Validity

Beliefs and Validity

There are a lot of people who love to ridicule and harass members of unusual subcultures. I am not one of them, but I still do no affirm their beliefs. That this is possible should not come as a surprise to anyone. It's perfectly possible to disagree with someone's beliefs and still not treat them like crap. Not everyone grasps this, but enough people do that we're able to have a moderately functional society (most of the time.) Tolerance really makes the world go 'round. If I was always hung up on the fact that my coworkers disagree with me on any number of philosophical/social/political issues, I'd never get anything done. That, and making fun of someone's beliefs is usually a bad way to get them to change. If anything, persecution (perceived or otherwise) usually only makes a person's beliefs stronger. Just look at the Christians - years of being lion-bait sure galvanized them.

One problem I keep encountering, however, is that not everyone can see that. There are a lot of people who don't understand that one can disagree with someone without personally attacking them. This doesn't mean that they lob ad hominums at me for not believing, but rather, than they interpret my disbelief as a personal attack. They usually spout a lot of rhetoric about tolerance, and call me hateful for disagreeing with them. Even if I'm completely civil, and say, "I'm really sorry, but I'm not a spiritual person. I don't believe in souls, so I can't believe you have the soul of dire-wolf ninja mage," they'll accuse me of personally attacking them.

Everybody chill out, okay?

I understand where they're coming from, and can sympathize, if not empathize. Beliefs are intensely personal, and certainly often a matter of self-definition. I realize that by saying, for example, that I don't believe in otakukin or otherkin, I'm effectively challenging what's usually a large part of how they see themselves. The beliefs of otakukin, like those of many, many groups, are ego-syntonic, meaning that they have to do with how a person views themselves rather than the world. When you criticize them, you're not criticizing a person's perception, but how they see themselves. As such, it's pretty natural that folks are likely to get more defensive if you challenge their identity than if you challenged their political beliefs. That doesn't mean, though, that this defensiveness makes any sense at all.

Guys, when someone disagrees with you, it usually doesn't mean they hate you. It most always mean that there's something about their belief system that clashes with yours, and this doesn't necessarily make you mortal enemies. The fact that they're voicing their opinion about your beliefs shouldn't be taken as a slight. If they really had it out for you, they'd either smile and not before going to talk about you behind your back, or start hurling actual bona fide insults. If they're just disagreeing with you vocally, it should be interpreted as a sign of respect. They believe, at very least, that you're intelligent enough to be worth arguing with, and that implies some level of respect for you.

Just because you feel persecuted doesn't mean that you actually are. I once was on a forum where someone claimed that <em>otherkin</em> were the most oppressed group in history. To this, I say two things. Firstly, it's not a contest to see who's got it worst. Secondly, if you feel persecuted online, you most certainly are mistaken. When someone argues with you on a forum, you are not being persecuted. Even when someone starts calling you names and laughing about you on 4chan, you are not being persecuted. When you claim that your petty internet squabbles are persecution, you trivialize millions of years of actual persecution, from the deaths of Christians in ancient Rome to the Inquisition and the holocaust. Don't scream "Persecution!" in order to win (or think you're winning) an argument. Trust me - when you're being persecuted, you'll know, and it'll be a lot worse than a simple, "You're wrong." So, chill. Everybody chill.

If you're an otakukin, a soulbonder, or an otherkin, and someone is calling this belief into question, you have several options. You can argue back, and try to convince them that they're wrong. You can say, "Lets agree to disagree." You might even try explaining to them that, while they may not understand your belief, that it's really too personal for you to get caught up in arguments over. However you handle it, remember that, just because someone is disagreeing with you doessn't mean they have any personal animosity towards you. Until you have evidence otherwise, you probably shouldn't treat them like an enemy.

If you're like me, however, and often come up against people who are horrified that you disagree with them, you have fewer options. Arguing that you're simply speaking the truth will probably just alienate them further and will be taken as evidence of perceived persecution. In my experience, the best tactic is to calmly explain to them that they shouldn't take it personally, and that, even though it may feel like an attack, it was never meant to be one. They'll probably come to realize that you mean no harm, and might even debate you.

But it's valid!

People who don't like disagreement often default to declaring that "All opinions/beliefs are equally valid." Anyone who's lived in the world for a moderate length of time knows that this is ridiculous. Believing that the planet is flat certainly isn't equal to believing it is round.

Beyond that, the statement that "It's all valid" collapses in on itself and becomes meaningless. If every single belief is valid, then saying something is valid is effectively the same as saying that someone believes it. In effect, if everything is valid, then validity is a meaningless concept. It becomes fundamentally the same as saying that nothing is valid, because it negates validity as a defined concept. You can't use "It's all valid," as an argument supporting your opinion because the statement provides equal support to the opposing view.

I've never been one to merely appeal to consequences, and I think I've demonstrated that the idea of universal validity is hopelessly broken. If this isn't enough, however, examine the results of that idea. If every opinion is valid, then the Ku Klux Klan's beliefs are equal to Ghandi's, and that you've got no more argument against Hitler than you do against Mother Theresa. You should never disbelieve in something just because it leads to something unpleasant, but it's worth keeping these things in mind before putting yourself in a precarious philosophical position.