If you link yourself blindly and totally in one camp or another, you limit and bias yourself to only one perception. I’ve always been of the mind that before you can fully criticise another’s beliefs, you must first understand them.
If you do not open yourself to alternative points of view, you can never truly perceive what you are criticising.
There are many things that I may find personally offensive to my beliefs or that just contradict my beliefs. I do, however, try to see things from another point of view to understand where they are coming from so I can give a valid argument.
My ego, though, sometimes gets in the way of me doing this, and I can sometimes come from an aggressive or angry stance (I am human, after all). This kind of reaction is not conducive to debate or discussion and doesn’t allow for the other side to put their point of view.
This kind of thinking doesn’t mean that I don’t have taboo subjects such as racism, sexism, homophobia, discrimination, and abuse of any kind to be quite honest. This doesn’t mean that I don’t try and understand why people have their beliefs or think that way.
Some people may find some of the things I say to be offensive or upsetting to them, but it’s just an opinion after all, the use of violence or underhand tactics to silence another is cowardly and lacks integrity.
I do however try to take others opinions on board but if there is no agreement or middle ground after debate or discussion then you have to agree to disagree and walk away otherwise it is no longer a discussion but an argument.
I’m here to try and inform and learn, not convince others how they should think or behave. I leave that up to the consequences of their actions or for their own consciousness.
Even people who commit what I would consider the most heinous of crimes, for the purpose of trying to change it you must first understand it.
As someone who has gone through many transitions in her life and made many mistakes, I try to have empathy for others even if I don’t necessarily agree with them. This allows me to critique without the need to necessarily condemn or condemn with reasoned arguments and purpose.
Social conditioning and political differences can sometimes make this a difficult concept, but we live in a perceived democracy and have the power to deliberate, discuss, disagree and condemn without silencing the voices from the other side.
Most minority groups may disagree with this, and I understand why, because as I’ve always said, political change doesn’t always happen through polite conversation but action, and I would never overlook this. But if I can create change through discussion and debate, I would always prefer this.
Also if you are dealing with an individual who doesn’t have power to affect your life personally, this is only an opinion and not a political or legal requirement or restriction.
I try never to hand over my power to any individual by allowing them to think they can affect my life unless I let them, institutions on the other hand are a totally different discussion as they do have power to affect my life.
Sometimes people forget this, so instead of just removing people, media and groups that conflict with their beliefs and quality of life, they choose to stay and argue or prove their point.
The question you need to ask yourself is why??
Apart from trying to enforce your point of view on another and prove your right, why would you stay around and continue to argue your point of view and get upset and angry because the other person doesn’t accept it.
The other person is probably doing the same thing so this is wasted energy, just agree to disagree and move on.