Jump to content
Mental Support Community

Coping With Controversy


Guest GingerSnap
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest GingerSnap

In about all the forums of different types, there is usually controversy at some point. Since I can kind of be like a pitbull and dig my heels in especially when we are dealing with either God or politics (I guess that is why you are supposed to steer clear of those subjects in the first place), I came up with my own rule of when I win (winning is real important to me also - we all have shortcomings, right?). I don't announce I won but in my heart I feel that I have won - true to myself. This is necessary because I can end up trying to make a point that is impossible to make or just because at some point, it becomes physically and/or mentally not healthy. So the rule is, to say what I have to say and check back in case I want to clarify and also, I am actually open to new ideas, well, a little anyway and at the point that the other side of the controversy resorts to personal insults - I win!!! In other words, I can't just not be right because I'm stupid, ugly, brain dead, or don't have a clue. This has really helped me and in my mind it makes sense. I think that debates are great when they are more toward brainstorming a problem/solution but making them personal............So, that's the rule - you tell me I'm wrong because I'm stupid or tell me that my choice of dog shows I have no class so who would listen to me in the first place - I win!!!:rolleyes: Just food for thought - one of my coping skills and I have bag full. And, stay away from politics if you want a calm lifestyle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

***sorry for going on and on here, your post just got something stuck in my head i needed to get out.

Debates, especially religious or political ones, are always so convoluted. People think they are debating when they are not. People choose a perspective, a focus, or basically a premise, and then argue accordingly to their premise.

Like on politics, if the topic was "capatalism as it is now, is bad for the environment." A student might take the perspective that the only way to fix this is to stop feeding the large corporations and start going local. Her mother might argue that it's too late, its the machine that drives the large corporations that has to change, boycotting and so on will only act as a bandage. And the grandmother, might say that every generation has their problems to deal with, and she thinks it is wondeful that we can eat oranges year around.

The student and mother will instantly jump on the grandmother for saying that oranges are available year around... they'll say "yes but at what cost" "we are killing the environment" "blahblah blah."

They think the grandmother isnt facing up to the issue, but that is not really true. The grandmother faces up to the issue when she says "every generation has their issues to deals with." But she is more concerned with the other side of it all, that despite all the wrong in the world that you guys are going to have to deal with, at least you can enjoy the oranges year around. She never got to do that.

The mother and daughter are going to argue amongst eachother beacuase the mother's focus is different than the daughter's. They daughter believes that there can be a ripple up affect, that can sufficiently change the entire system. But the mother is argueing for a paradigm shift, that the ripple up affect might not be enough to really change anything. The monster that is capitalism will still exist, and it's the monster you have to kill to change anything significantly. However she doesn't have any idea how to kill the monster.

The daughter believes that there is no way to kill the monster, and so the only hope is to work with it.

Who is right here? no one, and everyone. The mother wants to find a way to kill the monster, which would fix the problem if it could somehow happen, her focus is there. The daughter doesn't bother thinking about killing the monster becuase it seems impossible to do so, her focus is on using the system to work against large corporations. Which might also be able to fix the problem And the grandmother's focus, have delt with issues in her life, having been young and gone through it all before, is reminding the two younger women to not worry so much, sit back and enjoy the oranges. Her focus is there.

Yet the whole time they will be arguing over not politics at all, rather just whos "focus" is more important. But they won't even realise this, they will think they are arguing politics. Each one will think that they were right and the others were wrong.

Edited by nathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest GingerSnap

Nathan: It isn't always perspective though and in believing you are right and being secure in your position, that can help you to move on at the point that it is time to move on. You don't end up with someone else defining your beliefs or who you are when you can walk away and feel confident that you are right at least in being true to yourself and your beliefs. So, if we debate a point and can both just walk calmly away with maybe a little more knowledge than we started with - I think we both win as there doesn't always need to be a loser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Debates are pretty much always battles of perspectives, that's what makes a debate. But the "battle" is falsley created when the debators wiegh their perspective to be of higher value by the mere fact that that perspective is theirs. There's no need for a battle, or a need to be right. You being "right/wrong, or of higher or lower value, will naturally occur once each debators perspectives are fully understood and explained. This way, there is at no point a battle, just simultanious understanding of eachothers perspectives. The significance of eachothers perspectives will also fall into place.

Needing to be right will cloud the shared perspectives. Understanding of other perspectives will be ignored out of a need to be superior-a need to be right. And if this happens what are you really debating? |Your are debating your need to be right, nothing more. IT will actually work against your winning the debate, if you do in ffact hold th more important perspective, maybe not for people who are already on your side, but for people who oppose you it will.

But hell who cares, i agree in that you have to be true to yourself and so on.

Edited by nathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...