I. Arguing vis-à-vis Expressing
I
can see a lot of heated arguments on FB and on other
internet-based fora regarding PNoy's performance as president in the
face of super typhoon Yolanda. There are those who give him the benefit
of the doubt, and there are those who choose not to – not anymore. (I
do
not consider myself as either outright pro-PNoy or outright anti-PNoy, I
prefer not to have a fixed and permanent opinion of him. I discern on a
case to case basis and I try to keep an open mind.)
I
can also see that most of the arguments show no promise of resolution
and will simply spiral. Quite typical of arguments involving government
and politics. Therefore, participating in such arguments, in my
opinion, is basically pointless -- and thus I choose not to.
Rules for Discussion
However,
a person can still express his/her opinion without necessarily engaging
in any argument. For instance, he can express his opinion on his own
wall, while steering clear of opposing views in other people's walls.
After
all, a person can express her views simply because she wants to --
which is her basic right -- and not because she wants to argue with
anyone. She can also express her views to affirm others
who share the same beliefs, or to provide insights to those who are
still in the process of forming their own opinions.
===
II. There is a Right Time and Place
Recently
I had a very heated but also very short-lived “debate” with a former
schoolmate, in FB. I wrote a comment on my wall, and this former
schoolmate of mine opposed what I said -- on my very same wall.
But
our pertinent comments are not there anymore, we already deleted them,
as I said it was a “short-lived” debate. We agreed to abort the debate
because it might undermine our friendship. I do know of
people here in FB who used to be friends but who eventually
“un-friended” after slugging it out on Democrat versus Republican
issues. The best of friends can become the worst of
enemies because of political differences, right or wrong it is true, and
thus it may be best to be cognizant and wary of that reality.
At
any rate, this schoolmate of mine explained to me (in a private
message) that the only reason he opposed my views is that I put it out
there. Since I made my views public, then it meant that I welcomed
opposing views, because FB is a public forum. He made an excellent
point, one that I would not argue against.
However,
I would like to offer another school of thought. The thing is, FB may
simply be an outlet where you express yourself. Because sometimes, you
do just want to express yourself. And
although you strive to make sense in order to make a contribution to
the collective intellect of cyberspace, you don’t necessarily want to
engage in a real argument because that is just too much work.
Particularly
if people have certain expectations of you, if you ever engage in a
debate then you will really have to bring it on – which, as I said, is
just too much work.
I’m
not saying that people should never express opposing opinions on your
wall. But
perhaps when it comes to very hot and divisive topics like politics,
and particularly during times that people are more emotionally involved
such as in the aftermath of the Yolanda typhoon (or perhaps during
election period), then perhaps it is best to be prudent and to tread
with caution. Just like at home or in the office, if your
family or colleague says something in frustration, unless the situation
really calls for it then it is best not to argue with him on the spot,
you wait for the right time and circumstance to do so. Who knows, he
might even retract what he said before you actually get to speak with
him.
Besides,
there are, after all, internet-based fora out there where engaging in
debate is the norm and where you can therefore debate to your heart’s
content. For instance, in the comment sections of CNN, Rappler, and the
like, or even in cause-oriented pages on FB. If
you really want to engage in intellectual discourse to further or
defend your cause, then perhaps those are the better venues. But as far
as personal pages on FB are concerned, it might be best to discern
before you throw down the gauntlet.
Right
now I have this friend who is really REALLY expressing his views on his
FB wall and his views are quite opposite mine. I respect him for that
and I don’t dare
mess with him. Even if he will tell me that it’s okay to do so, I
won’t risk it, as far as I am concerned it’s just not worth it.
===
III. Private Individual vis-à-vis Public Servant
When it comes to private individuals, we must presume innocence unless guilt is thoroughly proven.
But
when it comes to public servants (especially people in very high places
of power), although we should not immediately presume guilt, we should
not presume innocence either. We must bear in mind that they have all
the skills, the resources, and the power to hide the truth. Therefore
if we will not say a word unless we have the complete and unassailable
set of evidence, then we may never be able to say anything.
Besides, PNoy does say that we are his bosses, which after all is not just a figure of speech but is actually the truth.
Please
bear in mind, at home or in the office, if you are the boss, isn’t it
that you can question your subordinate anytime, whether or not you have
solid and definitive evidence that he has done something wrong? It a
basic practice of quality control, and it is the inherent right and
unquestionable prerogative of a boss.
If
you can only question someone if you have a complete set of solid,
definitive, and water-tight evidence, then you are not his boss. It’s the other way around.
(Please
note that I did not criticize PNoy here, I merely suggested that we as
citizens have a right to criticize him as president.)
===
IV. Freedom of Speech
Now,
there are these messages going around that basically suggest that
people should be silent, that they should not criticize, and just focus
on helping the typhoon victims. I think it is safe to say that those
messages are more likely intended for the people who criticize PNoy.
To
my friends who have been passing those sort of messages around, I’m
sorry, you know I love you, but that just isn’t cool. That approach is
somewhat “passive-aggressive,” and can also be considered as an “unfair
fighting tactic.”
--
It is also an “unfair fighting tactic” because while the message is
subtle and not “in your face,” it is still ultimately meant to
invalidate the people who criticize PNoy.
Besides, just because a person is expressing his views, it doesn't mean that he has not done anything else. It
is perfectly possible to express one's views about the government,
while also quietly extending help to the victims of Yolanda.
And even if indeed a person just wishes to speak her mind, then she is within her rights to do so. It is a basic human right.
Moreover,
let us all please keep in mind that one of the chief reasons that our
country finds it difficult to progress is that we are way too forgiving,
we give people the benefit of the doubt way too much. The Marcoses are
back, and not only are they back but they are in Congress. Estrada
is now Mayor of Manila, and only because he did not win the 2010
presidential race which he was very freely allowed to join despite
having been pronounced guilty of plunder by the Sandiganbayan in 2007.
I
think it is a good sign that people -- if they find it necessary -- are
willing and able to openly express their views against the government.
And fortunately they also finally have the means to do it, specifically
through social media.
It
also greatly helps to know that you are not alone, I for one am not
afraid to exercise my freedom of speech because I know that we are many
(and that I will not be singled out), there is truly strength in
numbers. As I stated at the onset, one of the important reasons that
we express ourselves is so that we can affirm and support others who
share the same beliefs.
It is democracy at work, and we've come a long way from the repression of dictatorship and martial law.
===
V. Proposed Rules of Engagement
In conclusion, allow me to propose the following rules of engagement:
1.
In a forum that is clearly intended to serve as a venue for debate, be
it in FB or CNN or wherever, by all means go ahead and state your case,
and/or argue against what others have to say, you have a right to do
that.
2. But in a platform that
is not guaranteed to be a forum for debate (such as personal FB walls),
it might be wise to be prudent and to tread with caution.
3. On your own wall, by all means please speak your mind, you have a right do that.
--
I will respectfully read your comment and truly contemplate on it. I
can’t promise that I will agree, but I promise to seriously consider.
Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement
--
I will not write anything on your wall with the overtone that I agree
with you but with the undertone that I actually don’t. In other words I
will be neither sarcastic nor passive-aggressive. I know that you are
intelligent enough to know my true intentions, and I dare not insult
your intelligence.
-- If
you don’t like what I write on your wall and you feel like deleting it,
then please go right ahead. It’s your wall and thus I respect your
right to manage it any way you want.
4.
As far as my own wall is concerned, please do for me as I will do for
you, as I have just explained. And if you simply wish to ignore what I
have to say, then by all means please do so, you have a right to do
that. But please do not tell me to quiet down, because you do not have
the right to do that.
----------------------------------------
REFERENCES
How
to Have a Rational Discussion
Argument
----------------------------------------
RECOMMENDED
READING
Straight
and Crooked Thinking
Don’t
Get Defensive: Communication Tips for the Vigilant
----------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment