Which will all be about opinions on the internet. So, there's a part of me that hates the internet because I think it has bred a generation of people who think their opinions are completely entitled. Now, it's fine to have an opinion. It's even fine to express said opinion. If said opinion is expressed thusly:
"I like this show."
"I don't like this show."
...all is well and good. There can even be a bit of exposition on why or why not the show is liked by said individual. Even if the exposition turns into a rant about the qualities of the show it's okay. My problem lies with attacking someone else's opinion by calling him names or insinuating something about his intelligence because his opinion differs. I see this all the time. I experienced it myself two years ago.
I hate The Colbert Report. I can't watch it. I've never been able to watch anything Stephen Colbert has appeared on because I just can't stand him or his humor. It's something about his delivery. He rarely smiles. He was on Whose Line Is It Anyway once and I can't watch that episode because he just seems too serious throughout. I understand he's trying to stay "in character" and that a lot of improvisers find it unprofessional to even smile while "in character" but Whose Line has never been established as a serious show. I also hated him on The Daily Show because he would often do the segments I absolutely despised. Namely, he would do the mock interviews with real people who it seemed didn't know they were being mocked, and it was actually infuriating to me to watch it dawn on them that they were the butt of a national joke. The few times I've seen The Colbert Report I just can't seem to laugh even though I understand what Colbert is doing is actually mocking the very thing his "character" is supposedly supporting. I understand it's basically a mock show. I just don't like Stephen Colbert and, by proxy, don't like his show.
One day I was talking to a co-worker and he expressed his opinion on loving The Colbert Report. When I expressed the opposite opinion, the first words out of his mouth were, "Well, you obviously don't understand what he's doing." I was enraged. I mean, I've rarely been so insulted. I'm not an idiot. And my co-worker knew I wasn't an idiot. But his first inclination upon hearing an opinion opposite his own was to degrade me and make me feel inferior to his own knowledge. No. Just no.
I see this everywhere on the internet. I was just watching a British program called The Big Fat Quiz of the Year 2006, and there was a celebrity appearing on it who many people find annoying. Many people expressed this opinion in the comments. And instead of just posting their own comments saying, "Well I like him because..." a lot of responders had to attack the first people by "explaining" what it is those first people aren't "getting." No, I get it. The celebrity is "in character" as a smarmy know-it-all who can't relax and wants to win and can't take it when the game doesn't play by the rules. It's a freaking TV show - there's no prize (except a cheesy trophy), no money goes to charity, no advantage next year or "reigning champion" titles. It's just a game that's supposed to be fun and make fun of the news from the year gone by. And maybe some people find his "character" funny. I don't. I'm allowed to express that and so are the thousands of other people who feel the same way.
One of the comments was about how much this certain poster loves this celebrity, and people who don't should keep it to themselves. Well, no. When people go overboard and get violent, vitriolic, or nasty about something (particularly something as stupid as a celebrity on a game show) that's one thing. If someone were to come on and say, "I hope that guy dies in a fire because he's a fucking retard," that bothers me. That's not an opinion, that's just offensive. But nothing is universal. There is no celebrity, book, piece of art, issue, or human right that anyone can agree on. Not even the death penalty or gender equality. Do I feel there are issues I can't believe people don't agree on? Of course. Do I want to call them morons when they spout hate speech or racial slurs or other offenses? You betcha. Do I want to go off on a rant like this one when they feel themselves superior to others because they "get" the issue and others "don't"? Fuck ya. And, well, I do, to an extent. As seen here.
But what I try not to do is call them names whilst in an actual debate with them. Just now, in the comments on The Big Fat Quiz of the Year 2006, I made a comment asking people to just say "I like him" or "I don't like him" and move the fuck on. There were two other celebrities who are quite polarizing, who were actually not taking the game seriously AT ALL, and there are plenty of people who were annoyed by that. And that's fine. In the end those two (who I liked) were straining everyone's patience a bit. It's fine to not like something. It's not fine to force other's into that same opinion.
Wearing down someone's feelings in effect does force them into adopting the opposite opinion. We've all grown tired of an argument to the point we just concede to end the argument altogether. Look, I know this seems trivial, because it's a TV show and who cares? It's not a real issue. Except, for this generation their manners are being learned in this capacity, and since our abilites to deal with greater issues stem from how we handle smaller social issues as we age, my fear is the future of society is going to be even worse than it is now because the latest generation can't hold a civil debate or compromise to someone else's ideas. I never knew it was a talent to agree to disagree. Some might call it indifference, but I call it necessity. I think it's why we can't come to an agreement on how to handle certain situations.
Let's talk, incredibly briefly, about gay rights. I'm totally for complete rights for homosexuals. However, I'd be willing to compromise on the issue of gay marriage by saying that if each state would legalize gay marriage (recognizing it as equal to heterosexual marriage in the eyes of the law) it could also be mandated that individual churches would have jurisdiction over whether they would allow gay marriage ceremonies to be held on their premises. There are plenty of churches that have begun to accept homosexuals. If a church declares that within its culture homosexual marriage isn't accepted, so be it. Those churches and their parishioners can continue to practice their religion as they choose fit. Just keep it out of the government and out of my chosen culture/religion. There are, of course, many other issues surrounding gay marriage, but I said "briefly."
The reason I can compromise is because I'm indifferent to others opinions or practices as long as it doesn't hurt me or another human being. It may seem like I've leapt from something stupid to something serious but, well, yeah. And I can because I've learned how to debate from the social situations I've been put in previously. I used to play with a little girl who wanted her way, all the time, and if she didn't get it she didn't want to play anymore. Well, after a while, no one wanted to play with her and she was lonely and she learned to take turns. But it took a long time and several experiences of her friends going home or telling her they didn't want to come over at all before she came to her revelation of compromising. On the internet, where a good deal of kids spend their lives interacting these days, everyone is anonymous or easily replaced. If a kid can't compromise she just clicks off that tab or changes her screenname or moves to a different chat room. She doesn't have to compromise. She doesn't have to learn.
This worries me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Churches can already agree to whether a marriage will take place in its hallowed halls. Catholic churches won't allow you to get married if you haven't already had all your sacraments in a Catholic church (or at least one partner has and the other partner agrees to allow the kids to be raised Catholic). Religious institutions can have whatever limits they want, but the government shouldn't. But I'm actually kind of torn because then it goes down a slippery slope about polygamous marriage which I am against, but it relies on the same arguments I use for gay marriage and then I throw my hands up in the air, talk about cognitive dissonance, and change the subject.
ReplyDelete