Log in

No account? Create an account
07 November 2005 @ 11:03 am
Agreeing to disagree  
I wasn't always ballsy enough to disagree with my friends.

It seems like a lot of tolerance is simply agreeing to disagree. Now, we just need to make a vaccine of that sentiment and send it to the middle east (to start with) and put it in the water.
Current Mood: work! get to work, woman!
Ichiban Chandomichan on November 7th, 2005 07:13 pm (UTC)
No kidding! Send it to D.C. as well. ;)
Kburgunder on November 7th, 2005 07:18 pm (UTC)
King Ratgkr on November 7th, 2005 07:34 pm (UTC)
I disagree.
Kburgunder on November 7th, 2005 07:37 pm (UTC)
Smart ass.

And as my father would say, "Better than being a dumb shit."
(Deleted comment)
Kburgunder on November 7th, 2005 09:27 pm (UTC)
Re: Nope, gotta disagree

I'm reading Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson for the first time right now. Have you read it? They have 100 settlers initially on Mars, and he does SUCH a brilliant job of dealing with this very issue - of how the Us and Them develops even in very like-minded communities... It's an amazing book so far, I'm really enjoying it.

On this subject, I suspect my idealism will remain absurd - as I'm more of a liberal than a radical, I am, in a sense, pretty far removed from the problem. Even if I disagree with one side, I can usually see both sides.
(Deleted comment)
VAXhackervaxhacker on November 8th, 2005 05:05 pm (UTC)
Re: Nope, gotta disagree
Which I saw so starkly when going from a company of 40 people to one with 80,000 people. Even now, the individual diversity and creativity on my own team of less than a dozen people is there in our day-to-day interaction, but drowned in the vast see of conformity to the Corporate Standard mindset when you get above that level.


floiterfloiter on November 8th, 2005 08:04 pm (UTC)
Re: Nope, gotta disagree
Tell me about it. I'm in a 250,000 employee company. Funny how often the light at the end of the tunnel turns out to be an on-coming express-train :(
AsterothXasterothx on November 8th, 2005 06:13 am (UTC)
Values being subjective to each individual, we need to seek to understand where values don't match, and either accept the differences if we value the person's friendship, or we often choose distance if they had nothing else to offer. Honestly I think discussions with people one doesn't agree with are often the most stimulating and help test the validity of one's own framework. One never knows when someone they otherwise might not agree with has hit on something important they were missing.

Unless folks learn to disagree without being disagreable, no progress is made toward working out issues I think.
Kburgunder on November 16th, 2005 06:34 pm (UTC)
This points out to me that it's actually much harder to be tolerant and forgiving of those closest to me with wildly different views. When I enter into a relationship with someone who is fairly regressive or traditional, I'm ready to encounter certain disagreements - it's another when I have a friendship with someone that I think of as being fairly progressive. I don't put that first person into my monkey sphere, my "we", but the latter is a part of my monkey sphere, part of my "we" ... it's one thing if "they" say gay marriage is condemnable and quite another if "we" say it. I don't want to be part of that "we", and trying to move someone from a "we" to a "they" ... well, it seems to me that someone who is always "they" is easier to respect at arms length, while someone who was "we" gets into a sense of betrayal and is much harder to transition into a respectful, arms length "they". Does that make sense?

What Fizban is saying has given me a lot to think about - it's very clear that I valued my point of view above the friendship we had. But I have many ultra conservative Christian friends who hold similar opposing views and none of the same conflict that we've encountered. So I've talked myself right back to the "we" and "they". If I know it's coming from the beginning, I can be very tolerant of "them" and "their" opposing views. It's quite another when it's in my monkey sphere. Are we all as protective of our "we" as I am? Is fierce intolerance more often found among close people or strangers? The big picture seems to indicate the latter, but my personal thoughts on this issue seem to indicate otherwise, at least for me.
AsterothXasterothx on November 17th, 2005 06:55 am (UTC)
*hug fiz*
I want to point out the charged word "regressive" that you assign to other's values. Remeber that's a value judgement and may not be factual depend on what scale of "progress" things are measured.

I know exactly what you mean by the "we"/"they" spheres and ideologies. (make sure not to mischaracterize where I come from on gay marraige btw (ie as condemnable)).

I think we are naturally highly protective of our "we" unless we start to think of it as the "I" and there being no factual "we". At least that's how I began to understand it and began to learn how to live with and deal with people who's values are quite different from my own, realizing they were not or would never be in conformance with "I". I learned that it was infact quite wrong to insist anyone agree or conform with my "I", and also it was important to be as honest and real about my "I" as possible.

An example for the ultraconChristian folks you speak of. Their responsibility is not to format the world around them into conformance with The Word Of God by force (that is much closer to the Mohamedanism). It is their responisibilty to learn The Word Of God and share it with the world around them. As you can tell a great number of folks have issues with this. I was talking to a friend who was afraid to call themselves Christian because of the stigma and baggage, but I reminded them Christian means one who follows Jesus, not Spanish Nationalists or Power Hungery Churchites, and to the extents to which they deviated from the word, they did not follow Jesus. ... hrm Tangent, my bad.

So again, in my case, I think I abolished "we"ism for myself, recognizing that it tended to lead me into alliances and agreements I didn't agree with in the end, reguardless of the banner (another reason I haven't been a Republican for some time) or conflicts and arguments that weren't neceessary. This takes into acount the real uniqueness of each person and forces me to evaluate each person in that light, trying to keep mapping my own ideas about them over the truth. I think there are philosophies and belief systems I consider in the same reguard you mention "they", one's generally self-declared innimical to me and my values (Marxist-Lennist philosophy or National-Socialism for example). But each individual reguardless of their trappings deserves the evaluation of their unique position inrelation to one's self I think.

I sometimes feel that most people get washed away from their real inner values by the tide of some group or banner and sacrifice some or much of what's important to them in the name of some cause.

I may not agree with a particular view point or goal certain people agree with, I may even feel the need to speak another view point I perceive the things I value are under threat, but it doesn't change their unique importance and value of that individual to me. (I could list a number of people I consider close friends who have some radically different values from mine, the value is in the relation).

I think the biggest danger is stripping that value and humanity of people and making them into "thems" or "its" to be quashed or conqured.

To me there is "I" being me and what I perceive and value and "us" being all of us and what each of us perceive and value, and the complicated interrelations that ensue as a consequence of us being mere humans.

I hope that makes some sense, I try to make more sense of it all the time, with some progress I think. I think one of the biggest issues you and I have had is the limitations of the electronic forum vs the coffee table.
AsterothXasterothx on November 17th, 2005 06:58 am (UTC)
Re: *hug fiz*
s/trying to keep mapping my own ideas about/trying to keep from mapping my own ideas about/p
VAXhackervaxhacker on November 8th, 2005 05:09 pm (UTC)
It seems like a lot of tolerance is simply agreeing to disagree.

Real tolerance, yes. Where you can say, "I don't agree with your point of view, but you as a person, as a family member, friend, co-worker, and your relationship with me, is more important than our disagreement. So we'll set that aside and be civil and respectful to each other."

Oh, how I wish more people would have that mindset.

All too often, however, it's "You can't be tolerant of me unless you admit I'm right all along, that you embrace and endorce my way of thinking, and I'll graciously forgive you for having challenged it in the first place."