Part 2 of 3: Online Etiquette & a Reminder, Multiculturalism’s Downside, and a Preview of Part 3
THIS (the messy enormity of this series) is one reason I hesitate to share my political views. More importantly though, there are professional risks. Potential backlash for unpopular views is why one shouldn’t incessantly try to elicit peoples’ opinions online, chase and put others on the spot, and put them at risk if they’re disinclined to volunteer information. Sure, they can avoid you but, the worst case scenario is, you’ll look like a jerk and make some enemies. As for why I’m sharing some views, I’m trying to prevent others from “barking up the wrong tree” because, per Part 1, there are movements and company cultures I’m incompatible with. That said, I’m content with obscurity. I’m not seeking to become a political thought leader or fame in general, so opponents can take heart that I won’t flood this blog with political posts.
Unfortunately, I’ve encountered a subset of older liberal folks (while taking notice of older liberals who don’t do this but, whenever this happens, it’s curiously never someone of any other political persuasion and this is not due to a lack of knowing older folks of other political inclinations) who try to get me to espouse or live up to their values and, in doing so, (1.) mistakenly assume I’m inclined to think as they do and (2.) are unaware that people my age have more to lose (than they do) as we’re in the midst of raising children or caring for aging parents and especially dependent on having work. Yes, it’s human to make mistakes.
More troubling, however, is that they care more about promoting their ideology and adding another warm body to their movement than they care about you, the individual, and whether you want to join their movement or not. These folks should also beware, if they aren’t already, that the consequences of publicizing political opinions are potentially harsher than before the Internet age.
I’ll address the power dynamic that comes with people significantly older (by 10-30 years in my case) trying to influence you. They have tried to:
- Exploit the age gap
- Isaac Morehouse writes in Two Ways People Try to Control You, “If you show some momentum and forward tilt, some people will want to control you. They’re not always conscious of their controlling efforts. They’re usually people older than you, and more advanced, but people who have already peaked…”
- Lead me with encouragement/nurturing (inappropriate when unwanted), manipulation, or otherwise influence my development in the direction they wish it to go (often tying in with political views and values they want me to have)
- Assert authority, by trying to take a parental role and coming across as knowing better than I do
I strive to avoid these behaviors with others, and I thank relevant individuals for lessons in what not to do.
On another note, if you’re interested in “silent” people’s opinions, ask permission to engage in conversation about politics over email or private messaging. People who’re especially careful might prefer in-person, unrecorded interactions that don’t risk potential exposure by someone who dislikes what they said. However, multiculturalists must remember that prying is rarely appropriate in some cultures.
As I previously warned, please don’t make more of my posts than what’s presented or bring up matters I’m not volunteering to discuss. On social media sites where this happens, SJWs and similarly-minded people will be treated to my shutting down the conversation with “RACIST!!!!” (Read Part 1 if you don’t understand why.)
Assimilation Versus Multiculturalism
This series isn’t a promotion of multiculturalism (as I’ve shown how complex society becomes and, with that, how it’s more challenging to understand the different groups and individuals within a country where multiculturalism exists). In fact, people who’ve traveled to unfamiliar places around the world and experienced culture shock might understand this.
To those who think we can all become aware, learn, and deal with all these infinite permutations, I’d say I’m doubtful because most people I’ve encountered are similar to my former co-worker who, if you recall, couldn’t figure out that if someone keeps trying to drop a conversation topic that you should stop trying to introduce it. And the worst offenders, in terms of not being able to deal with multiculturalism despite supporting it, are those who insist, “Everyone is more or less like me,” “We are all one people,” and other similar Utopian-like sentiments. This idealistic view tends to blind people to potential differences at every juncture of getting to know another.
For full disclosure, I’m right-libertarian but do understand social conservatives’ reason-based support for assimilation (of whoever comes to this country) and against multiculturalism – which, as I understand, pertains to mixed, conflicting behavioral social norms and NOT about the availability of ethnic food and music, which are things that I, like many, enjoy).
Since this issue doesn’t fit with Part 3, I’ll briefly explain. In sum, the preference for people to follow the host country’s social norms is based on similar reasons for following uniform driving laws:
- Increases understanding
- Related to the above, this reduces confusion and conflict between people
And then some:
- Fosters social cohesion – integration being an important buffer against attacks to the nation’s interests from the outside, i.e. “divide and conquer”
- And preserves a unique cultural heritage (as this is what makes Japan, Japan and not South Korea, etc.)
If conservative readers have anything to add, please comment.
Preview of Part 3
This is my result for the economic axis of the 8values quiz, which is defined here:
My result might horrify some since “equality,” has positive, warm and fuzzy, connotations. That’s alright because, for those of you who score the other way, the sentiment towards you is mutual. However, in Part 3 I’ll explain why I support capitalism (an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state – where private owners are individuals. Any individual. And, importantly, multiple individuals per the “s” denoting the plural form of “owner.” One of a few rags to riches stories I know of involving a Chinese immigrant who is not oppressing or taking advantage of the masses will follow in Part 3).
Despite others’ attempts at fear-mongering, describing the rich as if they’re Martians or boogeymen and assuming the person they’re trying to whip into a frenzy wouldn’t know someone from the 1% or be linked to the 1% in some other way, I actually do know people in the 1%. Referring to the rich as if they’re some monolithic hive-mind (who are all greedy… yes, every single one of them <sarcasm>) often comes from hypocrites who’re against generalizing and stereotyping groups of diverse people… yeah, OOPS! (Under some geographic considerations, I hear that those with an annual income of about $200k sometimes qualify as the 1%.) You know the drill. Name specific individuals you take issue with (and, who knows, I might agree). Otherwise don’t bother bleating about supposed characteristics of the rich, the 1%, particularly not to me because I won’t take you seriously.
Capitalism, which should be ensconced in a societal system that values laws (not anarchy), should not be confused with corporatism (the control of a state or organization by large interest groups). And I will show, in a later post that’s not in this series, how my market-friendly views and my environment-friendly stance (both equally strong) are reconciled.
This 8values quiz, by the way, has a diplomatic axis (nation vs. world), civil axis (liberty vs. authority), and societal axis (tradition vs. progress). I found many of the quiz’s statement items on the other 3 scales to be without context and therefore vague. Having chosen “neutral/unsure” so frequently that my scores weren’t meaningful, I decided to exclude these results.
If you’re intent on understanding my worldview, please watch this wonderful short film, Harrison Bergeron, starring Sean Astin, for principles behind forced egalitarian societal models that I find disturbing (like making people who’re different the same by disincentivizing various individuals’ inclination to create valuable products and services and, in this process, losing out on beneficial individual gifts and societal advancements).
Brendan O’Neill’s “The Problem with Equality” is also worth watching before diving into Part 3, where I’ll address inequality extensively as well. (Where O’Neill speaks to the plausibility of mental illness linked to the act of striving, acquiring, and materialism, I’d allow that some may be distressed but it’s difficult to generalize either way. I know people who are fine but it doesn’t mean another is, so it’s better to find a way to live in a “to each his own” kind of way.)