When I listen to France Info for French radio news, I typically have a dream where I'm in France or speaking French. The French news radio is really a great way to keep up on it, and to learn new words. As a missionary, certain words just rarely make it into your lexicon. This is a great way to pick up on French geography, too, as news stories identify the setting of the story. It's also awesome to listen to them comment on our political process. No wonder they all know so much about what we're doing! I heard about Obama overtaking Hilary in Iowa before I saw it on our news. (In defense of our news, I don't typically watch or listen.)
Since it's news talk radio, the program resembles NPR a bit. The best part is when they get two guys to argue over a hot topic. Yesterday it was about a big car tax in Paris. Evidently the Mayor of Paris is green, and is trying to get rid of parking lots and car lanes in favor of bike lanes and buses. One guy was all for it, the other guy all against it. They were going at it, and I heard that SNOOTY tone of voice creep in with the jabs that still smart when I argued with people. They can be so condescending when they argue. Ecoutez-moi bien, je vais vous expliquer. Listen to me, I'll make it clear for you. Despite being so upset about how they argue, it is infinitely reassuring to know that that's just the way they do it. The guy who was against the car tax was being loud, talking over the moderator and the other guy, not listening, repeating himself with more and more intensity, and absolutely littering his comments with those snide remarks that set himself up as the authority and anyone who disagrees slaps logic in the face. In other words, he was your average Frenchman. I met so many of them and it was hard not to take it personally. Hearing them do it to each other just makes me roll my eyes.
Ah, the French. I love them anyway. :)
Showing posts with label public arguments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public arguments. Show all posts
1.08.2008
8.08.2007
A little explanation.
Earlier I wrote that people are wrong. Indeed they are, although I didn't really explain what exactly I meant by it.
You see, people are wrong not because they're imbeciles, (I'm looking at you, Connecticut), but because they do not take the time to listen to you or really get at what you have to say. This is especially true in public scenes. Although this phenomenon is blindingly true with politics, but most arguments on various subjects follow the same pattern.
Seriously. How many of you come away from argument and debate (Greek argument, not sibling argument about who called 'shotgun' first) feeling that the other party truly listened to you and came away with a little bit more respect for your opinion-- regardless of whether or not they agreed? On top of that, do you make sure you form your opinion only after being informed from reliable sources and steady thinking? I usually don't, but I try to.
When it comes to politics (easiest example) things just plain get too emotional and polemical, and that's why so many arguments take the shape they do. People aren't listening to what you say, they're feeling what you say. If they don't take the time to listen to what you say they'll likely get the wrong feeling and react in kind. Likewise for opinions formed based on everyday events. You hear what happened, you look at it through a lens that has been focused and shaped through your perspective and generally react from your gut. I guess my anthropology professor was right. Most of us are just plain egocentric. The worst part is that we persist in being so when evidence to the contrary is directed at us. "You're just a liberal-- you hate guns." Ah. So cut and dry, so compartmentalizable. So easy to dismiss, so easy... so easy. So sad.
Despite the raging infection rate of this epidemic, the cure is simple. Other than the ego, the pain index is quite low as well.
Just slow down, realize you don't have the facts, and get them from informed sources. Realize that other people will disagree with you and a fair majority of those won't think much of you despite not listening to a word you say.
At the end of the day, just remember this simple maxim: People are wrong.
Oh, and while you're at it, remember this one: Never argue with a fool. Onlookers can't tell the difference.
You see, people are wrong not because they're imbeciles, (I'm looking at you, Connecticut), but because they do not take the time to listen to you or really get at what you have to say. This is especially true in public scenes. Although this phenomenon is blindingly true with politics, but most arguments on various subjects follow the same pattern.
Seriously. How many of you come away from argument and debate (Greek argument, not sibling argument about who called 'shotgun' first) feeling that the other party truly listened to you and came away with a little bit more respect for your opinion-- regardless of whether or not they agreed? On top of that, do you make sure you form your opinion only after being informed from reliable sources and steady thinking? I usually don't, but I try to.
When it comes to politics (easiest example) things just plain get too emotional and polemical, and that's why so many arguments take the shape they do. People aren't listening to what you say, they're feeling what you say. If they don't take the time to listen to what you say they'll likely get the wrong feeling and react in kind. Likewise for opinions formed based on everyday events. You hear what happened, you look at it through a lens that has been focused and shaped through your perspective and generally react from your gut. I guess my anthropology professor was right. Most of us are just plain egocentric. The worst part is that we persist in being so when evidence to the contrary is directed at us. "You're just a liberal-- you hate guns." Ah. So cut and dry, so compartmentalizable. So easy to dismiss, so easy... so easy. So sad.
Despite the raging infection rate of this epidemic, the cure is simple. Other than the ego, the pain index is quite low as well.
Just slow down, realize you don't have the facts, and get them from informed sources. Realize that other people will disagree with you and a fair majority of those won't think much of you despite not listening to a word you say.
At the end of the day, just remember this simple maxim: People are wrong.
Oh, and while you're at it, remember this one: Never argue with a fool. Onlookers can't tell the difference.
6.18.2007
britney spears vs. ella fitzgerald
I had an argument with the class today in History of Jazz. (On a side note, why is it that these arguments always end up me vs. the class? Are my opinions that different from everyone else?)
We started out by talking about Pat Boone. He was a '50s star that would take more 'worldly' songs (like how Elvis was seen as so risqué) and then cover them in a slower, less glamorous tone. He made a lot of money doing this and the Jazz professor said that he was, in a word, 'crappy.'
I began to argue. You can't say that music is 'crappy.' You can't. You can hate it until you're blue in the face, but you can't say it's 'crappy.' I don't care that you have PhD in musicology. 10000 flies feasting on fecal matter is the perfect analogy. To you, it's crap. To them, it's dinner. I don't care if it is fecal matter. I don't care if it's literally 'crappy.' If you are going to try and set up qualitative standards for music, and set them arranged in order of priority, you will fail. People like what they like, and everyone knows that. To say that something is definitely crappy doesn't communicate nearly the same idea as 'For these reasons I prefer Ella Fitzgerald over Britney Spears.'
Alas, I was not able to communicate my idea. Why oh WHY is having a loud voice and the innate ability to interrupt people a necessity for public argument? I'm grinding my teeth I'm so incensed right now.
Get over it.
We started out by talking about Pat Boone. He was a '50s star that would take more 'worldly' songs (like how Elvis was seen as so risqué) and then cover them in a slower, less glamorous tone. He made a lot of money doing this and the Jazz professor said that he was, in a word, 'crappy.'
I began to argue. You can't say that music is 'crappy.' You can't. You can hate it until you're blue in the face, but you can't say it's 'crappy.' I don't care that you have PhD in musicology. 10000 flies feasting on fecal matter is the perfect analogy. To you, it's crap. To them, it's dinner. I don't care if it is fecal matter. I don't care if it's literally 'crappy.' If you are going to try and set up qualitative standards for music, and set them arranged in order of priority, you will fail. People like what they like, and everyone knows that. To say that something is definitely crappy doesn't communicate nearly the same idea as 'For these reasons I prefer Ella Fitzgerald over Britney Spears.'
Alas, I was not able to communicate my idea. Why oh WHY is having a loud voice and the innate ability to interrupt people a necessity for public argument? I'm grinding my teeth I'm so incensed right now.
Get over it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)