• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

How do you answer, "Which side are you on?"

Rhea

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Jan 31, 2001
Messages
14,971
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Prompted by the questions posed in this article (which has nothing to do with the topic other than sparking a tangential question) I wanted to know what de-escalating answers people have used to stand down from volatile (almost always political) questions putting you on the spot.

Like, "do you support Israel or Hamas?" or "are you an Obama supporter?" or "you don't seriously support Russia in this?" or "you have to be either pro-life or anti-life".

What ways to you de-escalate the tension and try to let them know you don't have a black and white view?
 
I can't remember the last time I got that question, but my lifestyle doesn't often expose me to idealogues and dogmatists who think like that (except online, where I can ignore them).

I'm afraid I probably wouldn't de-escalate very well. I'd probably respond with something like, "how is that your business?" or, "is it possible to see this issue in any terms other than black and white?" and end up setting off a rage monster. People who demand that others take sides probably would not respond well to the suggestion that their absolutist thinking could use some thought and nuance.

Good question, though. I'd be interested in what those with more patience will say.
 
Rhea said:
Like, "do you support Israel or Hamas?" or "are you an Obama supporter?" or "you don't seriously support Russia in this?" or "you have to be either pro-life or anti-life".
Click to expand...

"Yes." "Absolutely." "No." "I'm pro freedom; the people who call themselves 'pro-life' really aren't."

I may not be that great at calming the waters.
 
Around here, they tend to assume that i'm far to the right. Most of us are.

When they do ask questions, i'm likely to respond with a joke.

Like, "do you support Israel or Hamas?"
Click to expand...
"What? I thought the world cup was over?"

or "are you an Obama supporter?"
Click to expand...
Funny thing. i voted for Obama both times. I tell them that. They laugh as if i made a joke.
True story.
Did the same thing on teh submarine when i said ivoted for Clinton twice.
So i joke or they would rather interpret it as a joke than deal with the facts.
 
I find many Americans don't really give a crap what your opinion is.

They don't say; "Whom do you prefer, Hamas or Israel?" They simply give their opinion and have no desire to argue the matter.

You just nod and say yes, yes, yes, and then change the subject.
 
I generally just stare at them, wait for a decent period to make sure they're not going to qualify what they said, and then say, quite slowly, "I'm not sure it's as simple as 'sides'"

I find de-escalation is generally a matter of how you say something, rather than what is said.
 
"I'm on *my* side. And if you care to actually discuss the issue in non-black and white terms, then I can tell you what that means."
 
politics: i'm not pro-democrat, i'm just anti-republican.
religion: i'm an anti-religious agnostic.
geographical: i don't give a shit about israel OR hamas, it's an asscrack of land the size of rhode island on the other side of the planet. all i care about is that every single one of them dies so i don't have to spend every waking moment of my day hearing about this bullshit on TV and forums anymore.
abortion: on demand, without apology, in all circumstances, fuck you.

there, nice and easy.
 
LOL. I often solve it by coming here and having actual conversation and ignoring the table or facebook talk. But I do live among rabid conservatives and also my family includes Israelis, some of them conservative. So I want to have some skills that can help me be honest about my lack of sides, but not plant any relationship land-mines.
 
I can't really say I ever have a side. This would imply there are people who agree with me on any particular point.
 
prideandfall said:
politics: i'm not pro-democrat, i'm just anti-republican.
religion: i'm an anti-religious agnostic.
geographical: i don't give a shit about israel OR hamas, it's an asscrack of land the size of rhode island on the other side of the planet. all i care about is that every single one of them dies so i don't have to spend every waking moment of my day hearing about this bullshit on TV and forums anymore.
abortion: on demand, without apology, in all circumstances, fuck you.

there, nice and easy.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I probably would have chosen slightly more diplomatic language, but my sentiments are surprisingly close to this.

Aside from my view on religion which is "I don't care whether you have one or not. Beliefs are your own goddamned business." Mostly because I'm not anti-religious. I just truly don't care at all. I'm an atheist and I don't see the point of religion, but if someone else finds it to be meaningful to them then that's fine as long as they're not bothering me with it.
 
Rhea said:
Prompted by the questions posed in this article (which has nothing to do with the topic other than sparking a tangential question) I wanted to know what de-escalating answers people have used to stand down from volatile (almost always political) questions putting you on the spot.

Like, "do you support Israel or Hamas?" or "are you an Obama supporter?" or "you don't seriously support Russia in this?" or "you have to be either pro-life or anti-life".

What ways to you de-escalate the tension and try to let them know you don't have a black and white view?
Click to expand...

In my earlier replies on similar threads I have supported the right of both sides to exist. There are no good and bad guys here like the movies. There are good and bad guys against good and bad guys.
 
Emily Lake said:
Mostly because I'm not anti-religious. I just truly don't care at all. I'm an atheist and I don't see the point of religion, but if someone else finds it to be meaningful to them then that's fine as long as they're not bothering me with it.
Click to expand...
i would feel the same way, but religion is actively dangerous to society and detrimental to our species at large.

religion is like spiders:
if it was like a house spider and just stayed on the other side of the room and removed some bad elements from my house, i'd leave it alone even though it's creepy.
but it's more like an infestation of hobo spiders or brown recluse - it's a dangerous and volatile risk to my living that must be eliminated to secure my own safety.
 
prideandfall said:
but it's more like an infestation of hobo spiders or brown recluse - it's a dangerous and volatile risk to my living that must be eliminated to secure my own safety.
Click to expand...
Recluse? More like a brown extrovert... Dangerous AND shouting in your face.
 
The issues in your either/or lists indicate a narrow understanding of just how they affect people all over the political spectrum. Why cannot there be a separate humanist position on all of these issues that reflects a will for human harmony and cooperation? It seems on these issues, whenever you make this suggestion, both sides accuse you of being on the other side. People often seem addicted to conflict itself and will not countenance any deviation from conflict. There definitely are people with hidden agendas pushing these issues to the front of our society for their own very selfish interests. I believe most people have some level of rational capacity and can, in a civil environment, find preferences of their own which are usually more peaceable than the options offered when you hear that question.

I am on the atheist/agnostic side. That is whatever is best for humanity in a secular context. We really should not side with religious people in violent clashes over what is stupid in the first place. Ideologies that dictate widespread elimination or oppression of others are their and our own worst enemies. I feel we all think somewhat differently because we all have lived different lives. Perhaps the only either/or position in the OP I have trouble with neutrality is the abortion issue. I do support the right of a woman to control what goes on in her own body. I regard this as a fundamental human right. As for issues where people are killing each other, or molesting others in the name of ideology or religion, I am opposed to the crap they do to each other, that includes their religion or other inhumane ideology.
 
IF I am actually interested in de-escalating the situation and talking about the subject, I respond with some knowledgeable points, indicating why it's a complex problem from both sides of the issue. If I have chosen a side on the particular issue, I don't yet reveal which side I'm on. This serves well because it deters people that are asking you merely because they wish to confirm their own opinions, and it also often deters the ignorant that are simply looking for an easy fight, because you've demonstrated that you're versed in the subject.

If the conversation continues and I'm in a situation where I still wish to de-escalate, I try to find common ground with the person I'm speaking with. If you disagree with someone else's point of view, but you demonstrate that you share common ground, things go much more smoothly, particularly if you validate the good points the person does make, even if you feel their overall position is wrong. Above all, stay calm (this is the most difficult part for me) as any whiff of anger from you can ruin the entire conversation.
 
prideandfall said:
Emily Lake said:
Mostly because I'm not anti-religious. I just truly don't care at all. I'm an atheist and I don't see the point of religion, but if someone else finds it to be meaningful to them then that's fine as long as they're not bothering me with it.
Click to expand...
i would feel the same way, but religion is actively dangerous to society and detrimental to our species at large.
Click to expand...
I understand that perspective... but I just can't bring myself to generalize so completely. Some religions, pushed by some people, can certainly be detrimental to some societies. Religion without education has the potential to be deadly - especially to out-groups. But I don't believe that all religion is always all bad. Throughout a substantial portion of human history, religion has been the sole teacher of morality and ethics, which I hold to be pretty fundamental aspects of a functioning society. I also feel that not all religions are equally culpable. I can't for the life of me see the species danger inherent in taoism or buddhism, or even (jumping into my sketchy memory banks) jainism. Not all religions are judeo-christian-islamic sects.

prideandfall said:
religion is like spiders:
if it was like a house spider and just stayed on the other side of the room and removed some bad elements from my house, i'd leave it alone even though it's creepy.
but it's more like an infestation of hobo spiders or brown recluse - it's a dangerous and volatile risk to my living that must be eliminated to secure my own safety.
Click to expand...
I say that religion is exactly like spiders. Some of them are house spiders, some of them are hobos; some of them are brown recluses, and some of them are jumping spiders wearing water hats. Don't condemn them all... just teach your cats to eat the bad ones ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom