Sometimes, after a discussion with a statist, I feel very irritated at myself for having allowed my emotions to show.
Why do I get worked up? Why?
Because it matters.
Things are the way they are because most people keep following the same foolish path toward more state. And no one wants to hurt their little feelings, even when they are headed over the cliff.
Cowardice!
If someone doesn't stop being so meekly polite in the face of insanity others may never realize they are behaving insanely.
That doesn't mean every discussion is the time or place to get emotional, but you have to understand that a lot of people aren't convinced by rational arguments and logic. Nope. For them it takes plucking their heartstrings; they are ruled by emotionalism and are only swayed by an emotional appeal. I don't like that, either, but it is what it is.
So, when you need to be emotional, allow yourself to show it. Because liberty freakin' MATTERS!
.
I would certainly not disagree that there are times to allow emotions to show. Nor would I disagree that there are times for "combative" conversations (verbal or writing -- old geezers like I are just now getting used to communicating directly but in writing through "IM", text messaging, etc).
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I learned a lesson many years ago in the process of coming out of a lifetime of insane drinking: don't let the behaviors of others have control over your emotions. They aren't worth it, and they certainly are not going to care a whit how you feel. There are arguments that should be walked away from.
And, I must decide two important factors in any disagreement: 1) am I being agreeable? Or disagreeable? That's the most important factor. Along with that I should check my premise: am I tilting at windmills? Is this argument (like "pragmatics") really that important? 2) Presuming the adversary is (in my opinion) disagreeable, is s/he amenable? IE: Am I expending emotional energy on a totally lost cause? Because I can flail away at stumps and stones if I'm not conscientious about how I use what energy I have. That gets more acute the older one gets. One must choose his fights. Some aren't worth the energy, and will merely drain you emotionally without possible solution.
It's easy to feel that way about libertarianism and anarchy. First, we have acute disagreement amongst ourselves (I recently talked about one dear friend who got miffed; picked up his bat and his ball, and left the playing field -- over a very unimportant conflict having to do with word usage -- with another member who should be a close ally). Second, although our numbers are growing, we're probably always going to be a distinct minority.
Our numbers are growing -- but the question is how many of those coming aboard are "moles", and how many are subject to becoming co-opted as in "Tea Party" ???
You strike a good balance, Kent. That's important. You're more adaptive to going on Facebook and comments sections and razzle-dazzling with one-line nerds than I.
I've gotta stay free between my ears before I can help others envision liberty -- not easy in my dotage. Sam