He Said/She Said: Hypersensitivity, Political Correctness and Agreeing to Disagree

Hypersensitivity, Political Correctness and Agreeing to Disagree

This article couldn’t have showed up at a better time.

It begins with some political stuff, but it really pertains to the comments section of this blog and dialogue on the internet, in general. As always, there’s enough in here to offend everybody (even though there’s nothing inherently offensive), because that’s what happens when one takes a centrist position, as I so often do in the “wars” between men and women.

Let me begin with a personal aside: I am consumed with the subject of liberal outrage.

Now, I am about as liberal as they come – a recent online quiz suggested that I was 91% aligned with Bernie Sanders politically – and yet, I have been incredibly alarmed that what was once the party of tolerance has shown itself to be remarkably intolerant of dissent.

Here are three things I’ve noticed about intolerance:

First of all, certain factions of the Republican Party have been known to be openly intolerant of women, gays, blacks, Latinos, Jews, etc. I’ve always said that “it’s not intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance.” Which is to say that outright bigotry – blatant discrimination against someone different than you should be called out and exposed.

Second, the Republicans have always seemed to be more intolerant of dissent and compromise than the Democrats. That’s where they came up with the idea of RINOs (Republicans in Name Only), where if you don’t toe the entire party line, you’re not really a Republican. President Reagan, for example, would be a RINO, just for raising taxes. This, too, seems incredibly limiting, to suggest that if you don’t agree with someone on every single thing, his/her opinion should be entirely dismissed or mocked.

Third, liberals may not have fully grabbed the intolerance torch from conservatives, but they’re definitely fighting hard for it. If you express an opinion that remotely questions (or jokes about) a far-left belief, you will be publicly shamed for it – as if no other opinions could possibly have merit. Insults and shaming are no way to discuss things in the marketplace of ideas. People should use facts, not straw man attacks or ad hominem slurs. To be fair, the right has engaged in smear tactics since I can remember. But – as we all know – two wrongs don’t make a right. That’s why I’m so disappointed that the left seems to have gone off the deep end in the Twitter age.

This is the culture we live in – one that has created the term “microaggressions” and then come up with a zero tolerance policy for such microaggressions.

Much has already been written about this subject. Here’s Jonathan Chait on how the language police are perverting liberalism. Here’s Chait again on the protests shutting down socialist Bernie Sanders stump speech for not being more aggressive in fighting for civil rights. And pretty much all of my favorite writers and comedians have been attacked by the PC police – Jerry Seinfeld, Stephen Colbert, Sam Harris, Andrew Sullivan, Bill Maher, Laura Kipnis. Why? Because even though all of them have socially liberal worldviews, they either made jokes or spoke their minds – much to the chagrin of their critics. Critics with nothing but a blog or a Twitter account, writing the most twisted interpretations of their words. Gladly willing to try to tarnish their names or destroy their careers than to engage in an actual conversation that involves listening. Jon Ronson even wrote a book about this sort of outrage, called “So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed.”

This is the culture we live in – one that has created the term “microaggressions” and then come up with a zero tolerance policy for such microaggressions. Anyway, this article from the Atlantic about “trigger warnings” on college campuses is long and well-researched, but I’m just going to share the conclusion:

“When the ideas, values, and speech of the other side are seen not just as wrong but as willfully aggressive toward innocent victims, it is hard to imagine the kind of mutual respect, negotiation, and compromise that are needed to make politics a positive-sum game.

Rather than trying to protect students from words and ideas that they will inevitably encounter, colleges should do all they can to equip students to thrive in a world full of words and ideas that they cannot control. One of the great truths taught by Buddhism (and Stoicism, Hinduism, and many other traditions) is that you can never achieve happiness by making the world conform to your desires. But you can master your desires and habits of thought.”

Okay, so why am I posting this on a blog about dating and relationships?

Well, because sometimes the rhetoric gets so heated in the comments section below that it threatens to overtake the value of the actual conversation. I have been giving free dating and relationship advice twice a week on this blog since 2007. I have approved 75,000 comments, thousands of which were vociferous criticisms of me and my advice. I’ve been blog trolled and Facebook trolled and Twitter trolled and comment trolled and email trolled. It doesn’t make me mad. It just makes me sad for those people who feel that the best form of debate is to create straw man arguments to attack me – all because I believe something different – something that is usually well-reasoned.

This post is not intended to fight with them. Facts rarely persuade people with strong feelings. I’m just going to use this space to add the postscript from the Atlantic article. Regular readers, have you ever seen the following arguments in the comments section below?

Common Cognitive Distortions

1. Mind reading. You assume that you know what people think without having sufficient evidence of their thoughts.

“Society judges women for being single. All Evan’s dating advice indicates is that he thinks we should just accept men as they are and that guys don’t need to change a thing.”

2. Fortune-telling. You predict the future negatively: things will get worse, or there is danger ahead.

“If I get on Match.com, I will be rejected by all the men I like the most and be hit on by a ton of losers. It’s a waste of time and anyone who says otherwise is selling you something.”

3. Catastrophizing. You believe that what has happened or will happen will be so awful and unbearable that you won’t be able to stand it.

“I can’t be vulnerable and trusting with a man. What if I get hurt again?”

Facts rarely persuade people with strong feelings.

4. Labeling. You assign global negative traits to yourself and others.

“I don’t agree with Evan’s advice on a specific topic, therefore, he’s a misogynist who has no respect for women and probably treats his wife like crap.”

5. Discounting positives. You claim that the positive things you or others do are trivial.

“Yes, he’s been a faithful husband for thirty years, but that pales in comparison to how much it hurt when I learned that he occasionally watched online porn.”

6. Negative filtering. You focus almost exclusively on the negatives and seldom notice the positives.

“Online dating sucks and everyone who dates online is a loser – yes, despite the fact that 50,000,000 Americans have tried it and one third of all marriages start online.”

7. Overgeneralizing. You perceive a global pattern of negatives on the basis of a single incident.

“All men cheat.”

8. Dichotomous thinking. You view events or people in all-or-nothing terms.

That nine-month relationship where I fell in love for the first time in five years was a complete waste of time because it didn’t last.”

9. Blaming. You focus on the other person as the source of your negative feelings, and you refuse to take responsibility for changing yourself.

“Men should not have sex with me if they are not 100% positive they want to marry me. They should let me know up front that they are unsure of our future.”

10. What if? You keep asking a series of questions about “what if” something happens, and you fail to be satisfied with any of the answers.

“What if I marry him, and one day, in twenty years, the spark is gone?”

11. Emotional reasoning. You let your feelings guide your interpretation of reality.

“He told me that he didn’t want to marry me; therefore, no one will ever want to marry me.”

12. Inability to disconfirm. You reject any evidence or arguments that might contradict your negative thoughts.

“Evan says that men prefer women who are feminine, optimistic, confident, understanding and self-aware. Since I am not all of those things, he’s telling me that I suck and that I’m doomed to be alone.”

We see a lot of this in the comments section, and let me tell you: it’s tiring, both to let untrue statements like this stand on my website, and to have to defend myself against cognitive distortions that I haven’t written nor thought. Take the last point, for example.

I’ve never said that you suck. I’ve never said that you’re doomed to be alone. I simply pointed out that if you’re pessimistic, insecure and judgmental, you may not be particularly effective in dating. A man with those qualities wouldn’t be very effective either. Thus, you have two choices:

1) Keep acting from a place of fear and insecurity, keep judging men for being different than you, and keep thinking the worst of the opposite sex. Or…

2) Put yourself out there. Understand how men really think. Have fun. Trust. Don’t be too blinded by chemistry. Judge men on how they treat you. Be the benevolent CEO who rewards her committed intern by making him feel 100% appreciated, accepted and admired.

Which option sounds better to you?

Your thoughts – about liberal outrage, political correctness, trigger warnings, and cognitive distortions – are appreciated below.

The post Hypersensitivity, Political Correctness and Agreeing to Disagree appeared first on Dating Coach - Evan Marc Katz | Understand Men. Find Love..