it has been said that one should avoid the realms of politics and religion, for polite discussion. this is due the the highly personal favouritism certain characters receive impacted intimately by their introduction to their beholder. however, politics and religion aren’t separate things.
religion is just antiquated politics. religions have many differeing characteristics, and gain charisma/appeal through the provision of various narratives from venturing esteem towards the adherent to allegorical compulsion through mythic ideals and alleged structure of everything- just like politics.
take Confucius for example. he spoke many opinions of the nature of people alleging interpersonal structure into manifest form through others gambling upon his esteem. this brought about in many ways the author’s allegations. he said ‘this is how it is going to be’, many of those opinions had repercussions into governance, because he was held in an honoured and esteemed position. that doesn’t make him right or wrong; correct or incorrect.
this trickled down into ethnic tradition. many of these precepts- these assumptions- became personal through their association with home and family. whether they were objectively accurate about how people are naturally compelled to act is as such irrellevant because people are supernaturally (through culture) exposed to the ideas and the person as defacto good. and to challenge the validity, veracity, and vitality of the attitude is to challenge the humanity of the person’s ethnicity itself.
as such, to hold a declarative opinion regarding some character/person long since perished will offend those who related to the person(s) or their kith and kin via familiar/familial stories. it matters not whether the option of the character is supported by facts or not. nor does it matter whether the opinion is ‘tonally’ positive or negative; admiration or admonishment. the irrelevance is from the personal and emotive context of said character relative to the beholdent party.
this means that discussion of favour and disfavour (or politics) is largely fruitless beyond clamouring strife of boojwha to pander and self title/empower. in annals of time, the gossip of favour served as a tool to infer and inform complicit surrender to oblige the will and integrity of the whole. and so the tool for matchmaking was intuitively reapplied to nonsexual treaty.
circling back, remember how we form opinions based on our introduction to a person’s character.if we get conditioned this way to percieve a person’s character based on our introduction, and others do too, then the dissonance comes from both parties holding an dissimilar opinion and the dissonance could be reduced through a variety of methods:
- one could be apathetic/uninterested, which dodges the pathos created during the exposure. this eliminates the topical dissonance, but could create a perception of ‘disrespect’.
- one could be as impartial as plausible, but still hold an opinion. the amount of facts presumed relates to the likilyhood that one is uncanny or “wrong”.
- one could be ignorant. one could pre-emptively choose to not hold an opinion in order to allow others their own earnest recount of character, circumstance, and consequence.
but what if you are ignorant of other’s appeals of benefactors and peers? the ignorance inherently creates a charisma, because you are empowering people to express their opinions and there is no possibility of condescension or other fault through the lack of prejudice. it sidesteps argument, by negating semantic arguments, because you aren’t trying to bias the conversation towards a narrative.
which leads inevitably to politics. it leads to talking about people and ideas/opinions/beliefs and implicitly about greater naratives/ideology/religions, and which worldview is most right.
the problem with most argument is that it is founded upon arguments presuming the necessity of external interaction. people say “but that is wrong because it doesn’t jive with this-thing-i-value”. and the fact of the matter is external consistency is unnecessary, all one requires is sufficient (but not total) internal consistency, because people through mental gymnastics will rationalize away or ignore/forget bits they don’t think matters. this process generally called cherry-picking is rarely (if ever) otherable. it seems that most if not all ideologies (and by extension religions) have quirks where a disinterested person of any other external bias could consider one or more analysisi as nonsequitur/invallid/inviable. the externality of the bias doesn’t even seem to need to be ethnic, for many apostacy seem to similarly find consonant flaws based on their new and warped bias. (i don’t use the term warped in a denigatory fashion. it is merely to express the mourning/grief period where one intuitively uses former presumptions in their reasoning although they no longer are supported when reconsidered. the person often feels ashamed and foolish until they re-acclimate to new ideology/religion/paradigm, and accept the mistakes were not part of one’s new/current character)
this attempted appeal to consequence, only really expresses the listener’s interests, needs, and tolerance. and often it does the seccond person equivalent of pidgeon holing where you are attempting to appeal to communal prejudice, which obviously doesn’t exist. and so one is merely being a grammar nazi attempting to control/reduce lexical shift to empower sophistry.
“your hammer is wrong because you are spinning it around rather than pounding it” isn’t an argument against a screwdriver. similarly, arguments are prejudicial appeals to purpose rather than proposition. it is an ethnically biggoted presentation of “well, Your idea doesn’t suit a purpose including but also beyond the tech i already have” which inherently creates an exclusionary (and pretentiously appexual) appeal.
but holding no opinion on a topic, allows one to be elevated by the passions of hate/frustration and knowledge created by others who want to be that educational/benefactoral and extremely valuable role of service.
ignorance isn’t to respond “i don’t know” but rather, “i don’t understand, could you show me? if not, i think what you are saying means this…” not as a passive aggressive way of saying “you are flawed here dummy” but rather a completely passive perception of initial intrigue, giving the other person the motivation to think his or her case really matters cause it is your ‘first’ impression and his/her failure could be a betrayal of his/her kith and kin.
some will still say ‘then go get educated’, yet that confession is a concession, they are saying that they are not a reliable passage to meaning cause it doesn’t matter to them. they don’t want to argue, or compell/evangelize, they just wish the esteem (and self esteem) of being right. that is to say, they want to be in the right in the eyes of others without doing any of the actual work. if they aren’t willing to put forth the effort to allege, why would you yield or comply.
none the less, only through ignorance- through intentionally abstaining prejudice can you even get that far. because if you argue, then you fall into the vicious trap of strawmen where you present a personal case which selfishly presupposes your personal value instead of theirs, this is a form of ad hominem as it denigrates their dissonant opinion as subhuman and trys to redirect the conversation rather from internal discussion to external/interpersonal discussion, which is irrellevant.
lets say you have a circular logic of 3 factors which all are inter-causal. an arbitrary unit of distance, something which is multiple distances long, and something multiple of the seccond length. like inch, foot, yard. between each you have a conversion ratio, as as long as those ratios are constant you have a valid circular logic. the criticism that it doesn’t convert cleanly to meters is irrelevant. it doesn’t address a problem of internal inconsistency merely external inconsistency. one could much easily contrast the viability of more standardized scaling. and one can go even further in allowing the monologue of another by allowing the complete ‘sell’ of the benefits of the contrast. in ignorance’ lack of prejudice you can compete in the marketplace of ideas by recognizing what one’s competition offers, which allows one’s shortcomings to become apparent to you without needing anyone else to tell you.
so why form opinions about people when those very opinions marginalize if not invallidate the veracity of your opinion to a large audience? why form prejudice about the superiority or inferiourity of cultures dead or dying? why try to compel esteem through blatant attempts of controlling the flow of ideas in favour of your training/prejudice, rather than the complete release of control beyond queries? that is, whyever try to stop learning?
the only reason people would stop learning is fear of foolishness. being too dead set in the grind/routine that they are affraid that the disempowerment would cause adverse repercussion to their autonomy, and by extension agency. they buy-in too heavily to the myth of the game, and forget that they are playing, or get too tired to try to change. they felt such compulsion and passion to make their dream reality, that they are too invested personally in the narrative, which just creates a whole new wave of politics.
but is that enough? does a politician or idea or ideology really have to be good or bad? do you have to take a moral position on the character of a thing? or can you let the proponents of their favor/disfavour do it each and every time (proving their expertise and value)?