Heartfelt appreciation for someone I disagree with

JohnR1972JohnR1972
in General

This thread was inspired by 2 things…
1) A book by famed trial lawyer, Gerry Spence and
2) Several recent CC forum threads

About 30 years ago I read, “How to Argue and Win Every Time” by Gerry Spence, who is now semi-retired at age 95. He is famous for having never lost a criminal jury trial (as a prosecutor or a defense attorney) AND winning every single civil action he argued between 1969 and 2010.

I bought the book thinking it was about his strategy and tactics for arguing court cases (which it covered very thoroughly). However, the greatest thing I got out of his book was completely unexpected - his philosophy on life.

I will confess, prior to reading Mr. Spence’s book, I struggled to understand people who disagreed with me. While I never said it out loud, I often wondered… “If I am a good, honest, and smart person, how can someone else who is also a good, honest, and smart person look at the same set of facts and draw a completely different conclusion?”

Mr. Spence holds many ideas and positions that I disagree with but he explained his philosophy and positions so well in his book that he won me over on one issue and forced me to spend time reconsidering a couple of other issues. Most importantly, he showed me how 2 good, honest and smart people can look at the same set of facts and draw different conclusions.

The answer is it starts with your foundation. If I have a square foundation, I can build a solid house on that foundation. If someone else has a circular foundation, they can build a solid house on that foundation. Both houses may be solid but they will look very different.

My paraphrase of Mr. Spence’s philosophy is that the purpose of government is to “make life fair” and everything he has done in his career is consistent and congruent with the philosophy. In contrast, my philosophy (foundation) is that the purpose of government should be “to protect people from force and fraud”. These 2 philosophies will agree on some issues and clash on other issues.

My goal in this thread is not to debate the purpose of government but to illustrate the idea of how 2 people can look at the same set of facts and honestly disagree while still respecting each other. After reading his book, I sent Mr. Spence a letter expressing my heartfelt gratitude for him having shared so much of himself in the book and what an impact it had on me being able to understand other people who hold different ideas. He wrote me back and told me my letter had made his day.

When someone expresses a different opinion, it doesn’t mean they are a member of the 3rd Reich and/or condone genocide. It means they hold different values (or possibly even share the same values but they prioritize values differently in situations where 2 or more values conflict).

«1

Comments

  • pmvinespmvines
    edited June 2024

    Interesting thread and I agree with the sentiment, barring anything that is outwardly egregious and condemnable because some things certainly should be condemned.

    Not meant to turn into a political post. Being of a certain age, I remember how heated the Clinton and Bush debates were. However they still seemed to know where the line was and to not cross it, and their supporters as a result disagreed but it didn't really seem to split the country into factions the way that we are today . And Clinton and Bush over the years (both senior and junior) have collaborated on different causes and efforts, and you see them hanging out at times and they seem to genuinely support each other and get along .

  • ATemporaryUser0ATemporaryUser0
    edited June 2024

    I've actually come, in a way, to the opposite conclusion. Well, not exactly. I mean, of course at the end of the day you're right, it's very possible for two intelligent people to hold different beliefs or points of view, and we should respect others, and each be open to the possibility that we're wrong.

    But you know what? There's no shortage of hateful idiots in the world. And at this point in my life, if someone appears at first glance to be a hateful idiot, it's just not worth my time to further consider their perspective. I actually did that, for years. And I can assure you, 99% of the time, there's nothing deeper. People who appear to be hateful idiots generally are in fact hateful idiots.

    Consider the political sphere. By all means there is a wide array of perspectives that reasonable people could hold. But so much of popular political discourse is unambiguously stupid. Stupid people have become incredibly loud and opinionated. Many of the loudest voices are the dumbest. And I simply do not care what they think. I wish they would just shut their mouths and let the adults do the talking and make the decisions.

  • JubalJubal

    @pmvines another good example was Scalia and Ginsburg. Regardless of how one may feel about either of their rulings, they were capable of heated disagreement on issues, yet remained friendly & professional colleagues for most of their time on the bench.

  • JohnR1972JohnR1972

    @pmvines - I agree. Again, not meaning to get political but I read Justice Gorsuch’s book and was impressed about the way he spoke of Justice Ginsberg. Ideologically they had a lot of different ideas but they were very close friends from years earlier. Justice Ginsberg and Justice Scalia were also reported to be close friends who even vacationed together in spite of differing on many issues.

  • Will564Will564

    @JohnR1972

    I'm kind of saying the same thing @pmvines is, just adding in a lot more personal details.

    In regards to the OP, my main thought is an online forum (especially one where people's only common ground is cuddling) is just not the right place to have some of these conversations. There are too many voices, too much to respond too, too much emotion, too much complexity in each individual.

    I agree with the OP about people forming deep beliefs that are the foundation of who we are. I think it takes a very long time to even get to know ONE person and understand how their beliefs and experiences shape who they are and why they're saying what they're saying.

    I also agree with the OP's statement that just because someone expresses a different opinion it does not HAVE to mean that they have beliefs that are wrong or immoral. There could be misunderstandings or miscommunications or assumptions. It could be a disagreement on values that different people prioritize.

    However, I think the OP has to be careful not to automatically assume that every belief is equally valid as well. And this is the problem. If one person has a belief that is harmful (or condemnable, as pmvines said), we cannot just say it's simply that we have different opinions and that every opinion is equally valid.

    For me an easy example to apply that we should all agree on is boundary pushing in cuddling. If someone has a belief that they should be able to push someone else's boundaries for whatever reason, as a cuddling community we can't just say "Well, that's just their opinion, it's just as equally valid as someone's who respects boundaries".

    Where this gets messy is that so often we talk about topics where some view another's beliefs on the same level as something condemnable like that, whereas others think a belief like that is fine, and there's no objective consensus to determine which it is. Is it something that should be condemnable or something that is just a legitimate disagreement in values?

    Where I myself am trying to improve is adopting a mentality that @cuddlefaery once mentioned to me: The idea of having empathy without endorsement.

    If someone is a boundary pusher, my mind naturally wants to reject them out of my "tribe". I want to think they're an awful person that doesn't respect fellow human beings.

    When I do that, I'm not seeing them as a fellow human. I'm not seeing WHY they have that belief, and all of the complex intricacies of our society and their own experiences that has led them to have that belief. I would have to understand that first before I could have even the slightest hope of getting them to see why that belief is harmful, both to others and themselves.

    I can, and I believe should, try to understand them as a person and see their entire self while still vehemently condemning their belief. I believe we have to separate beliefs from people. Beliefs can be changed. I have some of my own I'm currently in the process of working on.

    The problem is, an online forum like this will almost definitely not be enough to change those core beliefs. Possibly I could offer something that might contribute. But I cannot take it on myself as my own responsibility to change that person.

  • JohnR1972JohnR1972

    @ATemporaryUser0
    Dismissing someone as “stupid” is, in my experience, intellectually lazy. Are there people who don’t think things through? Absolutely. But I never start there.

    Most people make decisions and hold opinions based on their life experience which is far more impactful than other sources of information such as anything they may read or hear about on the news.

    Most people hold views and make decisions that are perfectly logical based on what they know at the time - which is often incomplete at best and wrong at worst.

  • [Deleted User]MaverickLegend (deleted user)

    I’m an idiot, but not hateful
    My gut is always right, except for when there’s a polyp in my colon
    I poop you poop we all poop
    Live and let live
    As the world turns as is the days of our lives
    Take things too seriously and you’ll make yourself miserable
    Listen to music and eat pizza
    Oh, and do your homework say your prayers and take your vitamins

  • cuddlefaerycuddlefaery
    edited June 2024

    In matters that don't involve denying equitable access to basic human rights, I fall back to one of the mantras I've picked up in recent years:

    "Empathy is not endorsement." - Dylan Marron

    I can empathize with the person without legitimizing or agreeing with their beliefs. And I believe I generally follow this principle, though I'm not perfect.

    But while I appreciate the sentiment of the OP, I also believe we need to minimize harm perpetuated against at-risk, oppressed, and minority populations. So my tolerance for even respectful disagreement ends where a person's access to their human rights are being denied or restricted. I will not hold space for the dehumanization of others just to comfort the person with whom I am speaking.

    (Edit to add: I agree with @Will564 that a lot of times these deeper discussions are difficult online, at least for the format these forums are in. Without more advanced nested threading to keep replies organized and lines of discussion easier to follow, it gets messier and more likely for miscommunication to happen. Thanks for the shout-out, btw, Will :) )

  • timbear50timbear50

    Absolutely love this thread. Thank you @JohnR1972 and commenters... this week I am starting the Compassion Course with a similar mindset and objective. How might we love more, especially those that hold different opinions? Or even, want to harm us?

  • starrynitecudsstarrynitecuds

    I agree with the sentiment, barring anything that is outwardly egregious and condemnable because some things certainly should be condemnable.

    I feel THAT is the problem, everyone has different opinions on "outwardly egregious and condemnable." Belief systems vary.

    My village is diverse, and we rarely have the same feelings on anything. We've had different lives, experiences and relationships. I don't feel the need to constantly argue, lecture or convert them because they're "wrong."

    But I see so many people who WON'T befriend, or tolerate, anyone who doesn't share their beliefs.

    I grew up wanting to be a lawyer and loving a good debate/differences of opinion conversations. I learned how to play devil's advocate, I learned the sides to issues. There's rarely 2 sides to any issue, there's MANY. Not just right and wrong.

    I learned that when name calling and personal insults start, the conversation is over.
    When one person refuses to listen to the other side, the conversation is over.
    I won't beat a dead horse just to appear righteous to others or hear my own voice.
    And with the forums, I'm not afraid to walk away/keep scrolling.

  • Will564Will564
    edited June 2024

    @ATemporaryUser0

    I find myself partly agreeing with you and partly not.

    Where I agree is that people have deeply ingrained beliefs formed from childhood on, and a lot of times having a conversation with someone, even for years, often isn't enough to get someone to change those beliefs. THEY have to see a reason to. There has to be something in their life they see as problematic, and they have to see the connection between their beliefs and that problem. If someone feels happy enough in life, they'll keep having those beliefs because they'll see no reason not to. And if they're not happy, if they always put the blame on someone else and don't see how their own beliefs are part of the reason why, they will never change.

    Where I disagree is the concept of someone hating out of an innate desire to hate. Unless someone is a true sociopath or has some condition that prevents them from caring about other human beings, I think we all have an innate desire to care for other humans. The problem is we don't see ALL humans as other humans. Especially now in this global age of communication where we find ourselves thinking about such huge swaths of people that our brains have not evolved to think about.

    So when people hate, I think it's a combination of not viewing others as equals and having fear for losing what's important to them. We all have a way of getting used to what we have (I think the concept is the hedonic treadmill), and then wanting more. when you combine that with a lack of information/knowledge/education, or sometimes a lack of understanding of your own emotions, it can result in people adopting hateful beliefs out of just surviving the best way they know. I don't think in their hearts they take pleasure out of cruelty or seeing pain in others. I just think their minds find a way not to think about those parts of the hateful acts because they're just trying to survive and feel their own happiness. They basically choose who to care about and who not to.

    Or maybe not. It's all so complicated. It's interesting to think about, but I find it's too much for my brain sometimes and I have to focus on things right in front of me that are more important.

  • cuddlefaerycuddlefaery

    I think we all have an innate desire to care for other humans. The problem is we don't see ALL humans as other humans.

    @Will564 there's two known phenomenon that come into play here that I'm aware of.

    1) humans have difficulty empathizing with other humans who are too different from themselves. For instance, members of one oppressed minority group often have an easier time empathizing with members of another that is being targeted because they know directly what that feels like - but a person who has never experienced that sort of targeted hate or oppression has no reference life experience and so feeling empathy is much harder. But empathy is a skill we can learn.

    2) the other difficulty is empathizing with large groups of people automatically depersonalizes them in our brains because our minds have to switch from emotional to rational thinking to handle such large numbers. It's why people will get so much more upset over a single child being killed than an entire village being wiped out. Our brains are wired to empathize with individuals we know, not masses of faceless statistics, so it gets difficult to comprehend the true suffering of large communities of people even if we hear the stories of multiple members within that community.

  • TxTomTxTom

    As no two people agree on absolutely everything all the time, there are acceptable degrees of disagreement. Each of us has a point where we must agree to disagree by walking away because the alternative is not pleasant to consider.

  • pmvinespmvines

    @starrynitecuds
    Same re diverse village . I am surrounded by people of all cultures and belief systems , and have done a pretty good job with balancing our respect for one another even when we are not always the same . I respect and adore these differences. We are able to have civil and enlightening conversations about each other and what makes us , well, us. I am an atheist who is into death metal and just spent several days visiting a friend in NJ who is a rabbi and is very much involved in their community and synagogue . We wouldn't be able to be friends and me stay with them and their family if we didn't respect each other's differences while appreciating how much we are alike. Differences and similarities do not need to be mutually exclusive .

  • [Deleted User]WriterGF (deleted user)

    I have friends I have known for 40 years, and we disagree completely on politics - but I still care about them and respect them as people. If, however, they started supporting a candidate who was, for example, endorsed by the American Nazi Party, I would have to say this is not a person I want in my life or my daughter's life.

  • starrynitecudsstarrynitecuds

    @pmvines I have had many interesting conversations with people on here who I disagree with, but chose to respect them (and the site) by taking it to DM.
    Talking with someone, not lecturing, name-calling or insulting, is where I start. Some of my most-valued relationships started with differences of opinion.
    But I do love to tease my friends when their core values change, because life happens.

  • JohnR1972JohnR1972

    @Will564

    …my main thought is an online forum (especially one where people's only common ground is cuddling) is just not the right place to have some of these conversations. There are too many voices, too much to respond too, too much emotion, too much complexity in each individual

    This is the most insightful comment on the thread. In the words of Dennis Miller, “Some people are touchier than a Vatican summer camp.”

    I failed to take this into account in previous posts I have made. Based on life experiences, many (if not all) of us read things into other people’s comments. That was the point I was trying to get across in another thread where I posted some Rorschach ink blots.

    The “ink blot test” is a tool that encourages people to verbalize what they see a completely random image like an ink blot. In a pastel red ink blot, one person might see a beautiful flower while another person sees a bloody monster. It is not what is in the image itself but what is in the mindset of the observer. WHAT A PERSON SEES IN AN INK BLOT IS A REFLECTION OF WHAT IS INSIDE IF THEM.

    That is what I regularly observe in this forum. A person makes a comment and one person will take it at face value while another person interprets it as a veiled threat or a hidden message denigrating a group of people. I could give numerous recent examples of this but that would only throw more fuel on the fire.

    I will not hold space for the dehumanization of others just to comfort the person with whom I am speaking.

    Because I am the OP of this thread, and because the person who posted the comment above lectured me by name and at length, multiple times on a recently locked thread, I am assuming this comment is directed at me. If that assumption is correct, all I can say is you greatly overestimate your significance / influence in my life. Believe it or not, this thread was not created to win your approval or gain any form of comfort from you.

  • BrianOceanBrianOcean

    @JohnR1972
    Excellent Post
    I remember Gerry Spence from the Randy Weaver case among many. I always like his Suede jacket.

    Your post reminds of a show I thoroughly enjoyed many years ago-Crossfire-I remember Pat Buchanan and Bill Press among many other great hosts who genuinely and even vehemently disagreed.
    They not only respected each other but were actually friends.
    Politics has devolved to an unwatchable level of personal attacks that everyone should be repulsed by.
    It is extremely unhealthy to have anger at someone who simply has an opposing view.

    Those are days we be striving to return to. Disagreements are not evil attacks-just 2 people who see things differently.

    Also James Carville and Mary Matalin-Husband and Wife on Polar opposite of the Political Spectrum and still for over 30 years.

    I think a sign that we are emotionally ascending is when we acknowledge that we can strongly believe we are right -but we leave the door open that does not mean the other person is wrong.

  • cuddlefaerycuddlefaery

    @JohnR1972 I actually wasn't directing my comment at you, nor was I assuming my influence in your life. I do not play passive aggressive games and have always directly tagged the people I am speaking to, especially when it the OP.

    You started this thread on a topic, and I was responding to that topic. The irony of your ink blot comment is not lost on me, in that you now are reading extra intent into my comment above....just as you did to someone previously, and the fallout of which was my "lecturing you by name". 🤣

    I did my best to try to respond to this topic carefully so as not trigger an argument with you again, because it is a topic I am passionate about and discuss frequently (see as mentioned with @Will564). Safe community building is something that I do, and I've taken the time to learn how to do that - including bridging communication gaps, non-violent communication techniques, and how to be more inclusive.

    But apparently it's too soon for us to interact, so I think it best I bow out here and we take a break from responding to each other as best we can.

  • TxTomTxTom

    I agree, @BrianOcean The OP has simply illustrated some basic humanity, respect, and decency.

    And yet, there is a persistent faction that cannot accept in others anything less than total submission to, and advocacy for, their position. With their injection of an omnipresent victim-class into every argument, simply "agreeing to disagree" is intolerable to them.

  • Will564Will564

    @cuddlefaery

    Those are two extremely good points. I definitely personally relate to the second one a lot. I also think it's why people can see someone's overall big picture views and think they're very immoral and unkind, but in their day to day life the person can be extremely kind and self-sacrificing to those they know well. And there can be a disconnect online because that discrepancy makes each person continually focus on only one of the two, since that's what matters to each person more. And when they both dismiss the other part, it gets very frustrating for both.

    @starrynitecuds

    I have had many interesting conversations with people on here who I disagree with, but chose to respect them (and the site) by taking it to DM.
    Talking with someone, not lecturing, name-calling or insulting, is where I start. Some of my most-valued relationships started with differences of opinion.

    This is definitely why communicating on a forum is so hard. Because when I make a message (like I'm doing now), I am both addressing one person's individual point while at the same time making a statement that is open to everyone to agree with, add on to, or critique. I view a forum very differently than a one on one conversation because by agreeing to post, I'm putting myself out there.

    It's why I try to always remind myself that people online are only commenting on my posts and thoughts, not judging me as person, since they don't know so much about me. I've certainly made many mistakes in my posts and have had to go back to clarify meaning or show where I've changed my opinion. I view that as worth it to learn things and have a good conversation. But it's not easy to do.

    @JohnR1972

    This is the most insightful comment on the thread. In the words of Dennis Miller, “Some people are touchier than a Vatican summer camp.”

    The “ink blot test” is a tool that encourages people to verbalize what they see a completely random image like an ink blot. In a pastel red ink blot, one person might see a beautiful flower while another person sees a bloody monster. It is not what is in the image itself but what is in the mindset of the observer. WHAT A PERSON SEES IN AN INK BLOT IS A REFLECTION OF WHAT IS INSIDE IF THEM.

    That is what I regularly observe in this forum. A person makes a comment and one person will take it at face value while another person interprets it as a veiled threat or a hidden message denigrating a group of people.

    I can't speak for anyone else besides myself when I say what I'm about to say.

    It takes A LOT of effort on my part to step back and take comments like these as neutral observations with no judgment. Kind of like what I mentioned above about putting myself out there when I post. On a forum, I have to consciously put my battle armor on.

    Without going into too much detail, it's a result of experiences starting at a young age that last for years and years. When you get hit on all sides so frequently, your mind gets accustomed to seeing it all around. It's like you're seeing ghosts, to use that phrase. And it has a way of compounding itself. And when this is the norm for you, you don't even realize it's happening.

    It took me years to even begin to recognize this in myself, and only over the last year (in part due to starting cuddling) am I beginning to understand it more fully.

    So I can completely understand the natural tendency to lash out. Especially online when you can't read tone or intentions of others. Even reading your comment with the quote, my mind's natural response was to take it as a judgment of "I'm better than you, you have a problem, it's easy to fix, just toughen up, you're the one who needs to change, you're so annoying, God I can't believe I have to deal with you." It's almost like the automatic tone in my head reads it as a very sneering voice of superiority.

    Which ironically supports the point you're trying to make. But the point is, if you can't relate to that feeling, it creates this downward spiral effect, where someone pointing it out just adds onto the feeling and makes it worse.

    It's hard online when there's no tone or body language to mitigate those thoughts, especially when you don't know someone or their intent. It's why I've always appreciated communication being as clear as possible.

    These are not simple things to fix, they run very deep. And it's why I always know going into a forum situation of anything I read or post, I have to emotionally regulate to try to see the neutrality in what people say.

  • cuddlefaerycuddlefaery
    edited June 2024

    @Will564

    Bouncing off your comment about having to self-regulate on the forums and clear communication....

    Just some food for thought for you and anyone else who might identify with this -

    I more recently learned that being overly verbose and over explaining oneself is frequently a trauma response in neurodivergent folks who constantly were being misunderstood as kids. To cope, they learned they had to over compensate by over explaining every motivation behind every thought, every action, every behavior, lest they be punished/rejected for doing something incorrectly. It's also one way for a neurodivergent brain to process social protocols and ideas it doesn't naturally understand - an extended version of talking out loud to oneself to work through a problem.

    So what many here view as an annoying trait of mine, and what actually is a good chunk of what makes me naturally a good educator, is actually a trauma response to not being diagnosed ND or having the support I needed as a kid. Just knowing that helps a bit, since I tried extremely hard over the years to become more concise, less talkative, stop overexplaining...but I never could "break the habit". Having the same trait or habits doesn't mean one is also ND, but it could be worth discussing with a mental health professional as there are other causes for similar trauma.

  • Will564Will564

    @cuddlefaery

    I've been having some of those exact same thoughts myself lately. Been discovering a lot about myself recently.

  • IronicMaidenIronicMaiden

    An interesting topic. I must point out that, as with most things, communication is an essential component. I didn't say clear communication, because that's nearly impossible without a lot of work. Due to different backgrounds, two people may use the same words to mean slightly different things. Or significantly different things. But if we know how difficult clear communication is, we can avoid making assumptions and instead ask questions to make sure we understand correctly.

    That said, communication between two people involves two people talking and two people listening. That doesn't always happen. Some people are much better at talking than they are at listening.

    There was, in fact, a recent incident with @JohnR1972 which could have been alleviated with more communication, if he had asked me to clarify what I meant.

  • INurturePeaceINurturePeace

    Thankfully I’m not aware of the previous discussions alluded to. I would like to say that changing one’s mind is a sign of growth. As Maya Angelou says, “…when you know better, do better”. I think Elyse Myers (LOVE HER) has a video about this, that it’s ok to change your mind once you have new information or have been able to consider a different point of view.
    I’m thankful for this thread.

  • starrynitecudsstarrynitecuds

    This is one of my favorite photos and I have it in my office. Six iconic First Ladies walking together and just talking. No politics, just women talking and enjoying each others company. (Nov 4, 1991.)

  • pmvinespmvines
    edited June 2024

    @starrynitecuds
    I think the major difference is that they are in person . Seems like nobody wants to get along when they are on the interwebs and able to be selective but when face to face so many people would likely get along pretty well regardless of background . I often don't even know the background of people I casually interact with in person , and it's rarely something I care about. Two of my favorite coworkers I like to joke around with are our hospice chaplain and a nurse who is self professed redneck Republican. Would they be invited to the barbecue ? Possibly not, if I am only inviting people I'm close with and have things mutually in common, but they would be on the list of considerations. . But as far as being respectful and kind and cutting up the workplace tension, they are great people to have around .

  • starrynitecudsstarrynitecuds

    @pmvines True, I think many people ARE different in person, not keyboard warriors when off the interwebs. I believe there's more kindness in most people than expected.
    What I love about this is how 6 ladies are walking side by side, none are in the lead or trying to outshine the others. They share a very unique experience (First Lady). They were respectful and kind to each other, knowing what they endured.

  • pmvinespmvines
    edited June 2024

    @starrynitecuds
    Yep, it is symbolic indeed . So much talk about toxicity on the site. This is an example of non toxic actions.

    I think the CC meetups that they have in different parts of the country from time to time are great opportunities for people to experience each other in person. I've been to a couple and met folks I never would have considered interacting with online who ended up being really cool humans, and I now consider as friends .

  • TheFunCartelTheFunCartel

    All those First Ladies are dead. This is why you don’t meet in person.

Sign In or Register to comment.