Compassion Isn’t Dire Enough
My last article focused on how hard it was for people to change their beliefs, and I hoped this approach would be a welcome change from the usual tone one hears before an election. Even though some others were incredulous that I didn’t push harder with so much at stake, I was very proud to try something different when so many with more traditional approaches seemed unable to make a dent.
I’m still glad for that, but I didn’t go far enough.
It’s not enough — especially when there’s an epidemic of hypochondria and censorship much more than of viruses — to encourage those with useful information not to seem fanatical or harassing because their audience may be weary. Noble as that light touch may be, it’s not necessary to go out of our way to be nonconfrontational to the extent that some parts of others actually want that contrast (I’m deliberately choosing a popular word among some in self-development in case it reminds them of what choice they really want to make).
Besides, it’s easy to say we don’t want to pester others with things they don’t want to hear — and I’m not encouraging others not to be themselves or to stir discord because they don’t know what to do but want to make a difference. But do we project that resistance onto others because it sounds considerate rather than fearful when we’re not sure how to avoid a mistake in offering or defending our own ideas?
If you’re suspicious that I’m gearing up for some justifying…thank you! However few or many of us there are left who are wary of “sales” types, I’m glad for skepticism in a time when safety or health or equality have been trotted out self-righteously for too many obscene ends to contend with here.
It’s not enough to acknowledge how hard it is for others to change; they might be better off knowing what they’ll suffer if they don’t.
Maybe you can exhibit differing advantages fully — or with a suitable compromise. Just don’t think offering one benefit will make others or the Universe notice you’re not giving the other to the “least of them.” If there’s an opposition in these ideals that can generate dialogues helping others move forward.
However, no “justifying” here: Maybe you’re wrong about what others need to know or be concerned about, no matter how sure you feel about the “right” way to live. On the other hand, if you want to persuade them to grant you your freedom that’s what this is about.
But there’s a way to do that. With elections for example, instead of wrangling over the labels of candidates and parties, the subtlety of referring to the values and practices you suggest may be worth it if it lets others come to their own conclusions about such things without tangling with foresworn loyalties they feel obligated to or torn about because of others’ sophistry.
Experts — those whom people are given an excuse to delegate their thinking, to put it politely — recommend a party or candidate. In the case of the election that’s upon is I simply ask whether you want a top-down, federal lockdown policy or the relative freedom of states to try different approaches so they can be compared (in the name of diversity). Protection for the rights of doctors to present arguments without being blocked by big techno if their views are “out of favor.” Whether the line between healthy microbes and a healthy economy should be weighed or drawn staunchly to one side in hopes that dissenters are afraid to argue it. Similarly, should those who care about child abuse be invited to consider the actual effects of not seeing human expressions, or are fearful and disturbed faces that are out of sight out of mind in this visual advertising age?
