Today I already failed in doing this feat. I knowingly commented my way in to a scenario where I knew I wouldn’t be a champion of changing opinions. The poster was assumed, on my part, to being okay with the idea of attacking someone based off of the red hat they wore. Yes, the great white nationalist MAGA hat sets the stage again. However they never stated this. It was inferred as such by sharing and saying ” Ppl gotta realize wearing symbols of hate out for everyone to see doesn’t always bring the results or consequences u expect.” So the inference, though logical, was my original mistake.
I am not a Trump supporter. I think the man is a symbol of how a leader can divide a country and tear open old wounds rather then letting us heal. In many ways, I do not disagree with his policies and political views. My reason for defending the people who support him was not because I stand with them, but because I feel that violence for an assumed position should be highly frowned upon.
So why would I comment knowing I would appear as a racist Trumper? I thought I could help find a little bit of a middle ground in the conversation. Maybe I could show people the that being emotional and feeling personally attacked may lead to justifying and irrational act. So getting to the point of the article… (Did you see what I did there? Its the name of the article. Yeah!) I failed to properly make my point. I felt as though I said what I felt and explained it well, but it’s simply not that easy in a social media setting.
So I decided to message some people involved in the conversation. Even though some readers felt they were “not logical”, I found that in our private chats they had many good points. So how did I get my point to a position where we finally came to an understanding? Where did we settle on our differences and feel like we had a real conversation that lead to us being “social media friends” and starting to see the other’s perspective? It was when we asked questions that had no social impact. No judgement. No pressure. Just two people holding a conversation.
So the basic jist of conversation before the private messages, it was me comparing the idea that the hat is a symbol of hate due to a connection to the man but it does not need to be that way. That a supporter of a racist is not a racist. That not all people who are assumed to be a thing are that thing. We saw this after 9/11. Middle eastern people were harshly treated after theses attacks. Their appearance was labeled fearful and a threat. I understood why ignorant people felt this way, but I disagreed with it. I still do. I understand that racist people do support Trump. This connection does not mean that all people who support the man are in fact carrying the same views on race. To have that thought process is beyond my thinking. So as they explained to me why they felt this way I understood their perspective more. But I never got my side understood.
So in the direct message to the original poster I decided we should take turns asking questions. I would ask question until we cam to my point and they would answer realistically. Following that interaction we would switch places. This individual and I have had many interactions and debates but this was the easiest way for us to find our similar views on the topic. By asking questions I was able to lead the person down my thought process. When we reached the end of the first half of the exercise I found that I felt understood. My guard could drop. That’s when I realized I was closed minded in the previous social media engagement. I was so focused on my point that I forgot theirs. So when I started answering their questions I found myself aligning with them a lot. If you take out the “but what about”s you tend to find a clear path for conversation. I used the unjust reasoning of hate for middle eastern people to show how one act or some violence can impact a whole group without due cause. I got through to the fact that not everyone can be brushed with a broad stroke. But more importantly, I was reminded that situational and environmental variables change the scope of reaction. That you can wear a black lives matter to a KKK rally but it may not bring the best outcome. That wearing red or blue in certain cities could show as a friendly or an enemy to some people. This is all accurate and it directly relates to the original post in question.
The point of this article is not to defend or attack a group of people, but to understand how to come to a civilized perspective on an issue that you may disagree with. That the path of the thought process can have you align with individuals that you assumed to not be in agreement with. At the end of the conversation I learned more than I taught. Being right is not the road to progress and open minded people can easily fall into traps of defensive wall building. Do not be afraid to converse with people you may not understand, because you might just learn something for once.
The Agape Narrative Project 