I’ve always believed ( and still do ) that cultivating relationships, especially those with whom you have disagreements ( sometimes irreconcilably ) is about really listening to, and trying to understand just what someone else believes and why they believe it. I’m just not that convinced that can happen at events where people ask short questions and there are short responses.
While I do admire the courage of Charlie Kirk to willingly go to College Campuses in this day and age to try and have discussions, I just don’t think you can really get to the root of disagreements within the format that Kirk employed.
Human beings are complex. I don’t think you’re really going to get at the heart of a disagreement in 3 to 5 minutes. I mean…maybe, but highly unlikely. Most of us are not going to have the time to share deep and complex beliefs that shape our worldview in that amount of time, nor are we going to be inclined to share that kind of information with someone we don’t know. I think very short conversations invite too much assumption, and assuming is one of the reasons why we are in the mess we’re in.
I think real and honest debate happens through WAY longer conversations, and the only way to achieve that is by cultivating friendships / relationships with people.
I always think about the relationship between Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg as an example. Did they disagree….absolutely….but they cultivated a friendship / relationship through having long, hard, and honest discussions with one another.
Their friendship led them into legitimately caring about the other person, and not just seeing them as a political opponent, thereby, getting to really know the other person and finding whatever common ground they could in their political beliefs, and beyond just the political.
I’ve always believed ( and still do ) that cultivating relationships, especially those with whom you have disagreements ( sometimes irreconcilably ) is about really listening to, and trying to understand just what someone else believes and why they believe it. I’m just not that convinced that can happen at events where people ask short questions and there are short responses.
While I do admire the courage of Charlie Kirk to willingly go to College Campuses in this day and age to try and have discussions, I just don’t think you can really get to the root of disagreements within the format that Kirk employed.
Human beings are complex. I don’t think you’re really going to get at the heart of a disagreement in 3 to 5 minutes. I mean…maybe, but highly unlikely. Most of us are not going to have the time to share deep and complex beliefs that shape our worldview in that amount of time, nor are we going to be inclined to share that kind of information with someone we don’t know. I think very short conversations invite too much assumption, and assuming is one of the reasons why we are in the mess we’re in.
I think real and honest debate happens through WAY longer conversations, and the only way to achieve that is by cultivating friendships / relationships with people.
I always think about the relationship between Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg as an example. Did they disagree….absolutely….but they cultivated a friendship / relationship through having long, hard, and honest discussions with one another.
Their friendship led them into legitimately caring about the other person, and not just seeing them as a political opponent, thereby, getting to really know the other person and finding whatever common ground they could in their political beliefs, and beyond just the political.