The importance in hearing people out

tolerance

This post touches upon something I pointed out in my previous post, namely that when Donald Trump went on the Alex Jones show for a long interview where he doesn’t get interrupted, and was given the chance to make his opinions heard, I realized that what Trump says simply doesn’t hold substance. He was talking and talking, yet it felt like nothing was coming out of his mouth.

Which sort of makes me think about how people tend to react to “controversial” figures in general. The reaction is often emotional, rather than saying: “Let’s listen to this crazy bouffoon and find out why he thinks like he does.” What Alex Jones chose to do was listen, and that’s how you extract more out of a “nutjob” to see if there’s any substance.

When you first hear something controversial it might appear like the statement has no merit nor substance, based on your preconcieved notions. And that’s why it’s important to ask questions and let the person reveal the reasoning behind their statements. If there really is no substance behind them then you’ll proven to the audience that the nutjob really does lack substance. But it could also turn out that they’ve thought about something that the rest hasn’t.

For this reason, tolerance and democratic discussion which focuses on the reasoning presented, rather than ad hominem, is a win-win situation. Either it’s proven beyond reasonable doubt that the person is a fucking moron, thus causing them to lose their mystifying appeal, or you learn something new that everyone could benefit from.

I see the American media making the same mistakes with Donald Trump, as the Swedish media has done with the Sweden Democrats. They think bullying and smear tactics are gonna make people dislike the ugly duckling. But that’s counterproductive.

When you only attack someones character and alleged intentions, the argument they presented is left un-refuted. This creates the illusion that they are in the right, even if their point could desperately need some well-deserved problematization and nuancing.

This is what we here in Sweden should have been doing with the Sweden Democrats years ago, when they were voted into parliament back in 2010. Back then they were small. Now they’re the biggest party in the opinion polls. Guess why?

The Sweden Democrats might have a shady background, but they occasionally make very sound points. And these are points no other party wants to make. Common sense statements like: “Immigrants should adapt to Sweden, not the other way around.”And “Sweden shouldn’t have more immigration than it can handle.”

Instead of refuting these points, politicians have been shouting “racist” instead. Even when the SD express common sense. What kind of effect do you think this is gonna have on the general public?

Politics is about making prioritizations. If you don’t know how to make uncomfortable yet necessary priorities, you should not be in parliament. If you choose to prioritize the citizens of other countries over Swedish citizens, you really shouldn’t represent the Swedish people. And you shouldn’t be surprised when the party who expresses peoples frustrations end up becoming bigger and bigger.

Let the scary boogeyman speak. The only reason you have to fear the words of someone, is if there’s actually some truth to it.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “The importance in hearing people out

  1. My observation of Mr. Trumps “message” is exactly the same as yours. I´ve been wondering how is it possible that this doesn´t seem to bother Americans. He really doesn´t say anything, repeats a few phrases over and over again, but then I realized – he yells and screams so much, all the time and manages to shut down everyone else´s voice with sheer racket!

    Like

    • Better than shutting down people’s argument with shouts of “racist!” etc, as the left are only too keen to do, even as their politicians lie their way to the White House

      Like

    • Americans like boisterous and offensive people. Trump has that distinctly American/New Yorker “fuck you” attitude about him that many American’s love. When we think of British people we think of them as being reserved and cucky. Someone like Nigel Oldfield would put us to sleep. You ever watch South Park? Yeah, that’s kinda how many Americans actually are. In many ways Trump is like Cartman. We don’t have any hate speech laws here either so we’re pretty much free to be as offensive as we want. When Trump says “I’m going to build a wall and it’s going to be huge and it’s going to keep all those illegal rapists mexicans out.” We’re like “Fuck yeah!”

      Plus we’re sick and tired of fucking leftists. I think some people just like Trump not so much because of him but because of the type of people that hate him. The tears of all the feminists, progressive and degenerate cucks alone seem worth the vote.

      Liked by 2 people

      • I think that’s a fair summary Josh. The accumulative effect of the left wing, racially bias, lies and bullying by the protagonists of America’s left, from Obama through Clinton et al, must surely have a corrosive impact on the soul of all Americans, sick of rights and tired excuses ascribed to the least deserving but most violent and vocal?

        Like

  2. I like much of the truth in this well-presented comment, but cannot help but sense the left-leaning slant in which it is framed. It talks about allowing Trump to speak, rather than doing that which has become synonymous with the increasingly fascist left, which is to shout “racist!” or “xenophobe!” or whatever, at any and all who confront their narrative. After all, once you have labelled someone a racist or whatever, you have an apparent excuse not to engage with their arguments…or allow them to engage with yours, right?

    An even better example you could have used, although it does contradict the notion that by allowing liars and buffoons to talk, they will expose their true natures, is that of Obama, his racist wife, or Hilary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, et al. Obama’s anti white/pro black sentiments have been very evident in his comments about Treyvon Martin’s death (“He could have been my son”), and the shooting of Michael Brown (“shot for walking while being black”). While completely ignoring their violent behaviours, Obama also remains tight-lipped when yet another cop (of any colour) is murdered by violent black criminals, or yet another white innocent is attacked, beaten, raped, or murdered by a black mob, as is happening right now across America. One wonders why he didn’t speak out when those two black “teens” shot a baby dead as it sat in its stroller, with its young mother begging for its life, and claim either of them as his “son”. The reason they gave for such an inhuman act was that the baby was “too white”. How about the two “teens” (also black, but surely a coincidence, right?) who murdered a twelve year old white girl and stole her bicycle…were they Obama’s “sons” too? Or how about the twelve year old black boy who asked to play with a beautiful, innocent, nine year old white boy in his yard, before stabbing him to death…perhaps he too could have been Obama’s “son”?

    Hilary Clinton (already a proven liar and deceiver following the Benghazi affair) has gained the black vote by repeating the lie that it is black parents who are concerned for the safety of their little angels, when the truth, almost all the incidents reported in news feeds, and the stats are testament to the reality, which is that whites are at significant risk from large sections of the black community. Bernie Sanders is singing from the same song sheet, but one wonders when he last took a long stroll (or even a short one) through Baltimore, North Philly, and a myriad other locations?

    Perhaps, with the able assistance of a liberal media which appears to have forgotten that the words ‘black’ and ‘white’ still exist when they report of cases of black on white violence, rape, robbery, mayhem, and murder, giving such people their platforms without calling them out, also grants them unimpeded access to the upper echelons of government?

    Like

  3. Dear T.A.F.
    Compliments to your healthy openness and logical reasoning, presently sadly lacking in Sweden (and elsewhere). I listened to your very classy interview with Paul Joseph Watson, highly recommended, where the importance of “hearing out” came to the fore – very well executed! I find that your own background may be crucial to your ability to see and think clearly and maybe the origin of B.i.H. explains some of it??
    My own philosophy in life is to try to improve on myself with ageing.

    Small, positive criticism, only if I may: If possible avoid american dialect and swear words!

    By adhering to this little hint you automatically and effortless lift topic and content to an absolute professional level (where you are and where you belong!.Your English vocabulary is so good.
    Please be encouraged by my comment to continue working the way you do and be assured of intended impact on the pathological social situation in Sweden. Erna Solberg is very likely to be correct in her assessment of Sweden, the only question – when?
    Best wishes for the future!

    Offe

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s