones
Again thank you for the intellectual growth!
Marlon
Justin Elkin
Ina Nikoceva
Instead of writing something related to the topic of banned books (which would be, by definition, my favorite) many people used it as a venue for a religious debate. The worst part of it all was that the people who decided to engage in this were completely disrespectful and intolerant to any other perspective that wasn't their own. Do people fail to realize that intolerance breeds intolerants. If one is unable to respect the views of others, they cannot logically expect for their point of view to be respected. (Even though that is making the huge assumption that logic has any place in such discourse).
I always say that the beauty of living in a democratic society is that everyone is entitled to their opinions, no matter how blatantly idiotic they may be.
mari ghram
Nicholas Heins
I think that certainly a company should be (legally, though not necessarily morally) allowed to lie. The question is how much. When you see a sign that says, "world's greatest cheeseburger," I don't feel it is a threat to human knowledge, because any rational individual knows that this assertion has no real meaning. However, if a company says, "this cheeseburger will cure the common cold" I feel that should not be allowed. Overall, the question is very complicated and I don't want to go off topic but maybe sometime I'll make a separate conversation about this, as it's something I have much interest in.
mari ghram
Nicholas Heins
Hello Marlen,
While this is probably true, there is so much gray area that often times people with different subjective viewpoints will come to very different conclusions even if they have the same core values. For example, is it right to start a war with a country because its leader denies his citizens of basic human rights? Some would say yes, that the death and destruction caused by war is less harmful than the dictator's reign over his people. Others would say that it isn't our place to step in, and that the war itself is worse than having a dictator for a leader. Two people who both want peace and happiness might have very different views on this issue.
Clearly my example is not detailed enough to say one way or another, but you can see how certain situations have so many factors involved that it can be difficult to give an objective answer. And when objectivity is not an option, subjectivity comes into play.
In this discussion, I think a main topic is whether it is important to fight to defend free speech, and if so, how important. The famous example is yelling fire in a crowded room. Society has decided this is not an important freedom to preserve, so we prohibit it. This is a no brainer, but what about deceptive advertising? Should a company be able to bend the truth in order to sell its product, and if so how much? The answer you give will almost certainly have a subjective aspect to it, because the question is not settled. Those who agree with you may say you're being objective, but those who disagree will find subjectivity.
Todd Levesque
Todd Levesque
definition of a patriot : A person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors .detractive - causing to decrease in importance or value; "detractive influences on the volume of investment"
decreasing - becoming less or smaller, The act of detracting or taking away.
( my proclamation )
we the people of these united states in order to reinstate the sanctity and just and free rights of the commonwealth on all those with in and for future members, do at this time ask for the resignation to at with is to cease and desist of any governmental office chair holder not looking out for the amendments established by the founders of the United States of America, but to fit there wants, greed or vested interest. to relinquish there chair to someone willing to stand by such values as life liberty and pursuit of Happiness. ( by Todd Levesque )
Robert Johnson
In the U.S. the problem is a very large group of people operate on dogma. For these people no amount of contradicting facts can cause them to change their mind. They simply create new layers of bullshit to explain away the facts. Hence we have people who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, evolution is "just a theory", and climate change is a hoax.
In light of the obvious fact that most will never accept the science behind the age of the earth, evolution, or climate change, all of which are supported by mountains of facts, it is naive to believe they will ever change their minds on social issues like equal rights for all citizens, or any other idea that conflicts with their dogmatic view of their world.
Simply put, we are dealing with delusional people. People who have been trained from childhood to be ignorant. Asking them to change is asking them to throw away everything they"ve been taught and believe, everything that defines their entire life. Once someone is fully indoctrinated in a dogma, the likelihood of their ever discarding that dogma and revising their opinions is miniscule.
Ain't happening. I don't defend their right to be ignorant. I especially do not defend their right to bend public policy to their delusional beliefs.
Fritzie Reisner 100+
One sees evidence of confidently held prejudices every day, I think, regardless of country of origin.
Robert Johnson
There is ample evidence indicating the U.S. is on whole a more fundamentalist religious society, with higher numbers of people holding beliefs contrary to scientific evidence than other Western industrialized nations. My own observation is that once one is capable of believing the Earth is only 6,000 old, it is a short hop to every other wacko belief. We also seem to be a more sexually repressed and homophobic nation, but then I don't get out much.
Thanks
Fritzie Reisner 100+
For example, I have noticed in some settings of international exchange of views people who believe that Americans simply don't believe claims made by those who are not Americans, that Americans don't have folk or cultural festivals, that the income inequality in the US is greater than in, say, South American countries, or that there is more inter-ethnic hatred here than in other parts of the world.
I have noticed some people having the misimpression that Americans feel that they, or America, can do no wrong, when in fact the US was founded on the belief that speaking up when the government seems to be messing up right and left is a very good thing.
I am just suggesting this issue is one not peculiar to the United States but one that must have some roots in human nature, culture, or zeitgeist, because it appears worldwide.
Nathan E
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Why is it bad? Isn't it an evidence of a balanced society?
What really divides the nation is statements like this. It seems to be done on purpose, to pit people against each other. Do you remember how the issue of gay marriages became hot? I clearly remember listening to the radio in my car, when 9/11 was still hot, war in Iraq started to turn sour, economy was down after the dotcom crash, and Bush heading towards reelection. Then he addressed the nation with his resolution to "preserve family values" by opposing gay marriage. Guess what was the hottest issue during the next elections? It was not economy and not war in Iraq.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
According to Carl Popper, when a scientist wants to prove his theory, he must actively seek to disprove it, actively search for contradicting evidence. When such search is diligent, but only yields supporting evidence, the theory is accepted.
It is not only possible, but it is necessary for everyone to consider the opposing views.
Bill Matthies
Although there are those who choose to be difficult regardless, I don't think it's a matter of ease as much as it is likelihood for misunderstanding given how we communicate. Case in point, TED. I only know what you wrote and you, in turn, only know what you've read from me in response. What neither of us have is the benefit of watching each other's body language, or hearing the nuance in the words we choose, all of which is a big part of communication. While we think we communicate in text, email, and written responses, as we're doing here in TED, I often see much more harm than good coming from it.
"Is it possible to have an honest and reasoned discussion? Is it possible to objectively consider an opposing point of view? Do we even agree on what the problems are?"
Yes to the first two, all too often, no to the third, I believe, in part, due to the problems that come with what passes for "communication" these days.
Related to this, non "face time" communication such as text and email provides a form of assumed anonymity, which, in my opinion, creates another problem. We type things we would never say were we face to face. There is an old school "Goofy" cartoon where mild mannered Goofy becomes agressive, belligerent Goofy the moment he gets behind the wheel of his car, once again becoming polite Goofy when he gets where he's going. I often think of that when reading posts in Facebook from people I know to be polite in person, who occasionally become really nasty in FB. And this is particularly true when discussing religion and certainly politics.
They do because they are not facing the person they are in discussion with; that and being urged on late at night by a third glass of wine.
Alexa Santiago
Marlon Jones
James McGuiness
Social development IMO should become the top imperative of a new model of education where knowledge becomes secondary because wrapped up in social development are all the issues of motivation and why to learn. Along with that naturally comes how to value strangers and develop "synergy" whereas today even with the net we default to territorialism, one-upmanship, defensiveness, competition and the like. All of this can be turned around and we can surprise ourselves--astonish ourselves--with what's possible with this particular change i.e. establishing social development as the horse that pulls the cart of education. I'm ready. Fired up?
Nicholas Heins
However, imagine living in a society where the only correct opinion is "apples are the best food." If you happen to like bananas more and say so openly, you get sent to prison for a year. This is a situation where, yes, I would die to defend that crazy banana lover, because it is an unalienable human right to be able to express your opinion. If a government attempts to take away natural rights, the public has to fight back. If not, they will be forced to submit to the will of those in power.
I think in America today, people assume that they have ultimate freedom and power. The reality doesn't bear this out though. We do have many freedoms, but also many limitations on those freedoms. Similarly, each of us has power to affect our democracy, but some have much more power than others. And in a way, it seems that our freedoms are being slowly pulled away at the same time we are being reassured that we are the free-est nation in the history of the world.
It's up to each of us to defend our human rights. This isn't a battle that was won long ago, it's a struggle that continues to this day around the world. History has shown us that if the populous does not defend their rights, the elites will diminish them. And that is just as true today as it was during the French Revolution or in the Roman Empire.
Great question, Marlon!
Bill Matthies
greg dahlen 20+
In practical life, one would have to weigh what one is willing to die for. For example, if someone says bananas are the best food, and I will brook no disagreement, am I going to die to defend someone else's right to disagree? Might not be an important enough issue.
I believe, Marlon, that even when it seems people are antagonistic, etc., there is a lot of reasoned discussion going on behind the surface. I think we realize we must all hang together or we will hang separately
mari ghram
Nicholas Heins
It seems to me that there should be a different type of debate, perhaps in a written format, where candidates can flesh out their ideas more fully. This would make for a more informed electorate, hopefully.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Most arguments are about subjective issues where no truth can be determined. I would say, the goal of an argument is to reach agreement. Arguments are only successful when people actively seek a common point and build on it.
But I agree with you that when we shift focus from "what is right" to "who is right", all sides become wrong.
John Smith 30+
It has always been that way, there has never been a mythical age of civilized reasoned discourse.
Robert Winner 50+
As a member of the military and serving in Viet Nam I was subject to much verbal abuse, physical abuse, and things throw and spitting from US citizens upon return to the states when we arrived at airports. Police were present but seldom stopped anyone.
I umpired little league games and some of the mothers suggested I do things with my anatomy I do not think is possiable. Parents fight at kids games. There are few role models. We see lack of cooperation at every level.
It is a unfortunate fact that the media encourages much of this to promote sales.
It is the soldier that protects and fights for our rights. The are the ones who fight to the death to enable your rights.
Even on TED we hear conversations that say hes not my God ... I hate violance and you do not fight for me ... and other silly remarks. Many have become disagreeable.
These as you have stated are facts ... the question is are WE promoting favorable discussion traits here on TED ... are WE part of the problem .... if so how can WE become part of the solution. By the way I am not without sin in this area.
What happens if we FLAG a conversation .. what do the TED people look at ... what are the consequences .... whyat is the defination of a discussion, argument, rude, nasty, etc ... in regards to replies. Do any of us know what it takes to cross the TED line.
Thanks for listening .. good luck Marion. Bob.
Helen Hupe 30+
Marlon Jones
Marlon Jones
Barry Palmer 50+
We here at TED are certainly divided on some issues. Yet we agree so often that outsiders criticize us for being so similar.
We see a great deal of division and harsh words on the media ... because it attracts large audiences. The major "news" outlets use sound bites, intentionally out of context, with no apologies.
The USA has never had a violent attempt to overthrow our government. Every president has voluntarily given up power.
In my personal experience, the lack of civility is no different now than in the past. When I was a child, there bullies and jerks of all ages, and there still are today, and the number is about the same. When I discuss political issues with local people, the discussion remains civil and we listen to each other.
The gridlock in Washington is seen as a disaster on the horizon. You could also see it as the checks and balances operating as designed. When there is no consensus, it is best if government does nothing.
One aspect of this problem is fixable, and that is gerrymandering. The design of our congressional districts has become a well tuned craft. If we can develop a consensus to draw district lines systematically instead of politically, I suspect that compromise will come back into fashion and gridlock will come to an end.
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+
Some people love the idea of 'freedom of speech' because they are almost sure that their opinion would prevail. This is expressed in the way media and popular opinion promotes ethnocentrism. We have people who would sit in the comfort of their homes in a distant place and would want to transform another country/place to a semblance of their's; and they would sneer at another culture and unfamiliar practices.
Now, here is my point: it is not just about saying anything anyhow because you've got freedom of speech. It is very important to be sensitive to the feelings of another person. In conversations, there must be respect for the views, dignity and humanity of the other person(s).
Not the arrogance of the fool who thinks he or she's got all the answers; and that he or she has just got a kind of wisdom that has never been had in the history of humanity.
Random Chance 30+
I read that listening is an act of, or a form of, love. I agree with this.
In order to really listen, one must (be willing) to set aside their own prejudices, set conclusions and beliefs,
opinions, ideas and so on, even truths, in order to really hear and understand the meaning in what the other person is saying, or, trying to say.
The human of today (I'm thinking mainly of Americans), react from fear many times and it is fear they are not even aware of. Thus, they act uncivil.
Imagine, I give you a pair of glasses in which the lenses are fear. That is then, how you see the world, forgetting the lenses are fear as easily as you forget the haircut you got that you didn't like. Fear of how you will look to others, perhaps. When I talk to people, I am almost always trying to make connection to them, but it virtually never happens.
Things I like to talk about are the kinds and types of things I feel we need to be able to talk about. But, many of us have been taught to hide these things rather than show, reveal and talk about them. I remember picking up a young man who was hitch-hiking to work. It was winter. He had on a suit but no socks. I asked if he was alright. He looked at me, eyes filled with fear and said, "yeah, things are fine. Thanks."
It is so difficult to learn not to be important. When I become important, I become afraid. I then act differently even to the point of withholding love from others. Which means not listening but reacting from fear. Not being in touch with the real me.
I also think humans are a lot like animals in this way. They know when a storm is coming. They know when an earthquake is about to hit. Humans can also sense the danger on our planet and at least with all the fear we have drummed into us about global warming, economic collapse, the real spread of Fukushima radionuclides, the 7 garbage islands that are destroying all our oceans, war, disease, disasters and so forth, that they are walking around numb to everything except fear
Gail . 50+
The lack of civility appears to be rather infectious. There was a time when I could count on all TEDsters to be civil, but those days are gone. There are a growing number here - in a place of learning and discourse - that cannot help but attack and belittle anyone who disagrees. It's not a small minority either.
Mob mentality is taking over. Christians/Muslims v.anti-theists/Atheists and progressive liberals v. progressive conservatives are two examples of profound discord intentionally fomented in our culture. This has created a state of affairs where neighbors are pitted against neighbors because they believe that they are in jeopardy because of the other side.
So tyranny rules rather than collaborative searches for solutions.
We live in a fear-based (scarcity-based) culture. We have been taught that this is reality. It's not reality (according to the new sciences), but if we believe the lie, it is true for us, so we build our cultures around the myths and destroy ourselves in the meantime.
We need to fix education so that people learn how to think for themselves again. Too many rely on idiots to tell them what to think.
Danger Lampost 10+
So said a great president of ours during the darkest days this nation has ever faced. I fear we are progressing towards such a point again. I sincerely hope we are not.
pat gilbert 50+
Roger Farinha
I know it is very different and will take time to take hold...