You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Resolving Conflicts: Dialog vs. Activism

in #politics7 years ago

I tend to avoid conflicts and have developed the "in on one ear, out on the other" attitude. If I can't avoid it, I give my side after hearing the other and if they don't agree with me, I put it as a "let's agree to disagree" situation. I know it's probably not a good attitude to have but I find that in topics like politics, it's my best option (health-wise). I can only speak of politics from what I've seen in my country but most of the time, dialogue is rarely on the table. As it stands, politics is not an institution for the growth and protection of a community but rather a legalized means of exploiting and enslaving the masses. It boils down to self-interest. A lot of the people don't know much of law and governance so they look to people they think would know. And usually, the people that "know" are those that stand to gain a lot if so and so has the power or retains power. Padrino system has been the practice we've inherited from Spanish colonization. The general public would be fed with propaganda and it becomes a matter of choosing between the lesser evil in actuality even as they think they're choosing someone who could best serve the interest of all. And after all the character demolition campaigns, the masses on either side would be too defensive for dialogue and those that attempt it could be branded a traitor to the "cause". And that doesn't even cover the name-calling especially when one faction is losing. As long as self-interest is there, dialogue in areas like politics is going to be difficult.

Sort:  

Yeah, the politics of telling people what to do with dialog lol.