Why it matters, and why it doesn't matter

Many political-minded people seem to have problems being civil with people that think differently. They get tremendously worked up by some sort of passion that compels them to shoot down opposing ideas harshly or arrogantly. Some observe this problematic reaction and think it's divisive and ridiculous, that people who have different political, religious, or philosophical ideas ought to accept each other's views without resorting to that kind of vehemence.

Unfortunately, I think this is a matter of personal conviction and a lack of civility within certain cultures, and it's unavoidable within close circles. If we are talking about strangers online, well, we don't know them, so it's fine to be condescending or insulting; after all, we are never going to meet these weird people who live 2000 miles away, are we? If these strangers happen to be living right in our city and standing right in front of us, it doesn't quite matter either, because we're in a large city, and we're never going to see these radicals again. Right?

As for friends, how can people even tolerate close relationships with those that have radically different ideas? Let's use abortion in America as a politically heated example. For conservatives, it's a matter of life and death, and for liberals, freedom and oppression. Such a difference implies opposing world views, so how can two persons, with these mutually-repellent convictions, stand each other's company?

My guess is that they probably can't, but they can at least put up some pretense of civility. Unfortunately, courtesy seems to be a dying rarity, and people are all too happy to attack each other on a regular basis. Every political discussion inevitably encourages this kind of behaviour: blogs, forums, mail-lists, newsgroups, chatrooms, and every form of online communication with limited moderation. What people don't seem to acknowledge, though, is that humans are emotional beings; human beings generally cannot comprehend reason-based logic. When people say they are "logically attacking the fallacious points, not the person", they really mean they are "emotionally using tainted logic to attack the person by ridiculing his or her ideas".

Human beings are not robots (no matter what your local conspiracy theorist tells you). They have feelings, they make mistakes, they want to think what they believe in is true, and they like to look good. And what better way to look good than to reinforce their own beliefs by repeating words loudly and vehemently directly in opposition to different beliefs? even if the words are just regurgitated from some other similarly-motivated human? Is that why political opponents are always so irreconcilable?

Of course, there are always some humans that just want to defend beliefs they hold to be sacred, or beliefs that they think are factually correct and ultimately for the good of all. Here's one idea I have: the more worked up people get over defending an idea, the more desperate they seem -- "Wow, you sure are spending a lot of time shooting down your opponents! Is your belief that fragile, that it'll just fall apart without you getting all apologetic over it?"

Oh, I'm just too hypocritical to admit it.

In any case, this is not aimed at anyone reading this. If you think this is, it isn't, because it isn't, unless you think it is, and that's okay, too. Good evening and Happy New Year.