They Aint Stupid
Here is the thing, I was raised by a car mechanic and a clerical worker in the government. My Mom's parents were a machinist and a school lunch room cook. My Dad's parents were service industry workers and farmers. All of my great grandparents were farmers/commercial fishermen/day labor. None of these people possessed more than a high school education. Almost all of them did not possess that.
However, not a single one of any of them was stupid. There is a false correlation that we seem to draw between education level and intelligence. Education is earned, intelligence is native, you are born with it. However, even high intelligence, unharnassed and uninformed by education and a breadth of experience and outlook, cannot be relied upon to cure all ills.
What is the point Joe? Well, I listened to three different interviews done yesterday with Trump voters. A farmer in Iowa, a commercial fisherman in Louisiana, and a coal miner in the mountains of Kentucky. Vastly different locations, vastly different backgrounds, vastly different economic drivers that define their profession and income potential.
Let me distill the essence of what all three men said in those interviews:
1. They all voted for Trump because they believed he would change, fundamentally, how the government worked and "how the deck was stacked against us," as one man said.
2. They all shared concerns that cheap immigrant labor were driving their poor economic futures. None of them were upset by what was going on to illegal immigrants crossing our border. Two of them had no clue what was going on.
3. They all had begun to feel the pinch of the economy and world that Trump and Congress have created. All of them were personally impacted by what has been done, or what was promised and had not materialized.
4. They all prayed for Trump every day. Two of the men repeated this more than once in the interview. Clearly, the information of faith was important to them.
5. All three of them related Trump to the economy. It was his hand on the wheel that they felt was responsible for the direction and impact on the economy.
6. All of them had issues with an Administration official that oversaw some part of the government that directly impacted their income stream. They all recognized that the person in charge of that particular agency was failing in their view.
7. Given that, they did not blame Trump for that outcome. He got credit for the economy, but did not share the blame for having nominated and directed the agency head they thought was failing. The failures are the fault of the individuals, the success all goes to Trump.
8. Important, these interviews were from quality journalists, none of them were asked about Stormy Daniels or Russia. I will not infer any opinion they would have of that. This was just about the economy and the impact these divergent men felt.
Overall, they are very aware of the realities of their day to day, and well informed on the risks they faced. They offered credible and coherent analysis of their industry, the current state of the situation they faced, and the future prospects they could expect. In short, they aint stupid.
I think that part of the debate that is creating such a disconnect in the nation is this issue of stupid. If you do not share my views and my world vision, you are stupid. It is no longer possible, in many settings, to just disagree about the best path forward to the same goal. It becomes a personal battle of ego and self.
But, more importantly, I do not think we have a national consensus of what the future should be any longer. This is a drastic issue. There is legitimately opposing views of the future that are lining up in this nation. I have no idea how evenly it is split, because no one is asking the important questions. But, the last time in history I can draw a correlation to how far apart these viewpoints are is the run up to the Civil War.
There is a future vision held by a large number of citizens that sees an America that is conservative socially, less diverse, and less tolerant. And that is not a condemnation. The view is that we are too progressive, too inclusive and too tolerant. Because of that, we are doing and championing things that these folks feel is not only wrong, but abominable. These are deeply held viewpoints, informed by their faith and their morals. Deep down, nothing is really more important than this.
This group also believes that the government is almost completely flawed. Not only is it a bureaucracy that they do not appreciate or understand, it is doing and enabling things they think are completely and utterly wrong. It is a very easy balance and scale for them. Because of that, the more of the government that fails, retreats or is dissolved, the better they like it. Just less opportunity for wrong to be done.
None of this makes them stupid, or ill considered. They are not uneducated, or backwards or blinded by faith. This is the prism by which the world is viewed, and nothing anyone says is going to change that prism.
There is an alternate future vision held by a large number of citizens that sees an America that is more liberal socially, more diverse, and more tolerant. The view is that we are too conservative, too exclusionary, and morally intolerant. Because of that, we are doing and championing things that these folks feel is not only wrong, but abominable. These are deeply held viewpoints, informed by their faith and their morals. Deep down, nothing is really more important than this.
This group also believes that the government is flawed, but necessary to provide as much of a fair playing field as possible to the outliers in society. Not only is it a bureaucracy that they do not appreciate or understand, it is failing to do things that they think are completely and utterly necessary. It is a very easy scale and balance for them. Because of that, the more protections and oversight the government develops, the better they like it. More opportunities will be there for those that are most at risk.
None of this makes them stupid, or ill considered. They are not uneducated, or seeing through rose colored glasses, or devoid of faith. This is the prism by which the world is viewed and nothing anyone says is going to change that prism.
The leftover group is the largest of the three groups. These folks do not wholly fit into either end of the spectrum. Some things from both groups are valid to them. They do not find either extreme to fit their world view, and as such, they often side with some of what both sides of the debate want to see done.
None of this makes them stupid, or ill considered. They are not uneducated, or confused, or lacking in faith. This is the prism by which the world is viewed and nothing anyone says is going to change the prism.
They aint stupid.
Which gets us to where we are today. Look, I grew up on one side of this spectrum. Nearly every member of my family voted for Trump, think things are alright, and are happy about what will happen going forward.
I do not happen to share those sentiments. But, there is a huge group of people I love, care, about and for, deeply, interact with and value; that happen to hold an opposing viewpoint to mine. Just based on numbers in my social circle, I am certainly the outlier and on the extreme.
But, I aint stupid. That is the problem with the debate and the climate today. It is too easy, and expected, to jump from "I don't think you are correct," to "Damn, you must be stupid." We have wrapped policy and guidelines and law up into our ego and personal self view. It is no longer a discussion, debate or difference of opinion. It is immediately a personal attack that is just as well stated as "I think you are stupid."
It flows both ways, neither "side" has any clear superiority in any way. Nor am I some kind of savant that has never devolved to this. We are human, and the most powerful thing in our existence is our ego or sense of self. We all know how fragile our own ego is, and therefor cannot accept or abide any damage to it. It is our "secret" but our ego cannot take too much punishment, before it collapses.
I think that this used to be less of an issue, because instead of seeing electronic lines of script, which is how you are receiving this message, we used to look each other in the eye and discuss things. It is impossible to convey in print, what can be conveyed by the voice, tone, body language, pheromones and environmental influences that color face to face interactions.
Because it is harder to be fully understood, it is easier to make assumptions and convince yourself someone is being personally offensive, even when you know that person, maybe know them as well as any other person on earth, and know they have never been offensive or meant something offensive to you before.
These is a high hurdle to get over in this digital age. And it magnifies the fact that we have not successfully overcome the hurdles of race, opportunity, faith and tolerance. All of those things are permanent, extremely personal, and overcome almost any other factor.
I listened to a waterman, a farmer and a coal miner yesterday. All 3 of them were facing immediate and drastic economic impacts based on actions taken by the government they voted to elect. They assume that President Trump is a decent, good man, because they have invested of themselves in him. None of us ever likes to face the fact that we may have misjudged a person, we especially don't like it when it is public or protracted. Nothing that occurred in the campaign overcame the personal investment they made in Trump, and it is highly unlikely that anything that happens in his Administration will.
They aint stupid. They like the tax cut. I cannot say for all three, but the coal miner was asked and said that he had not seen any change to his pay since the tax cut was passed. That did not change his support of the tax cut, because he still thought that the money given back would show back up in the economy and create jobs and opportunity.
His mine was facing layoffs and closure. Having jobs and opportunity show up in the economy is extremely important to him. The tax cut meant hope, because that is what he believed about it when it was rolled out. He aint stupid, and there is an economic case to be made to his viewpoint.
They aint stupid. They like the judges and socially conservative appointments. I cannot say for all three, but the farmer and waterman were asked what they thought had been good about Trump, and they both immediately said "Gorsuch". And, that is a significant consideration. Very little that any President and Congress can do that has more impact than appointing and confirming a Supreme Court nominee. They aint stupid, and this is a relevant and valid consideration.
They aint stupid. They all understood that decisions and actions taken by this Administration and Congress were impacting them immediately, in the moment. And they all acknowledged that these things were contrary to promises that had been made during the campaign. None of them liked that. They aint stupid, pain is pain is pain.
We see lots of interactions with the "opposition". Counterpoint and anger sells papers and TV ads. But, the bottom line is that the Parkland kids, the Black Lives Matter folks, the MeToo folks, aint stupid. They all have specific and definable grievances against society, which angers them about the role of government. They aint stupid, and they know it is driven by what is in people's hearts and not by the legislature.
The disconnect is that if you keep the conversation focused on whatever particular grievance any of these people have, with no deviation, you can generally have a reasoned and intelligent discussion. But, once it veers, even slightly, away from that topic, the stupid buttons get pushed, and everyone is mad.
They aint stupid. It is what I recommend for everyone, especially on social media. Whoever is on the other side of your screen has a whole life they are living on their own. They have to feed, clothe and house themselves and their family. They get up every morning and go to sleep every night, filling all the hours in between with the exact same things you do. They aint stupid. They may not be great people or likable people or your cup of tea, but they aint stupid.
You, I, whoever, will not "win" when the objective is to show that they are stupid. Your opinion, your facts, your deeply held convictions will not move them a single inch, if the objective is to get through their stupid. And, if you are not willing to let a subject go, not throw away a relationship, not change your entire life structure over these discussions, you should not have them on social media.
Every single person in my family regardless of how they vote, lives differently than me. I can explain myself till I am blue in the face, but they will never look through my prism, anymore than I can look through theirs. It is my responsibility, not theirs, to decide if I am personally offended by them, and whether that is intentional. It is my responsibility to decide to engage or not engage. If I do engage, it is my responsibility to constantly remind myself they aint stupid. And when I want to try to fix their stupidity, I am creating harm and anger.
Right and wrong are individual quantities. We make the misstatement all the time that everyone knows the difference between right and wrong, has the knowledge of good and evil. Yeah, maybe. We associate correct with right and incorrect with wrong, when we should not. You can be incorrect and still be right. LBJ was incorrect about a lot of the civil rights movement, but he was right when he signed the Civil Rights Act. Abraham Lincoln was incorrect about the abilities and capacity of black people, but he was right when he made the Emancipation Proclamation.
Right and wrong, if they are absolutes, are going to have to be broad and comprehensive. It is wrong to fight a war to "free" a people, war is wrong. But it is correct to defeat the Nazis and stop genocide. You could argue it is right, but as they are absolutes, nothing can be both right and wrong. That makes it hard for anyone but God to figure out right and wrong. Correct and incorrect are left to us, and that is why living they aint stupid is important.
If you judge somebody stupid out of the gate, you have already decided they are most likely incorrect. Even a broke clock is correct twice a day, right? Meaning the other 1,438 minutes in the day, you are a soup sandwich and I can disregard your entire premise. You are 99.93% stupid, why worry about the 0.07%.
We cannot solve, discuss, compromise and move forward, if the overlap we live in is only 0.07%. And that has been the story of our government since 1992. Somewhere along the way, we assumed the other side was stupid, in every debate. It became easier and easier to ignore them. It became easier and easier to disregard any data they presented, because it can be safely assumed that it will not be in the 0.07% portion that will be correct.
Right and wrong is going to kill this country, because it is not a church. It is not religion. It is a system set up to provide limits and structure to support 350,000,000 individuals in the progress of their infinitely divergent lives. Nothing the government can do or decide will cover all 350,000,000 different potentials. Literally, nothing. Killing is wrong, but killing someone trying to kill you is correct, it is legal. It is wrong, but we have decided it is right, in that instance? No, we just decreed that in that instance it is correct. Government can't fix right and wrong, but it (by extension WE) can describe correct (legal) and incorrect (illegal). And we constantly shift those goal posts, which is why we have a court system.
Absolutes drive stupid. Assuming someone is bad because they are a Muslim is wrong. It is why absolutes don't work with humans. It is entirely untrue? No, a chunk of Muslims kill innocents in the name of THEIR individual faith idea. The sad fact is the same can be said of Christians, Pagans, Hindus, whatevers.
Absolutes don't work, so you have to assume they aint stupid. You do not have to agree with them. Because they believe differently does not make them wrong or you right. We have to get our society back to where we can talk about right and wrong, and understand that it does not mean correct and incorrect. And, more importantly, that we can discuss correct and incorrect without assuming right and wrong.
Because this continued chaos around right and wrong is missing the point of correct and incorrect. The Constitution explicitly says that We, the people, will not establish a system of right and wrong. We will not establish a state religion. What the Constitution decides is what is correct and incorrect. If you have ever failed a test, even once, do you consider yourself stupid? Or wrong? Or were you just incorrect about that set of questions?
Our society is built on enforcing correct and incorrect, and realizing they are not absolute, we built in a system to change and edit it. We are supposed to assume they aint stupid, (ignorance of the law is not an excuse). Because they aint stupid.
Trust me, they aint stupid. Neither am I, and neither are you. But, we need to have a serious talk about correct and incorrect, without the absolutes. We are letting perfection be the enemy of good enough, and our progress proves that. We aint perfect neither, none of us.
So, if you are not perfect, and willing to admit that, then you know you are not stupid when you say something incorrect. You are just incorrect. If you make that assumption of everyone else, not just politics, but all of life becomes much less stressful and tense.
Engage, but judge correct and incorrect, not right and wrong. Refuse to play God, or Supreme Being, that allows you to judge the content of men/women's hearts and souls. Accept your role as judge of their words and ideas. Learn from them, reject what you find incorrect, hold onto what you find to be correct. And remember those goalposts can move, they will not remain in the same place your entire life.
They aint stupid, no matter who they voted for, or what they support politically. Honest, they aint. And the sooner you recognize that, the sooner you can accept the reality of the conversation you are having and see who's goalposts move.
They aint stupid. It is the right mantra to not go wrong with. See what I did there?
Peace.
However, not a single one of any of them was stupid. There is a false correlation that we seem to draw between education level and intelligence. Education is earned, intelligence is native, you are born with it. However, even high intelligence, unharnassed and uninformed by education and a breadth of experience and outlook, cannot be relied upon to cure all ills.
What is the point Joe? Well, I listened to three different interviews done yesterday with Trump voters. A farmer in Iowa, a commercial fisherman in Louisiana, and a coal miner in the mountains of Kentucky. Vastly different locations, vastly different backgrounds, vastly different economic drivers that define their profession and income potential.
Let me distill the essence of what all three men said in those interviews:
1. They all voted for Trump because they believed he would change, fundamentally, how the government worked and "how the deck was stacked against us," as one man said.
2. They all shared concerns that cheap immigrant labor were driving their poor economic futures. None of them were upset by what was going on to illegal immigrants crossing our border. Two of them had no clue what was going on.
3. They all had begun to feel the pinch of the economy and world that Trump and Congress have created. All of them were personally impacted by what has been done, or what was promised and had not materialized.
4. They all prayed for Trump every day. Two of the men repeated this more than once in the interview. Clearly, the information of faith was important to them.
5. All three of them related Trump to the economy. It was his hand on the wheel that they felt was responsible for the direction and impact on the economy.
6. All of them had issues with an Administration official that oversaw some part of the government that directly impacted their income stream. They all recognized that the person in charge of that particular agency was failing in their view.
7. Given that, they did not blame Trump for that outcome. He got credit for the economy, but did not share the blame for having nominated and directed the agency head they thought was failing. The failures are the fault of the individuals, the success all goes to Trump.
8. Important, these interviews were from quality journalists, none of them were asked about Stormy Daniels or Russia. I will not infer any opinion they would have of that. This was just about the economy and the impact these divergent men felt.
Overall, they are very aware of the realities of their day to day, and well informed on the risks they faced. They offered credible and coherent analysis of their industry, the current state of the situation they faced, and the future prospects they could expect. In short, they aint stupid.
I think that part of the debate that is creating such a disconnect in the nation is this issue of stupid. If you do not share my views and my world vision, you are stupid. It is no longer possible, in many settings, to just disagree about the best path forward to the same goal. It becomes a personal battle of ego and self.
But, more importantly, I do not think we have a national consensus of what the future should be any longer. This is a drastic issue. There is legitimately opposing views of the future that are lining up in this nation. I have no idea how evenly it is split, because no one is asking the important questions. But, the last time in history I can draw a correlation to how far apart these viewpoints are is the run up to the Civil War.
There is a future vision held by a large number of citizens that sees an America that is conservative socially, less diverse, and less tolerant. And that is not a condemnation. The view is that we are too progressive, too inclusive and too tolerant. Because of that, we are doing and championing things that these folks feel is not only wrong, but abominable. These are deeply held viewpoints, informed by their faith and their morals. Deep down, nothing is really more important than this.
This group also believes that the government is almost completely flawed. Not only is it a bureaucracy that they do not appreciate or understand, it is doing and enabling things they think are completely and utterly wrong. It is a very easy balance and scale for them. Because of that, the more of the government that fails, retreats or is dissolved, the better they like it. Just less opportunity for wrong to be done.
None of this makes them stupid, or ill considered. They are not uneducated, or backwards or blinded by faith. This is the prism by which the world is viewed, and nothing anyone says is going to change that prism.
There is an alternate future vision held by a large number of citizens that sees an America that is more liberal socially, more diverse, and more tolerant. The view is that we are too conservative, too exclusionary, and morally intolerant. Because of that, we are doing and championing things that these folks feel is not only wrong, but abominable. These are deeply held viewpoints, informed by their faith and their morals. Deep down, nothing is really more important than this.
This group also believes that the government is flawed, but necessary to provide as much of a fair playing field as possible to the outliers in society. Not only is it a bureaucracy that they do not appreciate or understand, it is failing to do things that they think are completely and utterly necessary. It is a very easy scale and balance for them. Because of that, the more protections and oversight the government develops, the better they like it. More opportunities will be there for those that are most at risk.
None of this makes them stupid, or ill considered. They are not uneducated, or seeing through rose colored glasses, or devoid of faith. This is the prism by which the world is viewed and nothing anyone says is going to change that prism.
The leftover group is the largest of the three groups. These folks do not wholly fit into either end of the spectrum. Some things from both groups are valid to them. They do not find either extreme to fit their world view, and as such, they often side with some of what both sides of the debate want to see done.
None of this makes them stupid, or ill considered. They are not uneducated, or confused, or lacking in faith. This is the prism by which the world is viewed and nothing anyone says is going to change the prism.
They aint stupid.
Which gets us to where we are today. Look, I grew up on one side of this spectrum. Nearly every member of my family voted for Trump, think things are alright, and are happy about what will happen going forward.
I do not happen to share those sentiments. But, there is a huge group of people I love, care, about and for, deeply, interact with and value; that happen to hold an opposing viewpoint to mine. Just based on numbers in my social circle, I am certainly the outlier and on the extreme.
But, I aint stupid. That is the problem with the debate and the climate today. It is too easy, and expected, to jump from "I don't think you are correct," to "Damn, you must be stupid." We have wrapped policy and guidelines and law up into our ego and personal self view. It is no longer a discussion, debate or difference of opinion. It is immediately a personal attack that is just as well stated as "I think you are stupid."
It flows both ways, neither "side" has any clear superiority in any way. Nor am I some kind of savant that has never devolved to this. We are human, and the most powerful thing in our existence is our ego or sense of self. We all know how fragile our own ego is, and therefor cannot accept or abide any damage to it. It is our "secret" but our ego cannot take too much punishment, before it collapses.
I think that this used to be less of an issue, because instead of seeing electronic lines of script, which is how you are receiving this message, we used to look each other in the eye and discuss things. It is impossible to convey in print, what can be conveyed by the voice, tone, body language, pheromones and environmental influences that color face to face interactions.
Because it is harder to be fully understood, it is easier to make assumptions and convince yourself someone is being personally offensive, even when you know that person, maybe know them as well as any other person on earth, and know they have never been offensive or meant something offensive to you before.
These is a high hurdle to get over in this digital age. And it magnifies the fact that we have not successfully overcome the hurdles of race, opportunity, faith and tolerance. All of those things are permanent, extremely personal, and overcome almost any other factor.
I listened to a waterman, a farmer and a coal miner yesterday. All 3 of them were facing immediate and drastic economic impacts based on actions taken by the government they voted to elect. They assume that President Trump is a decent, good man, because they have invested of themselves in him. None of us ever likes to face the fact that we may have misjudged a person, we especially don't like it when it is public or protracted. Nothing that occurred in the campaign overcame the personal investment they made in Trump, and it is highly unlikely that anything that happens in his Administration will.
They aint stupid. They like the tax cut. I cannot say for all three, but the coal miner was asked and said that he had not seen any change to his pay since the tax cut was passed. That did not change his support of the tax cut, because he still thought that the money given back would show back up in the economy and create jobs and opportunity.
His mine was facing layoffs and closure. Having jobs and opportunity show up in the economy is extremely important to him. The tax cut meant hope, because that is what he believed about it when it was rolled out. He aint stupid, and there is an economic case to be made to his viewpoint.
They aint stupid. They like the judges and socially conservative appointments. I cannot say for all three, but the farmer and waterman were asked what they thought had been good about Trump, and they both immediately said "Gorsuch". And, that is a significant consideration. Very little that any President and Congress can do that has more impact than appointing and confirming a Supreme Court nominee. They aint stupid, and this is a relevant and valid consideration.
They aint stupid. They all understood that decisions and actions taken by this Administration and Congress were impacting them immediately, in the moment. And they all acknowledged that these things were contrary to promises that had been made during the campaign. None of them liked that. They aint stupid, pain is pain is pain.
We see lots of interactions with the "opposition". Counterpoint and anger sells papers and TV ads. But, the bottom line is that the Parkland kids, the Black Lives Matter folks, the MeToo folks, aint stupid. They all have specific and definable grievances against society, which angers them about the role of government. They aint stupid, and they know it is driven by what is in people's hearts and not by the legislature.
The disconnect is that if you keep the conversation focused on whatever particular grievance any of these people have, with no deviation, you can generally have a reasoned and intelligent discussion. But, once it veers, even slightly, away from that topic, the stupid buttons get pushed, and everyone is mad.
They aint stupid. It is what I recommend for everyone, especially on social media. Whoever is on the other side of your screen has a whole life they are living on their own. They have to feed, clothe and house themselves and their family. They get up every morning and go to sleep every night, filling all the hours in between with the exact same things you do. They aint stupid. They may not be great people or likable people or your cup of tea, but they aint stupid.
You, I, whoever, will not "win" when the objective is to show that they are stupid. Your opinion, your facts, your deeply held convictions will not move them a single inch, if the objective is to get through their stupid. And, if you are not willing to let a subject go, not throw away a relationship, not change your entire life structure over these discussions, you should not have them on social media.
Every single person in my family regardless of how they vote, lives differently than me. I can explain myself till I am blue in the face, but they will never look through my prism, anymore than I can look through theirs. It is my responsibility, not theirs, to decide if I am personally offended by them, and whether that is intentional. It is my responsibility to decide to engage or not engage. If I do engage, it is my responsibility to constantly remind myself they aint stupid. And when I want to try to fix their stupidity, I am creating harm and anger.
Right and wrong are individual quantities. We make the misstatement all the time that everyone knows the difference between right and wrong, has the knowledge of good and evil. Yeah, maybe. We associate correct with right and incorrect with wrong, when we should not. You can be incorrect and still be right. LBJ was incorrect about a lot of the civil rights movement, but he was right when he signed the Civil Rights Act. Abraham Lincoln was incorrect about the abilities and capacity of black people, but he was right when he made the Emancipation Proclamation.
Right and wrong, if they are absolutes, are going to have to be broad and comprehensive. It is wrong to fight a war to "free" a people, war is wrong. But it is correct to defeat the Nazis and stop genocide. You could argue it is right, but as they are absolutes, nothing can be both right and wrong. That makes it hard for anyone but God to figure out right and wrong. Correct and incorrect are left to us, and that is why living they aint stupid is important.
If you judge somebody stupid out of the gate, you have already decided they are most likely incorrect. Even a broke clock is correct twice a day, right? Meaning the other 1,438 minutes in the day, you are a soup sandwich and I can disregard your entire premise. You are 99.93% stupid, why worry about the 0.07%.
We cannot solve, discuss, compromise and move forward, if the overlap we live in is only 0.07%. And that has been the story of our government since 1992. Somewhere along the way, we assumed the other side was stupid, in every debate. It became easier and easier to ignore them. It became easier and easier to disregard any data they presented, because it can be safely assumed that it will not be in the 0.07% portion that will be correct.
Right and wrong is going to kill this country, because it is not a church. It is not religion. It is a system set up to provide limits and structure to support 350,000,000 individuals in the progress of their infinitely divergent lives. Nothing the government can do or decide will cover all 350,000,000 different potentials. Literally, nothing. Killing is wrong, but killing someone trying to kill you is correct, it is legal. It is wrong, but we have decided it is right, in that instance? No, we just decreed that in that instance it is correct. Government can't fix right and wrong, but it (by extension WE) can describe correct (legal) and incorrect (illegal). And we constantly shift those goal posts, which is why we have a court system.
Absolutes drive stupid. Assuming someone is bad because they are a Muslim is wrong. It is why absolutes don't work with humans. It is entirely untrue? No, a chunk of Muslims kill innocents in the name of THEIR individual faith idea. The sad fact is the same can be said of Christians, Pagans, Hindus, whatevers.
Absolutes don't work, so you have to assume they aint stupid. You do not have to agree with them. Because they believe differently does not make them wrong or you right. We have to get our society back to where we can talk about right and wrong, and understand that it does not mean correct and incorrect. And, more importantly, that we can discuss correct and incorrect without assuming right and wrong.
Because this continued chaos around right and wrong is missing the point of correct and incorrect. The Constitution explicitly says that We, the people, will not establish a system of right and wrong. We will not establish a state religion. What the Constitution decides is what is correct and incorrect. If you have ever failed a test, even once, do you consider yourself stupid? Or wrong? Or were you just incorrect about that set of questions?
Our society is built on enforcing correct and incorrect, and realizing they are not absolute, we built in a system to change and edit it. We are supposed to assume they aint stupid, (ignorance of the law is not an excuse). Because they aint stupid.
Trust me, they aint stupid. Neither am I, and neither are you. But, we need to have a serious talk about correct and incorrect, without the absolutes. We are letting perfection be the enemy of good enough, and our progress proves that. We aint perfect neither, none of us.
So, if you are not perfect, and willing to admit that, then you know you are not stupid when you say something incorrect. You are just incorrect. If you make that assumption of everyone else, not just politics, but all of life becomes much less stressful and tense.
Engage, but judge correct and incorrect, not right and wrong. Refuse to play God, or Supreme Being, that allows you to judge the content of men/women's hearts and souls. Accept your role as judge of their words and ideas. Learn from them, reject what you find incorrect, hold onto what you find to be correct. And remember those goalposts can move, they will not remain in the same place your entire life.
They aint stupid, no matter who they voted for, or what they support politically. Honest, they aint. And the sooner you recognize that, the sooner you can accept the reality of the conversation you are having and see who's goalposts move.
They aint stupid. It is the right mantra to not go wrong with. See what I did there?
Peace.
Comments
Post a Comment