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