Tis_Bearself
Patron
In order to change minds, we have to be working with someone whose mind is open to begin with, in a setting conducive to discussion. In my opinion, neither is present on social media. If someone wants to use Facebook as a vocal platform for debating hot button issues, fine, they can have at it, but I don’t roll out of bed every day wanting to spend a significant part of my day arguing with people. Most of us have lives and responsibilities and don’t want to be existing in a state of battling with others of opposing views. The reason I use social media is for fun stuff and socialization and relaxation, not to argue over abortion, Trump, police brutality, the welfare system, the Church, etc.
If someone else wants to use their Facebook as some sort of McLaughlin Group argument platform, then me and them have a fundamental difference in what we want to use Facebook for. It’s like there’s a park at the corner and I want to use it for picnics and swinging on the swings and somebody else wants to hold a political debate there. There might be room for both activities if the park is big, but if I go there for a picnic I don’t want to watch a debate and I don’t feel like I should have to be part of that.
If you want to have arguments with people over abortion on the Internet or in real life, fine, but you chose to do that. It’s an optional activity. If someone else chooses to pray, to quietly demonstrate outside the PP clinic, or to express their faith in another way online, maybe by posting things that will engage non-religious people rather than drive them further away, that’s their choice. Don’t expect the person who works to reduce arguments to care much that you get stressed by having arguments when you could choose a different strategy and for whatever reason chose to argue. That person may even see you as part of the problem.
I would also note that sometimes there is great humility in just keeping your mouth shut and being kind. The Salesians for example emphasize kindness to people, not constantly spouting off about religion unless you are directly asked. I like their approach.
If someone else wants to use their Facebook as some sort of McLaughlin Group argument platform, then me and them have a fundamental difference in what we want to use Facebook for. It’s like there’s a park at the corner and I want to use it for picnics and swinging on the swings and somebody else wants to hold a political debate there. There might be room for both activities if the park is big, but if I go there for a picnic I don’t want to watch a debate and I don’t feel like I should have to be part of that.
If you want to have arguments with people over abortion on the Internet or in real life, fine, but you chose to do that. It’s an optional activity. If someone else chooses to pray, to quietly demonstrate outside the PP clinic, or to express their faith in another way online, maybe by posting things that will engage non-religious people rather than drive them further away, that’s their choice. Don’t expect the person who works to reduce arguments to care much that you get stressed by having arguments when you could choose a different strategy and for whatever reason chose to argue. That person may even see you as part of the problem.
I would also note that sometimes there is great humility in just keeping your mouth shut and being kind. The Salesians for example emphasize kindness to people, not constantly spouting off about religion unless you are directly asked. I like their approach.
Last edited:
