So tired of watching news these days. I mean, I'm so tired of watching what's considered to be news programming. Clearly we're no longer in the days when you would turn on the news, get the facts, then watch your favorite late night talk show.
We're bombarded by opinion and what scares me the most is that I don't think our education system works well enough for most people to be able to determine what is fact and what is opinion. And almost all of the time, the opinion you seem to hold is really close to the opinion your parents hold or what part of the country you live in, or where you went to school or college. Nobody thinks for themselves these days.
I've been accused of being contrarian for my views. Apparently I'm just going against the grain just to go against the grain. I've been accused of that a couple of times, actually. Apparently I voted for a woman candidate not because she most closely aligned with what I expect from a President, but just so I could get Trump elected without having to actually vote for him. As if not voting for either of the mainstream candidates that have been credibly accused of sexual assault isn't reason enough.
I can watch Fox News and pick out the parts that are actual news and filter out the parts that are the commentary meant to cater to the die hard red voter. The ones the comedy shows always get to do interviews. I can also watch CNN and do the same thing. I can get past snide remarks or condescending comments and just pay attention to the actual facts.
As an example - immigration. If you were to watch CNN, you'll hear all day long how conservatives hate immigrants because they want a wall built. But that's just being dishonest. They know conservatives are against illegal immigration. That illegal part is what they can't bring themselves to say, but that's the nuance that's missing. In this case, it's a very big nuance that they're purposely leaving out because that's how you frame a narrative you're trying to push.
Now, so I'm not accused of being contrarian, let's talk about how Fox News frames their narrative around the same subject. Most problems with immigration stem not from the southern border, but by people coming here on a legitimate visa and then overstaying. If you were to only listen to Fox News, you would believe the opposite. Again, they're framing the 'facts' to fit the narrative.
There is nuance to this debate. We have a problem with southern border immigrants and immigrants overstaying their visas. Both can exist at the same time. Why can't Fox News mention the visa overstays and why can't CNN say that conservatives are against people coming here illegally? Because it's not about making sure you get the facts, it's about catering to whoever pays the bills. But that's for another discussion.
It's all about the nuanced middle and neither extreme.
If you can't honestly imagine why someone would vote for the flawed Donald Trump* or any republican, you have no ability to think past your biases. If you can't honestly imagine why someone would vote for the flawed Joe Biden* or any democrat, same. Understanding someone else's position doesn't mean you agree with it, it just means you can see where they're coming from, and you will end up having a better discussion with them. (For the record, everyone is flawed.)
These are just the words I vomited out after listening to both CNN and Fox News on the framing around the Russian/Ukraine tension going on right now. Fox News wants you to think we should stay away from that whole thing and focus on our own problems. CNN thinks we should totally go in and help another democracy. Why can't they both be a little right? Instead Fox News is saying CNN wants to go to war because Ukraine has dirt on Joe Biden. CNN is saying Fox News wants to stay out of it because republicans love Putin. Why can't they both be wrong?
There's nuance in everything. If you're watching/reading just one source, pinch your nose and watch/read a source that disagrees with you and see if you can pick out the facts amidst all the opinion. It will make you a better person.
Or like me, it'll make you more bitter for the world that I'm leaving behind.
*Other than being a dumbass. <-- this is what a critical thinker would say as a joke and a non-critical thinker would give as the only reason.
Good faith isn't just an attitude; it's a series of actions. It’s the commitment to a shared process, even when the topic is difficult. Here are the core traits to look for and to cultivate in yourself.
1. Intellectual Humility
This is the foundation of all productive conversations. It’s the understanding that your own perspective is incomplete and that you might be wrong. A person with intellectual humility isn't afraid to be proven wrong; they welcome it as an opportunity to learn.
What it sounds like:
"Based on my understanding... but I could be missing something."
"That's a good point. I hadn't considered it from that angle."
"Help me understand what led you to that conclusion."
Why it matters: It turns a confrontation into a collaboration. Instead of two certainties clashing, it becomes a mutual exploration of a topic.
2. The Principle of Charity
This is the commitment to interpreting the other person's argument in its strongest, most persuasive form. Instead of looking for flaws and attacking the ...
The worn leather of the armchair creaked a familiar protest as Michael settled in. Across from him, on the edge of the old sofa, sat David, a man whose face was as familiar as his own reflection, etched with thirty years of shared laughter, quiet commiserations, and unspoken understandings. But tonight, there was a tension in the air, a subtle crack in the foundation of their long-standing ease.
"Thanks for coming over, Dave," Michael began, his voice softer than usual. "There's… something we need to talk about. It feels like there's been a growing misunderstanding, and it's been weighing on me."
David nodded slowly, his gaze steady. "I'm listening, Mike."
Michael took a breath. "I've heard things, felt a distance. And it seems like you, and maybe others, have a picture of me that isn't true. Like I'm… someone I'm not. And I need to set the record straight."
He leaned forward, choosing his words carefully. "I want trans people to have the same freedom and rights as any non-trans person. I want ...
10 rules for a productive discussion about controversial topics.
1. The Prime Directive: Argue in Good Faith This is the foundational rule. Both parties must enter the conversation with the genuine intention of exploring the truth, not simply to "win," embarrass, or provoke. Assume the other person is also operating under this principle until proven otherwise.
2. Intellectual Humility: Be Willing to Be Wrong Enter the discussion with the understanding that your current position could be flawed or incomplete. The goal is to refine your own views through challenge, not just defend them at all costs. Acknowledge valid points made by the other person.
3. The Principle of Charity: "Steel Man" Their Argument, Don't "Straw Man" It Instead of misrepresenting your opponent's position to make it easier to attack (a "straw man" ), do the opposite. Articulate the strongest, most persuasive version of their argument you can, and then respond to that. If you're unsure, ask, "So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying ...
