Charlie Kirk is an American ultra-conservative political commentator and activist who, among other things, likes to go to American universities and colleges, and other similar places invaded by modern far-leftists, in order to engage in discussion with people who disagree with him.
Sometimes he makes a really insightful and good point about exactly that, ie. discussion.
Paraphrasing: What happens to married couples when they stop talking to each other, don't communicate, don't have discussions about their opinions, perspectives and differences?
Similarly, what happens to a society when people stop having discussions and conversations with each other, particularly people who have differing opinions?
That's right, schisms, division, animosity, and escalating radicalization, enmity and antagonism. Which, when taken to its logical extreme, ends up in a civil war and millions of deaths.
And that's one of the biggest problems with the modern far-leftist cult: Like all extremist cults, they have been strongly and deeply indoctrinated into not listening and not talking to "the enemy", the outsiders, the dissenters, the wrongthinkers.
They have been so deeply indoctrinated into this that not only do they avoid doing that, but moreover they outright police each other to make sure that everybody complies with that strict rule. You can see this all the time: When someone starts interviewing far-leftists in one of their nine billion protests, and when some of them start talking to the interviewer, it's pretty much guaranteed that other protesters will intervene and tell that person to stop, or otherwise interfere with the interview. They don't want anybody in their ranks talking to the "enemy", and if someone makes the mistake of doing so, they make sure to intervene and enforce the rule.
Even if the vast majority of them don't realize the true reason behind this strict rule, it does have a very clear goal and purpose: That of further causing division. Widening the gap. Building a strict metaphorical wall between the "good guys" and the "bad guys", to cause the rift to widen, to cause a metaphorical "divorce" between the two groups. The stricter the division, the stronger the animosity and enmity, and the stronger the radicalization of their own side. It's easier to make your own side hate and abhor the "enemy" when they have no contact with said "enemy", and their only source of information about them is their own side.
In other words, the goal is "you absolutely must hate, detest, abhor and despise the 'enemy', and for that to happen you absolutely must not have any contact with them, don't listen to them, don't talk to them, don't have any social interactions with them, and only listen and believe without question what we have to say about them."
You can clearly see the importance of communication and discussion in practical situations not just in marriage, but for example if you are part of a group of friends: Good friends can have rather differing opinions even on important key issues, but they can calmly and rationally discuss those differences, have a conversation about them, express their own opinions and argument about them, and even if they don't convince nor become convinced, they can still respect those differing opinions and points of view. "Even if I don't agree with what you are saying, I understand and respect your point of view, and it does have some merit to it. Maybe we could discuss it further some time. Who knows, maybe we might even meet somewhere in the middle." Good friends can remain good friends even if they have differences of opinion even on some important key social issues, as long as they can freely discuss them while respecting and being respected.
Comments
Post a Comment