Recently I read a blog post on a topic of great interest (well, at least to me). One commenter asked an open-ended question, seeking for advice. Another commenter weighed in with her opinion. I felt that I had something to say on the topic, so I posted my two cents' worth, being careful to lace my post with disclaimers, non-universal principles, and 'but that's just me' comments. All of this exchange was very gracious and non-confrontational. I felt that I had contributed something worthwhile to the discussion - especially since the original comment solicited feedback - and preserved a spirit of friendliness and positive encouragement.
Later on, I checked back on the thread, and found a comment from someone who seemed to be pretty obviously directing a rebuttal at my comment. She disagreed with my opinion, insisted on her right to defend her position, and made a general remark against arrogance and speaking to situations about which we knew nothing.
I was floored. I thought my comment was as passive, tolerant, nonjudgmental, and personable as it could have been. Furthermore, I would have thought, before I read this comment, that my comment expressed my true stance on the matter, through and through: I can't give a decisive answer on the topic, because that's for your conscience, but here's what I believe and why. Hope that helps.
Suddenly confronted with a challenge and attack, I find that I'm not nearly so laissez-faire as all that. I'm struck with the profound rightness of my original position. When disagreed with so belligerently and stridently, it makes me want to go back and re-hash more thoroughly my stance on the topic, such that I can either correct my misinformation and change my views, or staunchly defend them. If there's going to be an argument (not a spat, but a debate), then I want to be on the right side of it. And furthermore, I want to disseminate that correct viewpoint, whichever it may be, so that others are not going to be misled.
It occurred to me that my approach to this kind of discussion boils down to this: I would like to keep this as civil as possible. I respect your right to hold your opinion and I would be happy to agree to disagree. But if you are going to make an issue out of it, then I will man the defenses with all flags flying and leave no stone unturned in my quest for truth. If you challenge me, then I will answer the challenge to the best of my ability, and hopefully we will both learn something from the exchange. Hopefully everyone else will, too.
But that attitude rather collides with my original overtures of graciousness and non-confrontation. If I go and enter the fray, then I'm going to come across as argumentative, defensive, and uncompassionate. Which is a pity, because being accurate, logical, coolly reasoning, and truthful shouldn't have to negate kindness of heart.
When people hear something they don't like to hear, it's easy to squawk about how we need to speak the truth in love. I agree. I'm all for that. But there's a difference between speaking to a person, and speaking to a principle. When addressing a specific person, of course we have to speak in love. (Like finding a tactful way to say, 'You need to lose weight.' Or not!) When addressing a principle, we need to focus on speaking the truth. (Like saying, 'Murder is wrong.' Not getting overly concerned with being all nicey-nice, along the lines of: 'I'm so sorry if this is going to inconvenience any of you, but that just isn't right, and you really must not murder someone. Oh, believe me, I've been there too, and I know how tempting it can feel, but please just trust God on this one.')
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I love your condemnation of murder. But I'm feeling kind of judged about it.
I have also seen that progression in a discussion in my own mind, from a willingness to be general and full of disclaimers, to a need to come back with both barrels blazing when irrationally attacked. I don't know if this is good or bad, but judging from the way such discussions tend to blow up, I think it's a pretty common feeling.
First rule of online discussions: expect irrational and offended responses to perfectly normal observations. However, my contributions are SO even-handed and gracious that they never even get acknowledged. I'm always invisible in online discussions. So at least you got something.
Isn't it amazing how a little badly-aimed opposition can cement our opinions into conviction?
-- SJ
I am constantly amazed at how people can disagree with my completely correct and logical statements! A bunch of irrational troglodytes is what they are! :^)
Joking aside, I've almost quit reading and commenting on political/religious blogs for the exact reason you gave - no matter how carefully or kindly you state something, if you make any sort of substantive claim, it will be jumped upon with extreme prejudice.
Church music, Calvinism, welfare, and homosexuality are the tinderboxes I've noticed. I've long since quit commenting on those topics, and I don't even read those topics any more. They tend to devolve very quickly, and I tend to go right along, despite my best intentions.
I'm reminded of a rule for good dinner-time conversation I've heard - no politics or religion at the table.
I had it happen to me on a board that I am on. Everything is sent by email. One day a lady asked a question about the Holy Spirit. No one answered her so I looked it up in my Bible and gave her what I thought was a good answer. I backed it up with many different scriptures so that she could look it up herself. I was picked apart by another lady and all I wanted to ask her was where were her references. It was very discouraging. I am so much more careful what I write now, if I even write. I just let it go because I felt she was being a little petty and if I answered like I wanted to, then I was too!!
Post a Comment