Sometimes two people watching the same video see it as supporting opposite points of view. We seem to be quick to pick up on elements that support our biases but sometimes miss elements that can be interpreted to oppose them. This is a phenomenon I have written on before. Recently, I encountered another example.
|
I just came across a very interesting article in Yes Magazine that describes a way to meet everyone’s needs, achieve financial independence of individuals and communities, and halt (or even reverse) the growing concentration of effective wealth in the hands of the very few – and it does all this without erecting a supersized government or engaging in economic terrorism. This is an economic paradigm that virtually everybody of all ideologies should be able to get behind – and I almost missed it. Why, you ask? Well, it was packaged very poorly. I recently heard a radio show host (a guest on another's show I have since forgotten) call pro-choice people “pro-abortion.” While this is true of a minority of those who call themselves pro-choice (those who would try to prevent women considering abortion from receiving pro-life information pamphlets or from requiring waiting periods or ultrasounds), I do not believe it is true of the majority. Many of those who call themselves pro-choice speak of their unease and concern that they might be ending a life, and many even admit that they would probably choose life themselves. Even after an email was sent to him by a listener, equating calling “pro-choice” “pro-abortion” with calling “pro-life” “anti-choice,” this radio host dug himself in deeper and continued his characterization, using an argument I admit I didn’t really understand. One thing I have long had a hard time understanding is how two people of differing political persuasion can look at the same article and find it supporting their own point of view. Sometimes pundits that seem to clearly lean one way are accused of leaning the other way by others. When it comes to comedy, where the message is less explicit, and nothing is to be taken literally, this phenomenon is even more pronounced.
I recently read this article about why simply properly informing the misinformed often backfires, leaving things in a worse state than before.
According to this article, partisanship sells. This makes me wonder; to promote civility movements (like this blog), should we form a new party just as partisan as the ones we already have? Can non-partisanship be a partisan issue?
|
AuthorHi, I'm Dan. I like chocolate, hiking, and politics. Archives
February 2017
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed