Fighting on the internet - "We basically believe the same"

This last fight happened over e-mail. My opponent (let's call him 3, for the third fight) was someone I actually saw socially, so everything about it was worse.

One sister was in an email thread about economic inequality, and looking for backup. It might have started with the family that Wad was so horrible about, but I know we brought in different articles about adjunct professors too, because they have economically horrible positions, despite higher education.

The thing about 3 is he is really proud of himself (a characteristic he shares with Wad, and it might not be a coincidence). 3 had some obstacles that he overcame, which is great, and he does know a lot of stuff, which is also great. Putting those together, he also always knows what other people should do, which is not as great.

3 started picking apart the life choices of one of the professors: she shouldn't have had a child, she shouldn't have chosen that field, there must be other opportunities in her area. Now, bear in mind it wasn't that she chose a specialty where she couldn't find employment; because she was working in her field. She wasn't making enough to live, but even from only that discussion we saw that was not unique to her. (3 had looked around at what people earned before he chose his college major.)

I tried to point out the logical fallacies of this, and by now it was just the two of us. Not everyone has the mental aptitude to be engineers, and if everyone were engineers there would be many unemployed ones. We do need college professors, especially if we cite education as the key to success. Wal-mart needs employees, and they make a lot of money through those employees. Somehow, though, we seem to have decided that just because someone fills a needed role doesn't mean they should receive a living wage, even if the employer is taking in a lot of money. Those employees then needing to take second and third jobs exhausts them and reduces the jobs available for others, but that's fine because it's capitalism.

I honestly don't remember how many times we went back and forth, with him constantly jumping to new arguments, but yes, this is a liberal doing that, even if I normally only face that with conservatives. It was no less exhausting with a liberal. Actually, it was worse to have this person I had thought of as a friend being just as bad as Wad.

I do remember that when he ran out of arguments he finished with "Well what would you do about it?" By this time there had been conversation about education and income inequality and how this harsh judging of individuals lets these bad situations continue. For every few sentences he had flippantly sent to me, I had sent him paragraphs and links. And then he asks how I'll fix it, which is just a dick move. I was worn down, and this is where it gets bad. My only defense is that I really wanted him to see my point, because this matters.

As the person who always makes good choices and is careful with his money and always knows what other people should do, he can sometimes create stress in those around him who don't have the same balance of investments and savings. After all, if they happen to make thousands of dollars less, that is only because they foolishly did not become engineers. Anyway, I tried to give him some examples of the stress he creates with someone we both know.

What I wanted was for him to just consider the fact that other people are experiencing life differently than him and that he can be pretty cold about it. What actually happened is that he got greatly offended and sulky until the other person was asking him what was wrong, and then I got in big trouble. I don't know that he was being intentionally manipulative, but the things that he complained about were not actually things that I said.

I have never been able to feel the same way about 3. It was harder after that to see his need to have a nickname for everyone, or his need to comment on the looks of everyone, as clever and cute the way he sees it.

Before I knew 3 was vain and thoughtless, but I thought of him as basically harmless. Now I can easily see him supporting policies that will harm the poor because he will see it as a way of providing an incentive for good choices. Also, the aftermath of that did really strain some relationships, so I feel that he harmed me. Even now that things are mostly resolved, when people ask about me not liking him, the answer given is how stubborn I am.

To some extent this makes sense. If you spend time with 3, part of that is accepting that he is vain and needs a lot of attention. Spending time with me often involves me shrugging a lot of stuff off, because a lot of things don't matter to me. So, I was the one being out of line by that reasoning, but it does not make me like him more.

Actually, those last few paragraphs don't really relate to the overall topic; it was just nice for me to get that out. The part that is important goes back to this post's title, and was something he said during the exchange: "I think we basically believe the same things."

No! We vote the same way. It is not the same thing.

Believing that we shouldn't destroy the environment, and believing things that scientists say, is not revolutionary. It's common sense.

Believing in gay rights is fine, but if you still snicker at lesbians or transgender people, but only behind their backs, this is not a sign of moral superiority. Yes, I can see why you might think that, but that's only because the bar has been set so remarkably low.

There is a lot that can be said about political party shifts and why people might think one way, and I know I will get to blogging about this election, and so we can worry about it then. I think I need to write about books for a while first. We'll get there.

For now I would want the appropriate conclusion to be referring to Wheaton's Law -
"Don't be a dick" - and letting it go at that. The problem is that it appears to be really easy to not know when you are one. It can be easy to miss.