You see, I believe that in general, people are not out to get other people. I tend to give the people on the other side of the conflict the benefit of the doubt. I want to believe that people are not proactively hurting others. Does that mean I think that people do not commit wrongs on others? Absolutely not. I know it happens a lot. People are greedy and selfish and even people who are good people will make choices that best suit them over others. However, those kinds of decisions are rarely with the idea of hurting someone directly. For instance, a common person would not hold some one up for money or verbally attack another for no reason, but they may cheat here and there in games or download music for free or buy cheap food over organic varieties or not give money to the poor or avoid the annoying people or what have you. They may even do something wrong actively if they believe that it is not hurting anyone. (If you call yourself a follower of Christ, I would say that you should be looking to make more moral choices even when it doesn't hurt anyone, but that's really a tangent to what I'm getting at here) The thing is the common person doesn't want to hurt other people. They are selfish and opportunistic, but they are not hurtful.
Of course, there are plenty of exceptions to this rule. People who make their living off of others by robbing others, or people who are in a terrible environment of survival or those with warped sadistic minds due to background or mental instability or people who are racially intolerant who commit violence in the name of protecting their families. Even then, I think these individuals have evil intentions to hurt others. They may have an unfortunate view of the world that requires them to lash out in order to protect themselves. In the case of racists, they believe that others are less than human and are out to destroy what they consider important which the most tragic part of racism, because they believe they are actually doing something good for the world. These are all exceptions. I am talking about most people.
That is why when I hear a friend complain I try to dig a little further and actually understand the problem. Frequently a disagreement or a disappointment with another person is a result of an unfortunate misunderstanding or unforeseen circumstance that lead to the dispute in the first place. Most often, we are blind to what we have done in the situation and look to others to confirm our biased opinions of the events. Usually people will side with their friends especially if they don't know the other person in the conflict. But I don't do that. I will not do that. I will support my friends, but I try to avoid giving them a free pass and say "Yeah, that guy's a total jerk." In fact, I first try to see what my friend has done in the situation. I try to allow the unknown party as much leniency as I can give. It is the rare exception that it is all one person's fault.
I try to comfort my friends, but I also try to challenge them. Encourage them to make the situation, to see what the other person may have intended. I want to repair broken relationships. Not just my own, but in the lives of my friends. I think forgiveness and restoration of relationships is vital to bringing peace to our lives. We can not allow hate to dwell in our lives because it will sour us.
When my friend asked me to describe myself in two words, I said, "Compassionate mediator". I believe in being fair in how we deal with each other. Loving our friends and family is good for our spirit, but forgiving our enemies is what will save us all.
However, this extends past conflict. I see it in whenever someone has an opinion of something. Especially when you don't like something. There's a difference between not liking something and really despising it. There's a lot of things I don't like, but that is a matter of personal taste. I am not drawn to country music no matter what the caliber of musician or quality of composition. There's exceptions as there always is, but in general I don't care for it. I shouldn't have to defend that. However, if I said I hate or despise country music or say it sucks, that is a much different thing because now I need to defend that. I need to bring a reasoned explanation of my opinion if I want it to be considered valid. It's easy to say that something sucks (especially when it concerns matters of entertainment or art) but that is not allowing me to value your opinion. It's ok to have the opinion that something sucks, but I think you need to be able to articulate that otherwise you really need to say "I don't like it".
We are growing up in a culture of opinions that cascade through blogs and videos that tear into other people's hard work. It takes a whole fleet of people and a years worth (or more) of time to produce a film and only 10 minutes and a connection to the internet to express that you think it sucks. It's so easy to hate something, but it's admirable to see the value of it as a whole.
Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of bad films and bad albums out there and you can come to the conclusion of that objectively, but I do not think that people like doing that. They like to be able to just ridicule something or stand out because "the common folk like something, but not me, because I'm not like the rest of the several million other people and they're dumb for liking something so terrible". If you're going to say that something is terrible, especially popular things, you better be able to defend yourself or just admit that it was not your cup of tea.
I've worked at a video store long enough to realize that an opinion is exactly that. An opinion. Even if I don't like something, doesn't mean that someone else can't. Or if I do like something, it doesn't mean that other people should as well.
The thing is I found that it is important to recognize the good in something. It allows you to enjoy so much more. For instance, I know that G.I. Joe was a movie with a ridiculous plot, thin characters, campy dialogue and way too many explosions, but guess what, sometimes a movie can just be fun. It doesn't need to change the world. It was just trying to have fun and that's perfectly ok. I believe that Crash is a much better film. It is amazingly written with stories interconnected and scenes that can stand on their own as insightful glances into the stark honesty of the troubled realm of racism in North America today. But not everyone will like it. Some people are just going to be reminded of the harsh reality that we live in and will leave the movie disheartened. Maybe they just want to relax and turn off their brain for two hours and forget worries for a little bit. Guess what? G.I. Joe is for them. Actually watch Die Hard, if you haven't yet, but you get my drift. I have both recommended and told people to avoid the "Watchmen". Maybe they're not in the mood. Maybe they like dark movies. Maybe they like smart movies. Maybe they mistakenly think it's a fun superhero movie for the whole family. I can explain the merits and downsides for a given movie.
Why have I switched from talking about something serious as conflicts about people to something superfluous like movie reviews? Because I think there's a connection. Looking for the good in things and people is what will keep us balanced. If we are ready to be dismissive about things and people in our lives, then it is going to lead us to a very negative place.
I want to help people seek understanding in others and the world around us because if you can't see the good, then you're going to turn into a bitter, old crank and I'll have to listen to you complain when I'm trying to play Bingo.
"When something's broke, I wanna put a bit of fixin' on it
When something's bored, I wanna put a little excitin' on it
If something's low, I wanna put a little high on it
When something's lost, I wanna fight to get it back again"
- "The Fixer" from the Pearl Jam album "Backspacer"
5 comments:
I wonder who this could be about...
Ha, just jokes. I hope I haven't severed our friendship because I didn't word my opinions correctly, or at least, to your specifications. Of course I know that I don't have absolute truth, or that my opinion is THE opinion or exclusive truth.
However, I'd be curious to see the reaction should I start telling all my friends that I've just recently become a fan of Nickelback and that they are now my favourite musical group. I'd be inclined to think most people would just tell me Nickelback sucks, rather than say it's just not their cup of tea.
And similarly, I don't think my previous comments were motivated by any counter-cultural predisposition. Rather, I think my position was similar to why I do not, in fact, like Nickelback. Because I have assessed their music to be not enjoyable. I'm guessing you don't like them either, and for similar reasons.
Don't take it too personally. I was reflecting about how in general, I try to come to the defense of something especially if I think the criticism is unfair or in the case of interpersonal problems, the defense of the nonpresent individual. I think it was because of your recent post that highlighted that characteristic in me and I wanted to share it on the old blog because that is really what I was interested in exploring. I wanted to reflect on that aspect of myself as well as my opinion that we would rather be negative than positive.
That said, it is true that there are a lot of things that are universally and even objectively terrible such as Nickelback, although they are not as bad as guys who rely on Autotune and I agree that you can cut to the chase and state that you think they suck. I would like to see a blog used to actually say something and explain it and not just slam something off-handedly. I know you have reasons why you didn't like it and now you have a great opportunity to share that on your blog and I read your blog and other people's blogs to see what they are thinking about and why. I guess really a blog is whatever you want to make it because it is supposed to be your own thing and not what I want on it.
I still think you are a tad unfair to Avatar, because although it should not win Best Film, nor is it a great movie overall, it is a good movie because the package overall is still rather impressive. Yes, the storyline has been done before (although not as much as say every cop drama that has come out, even really good ones like The Departed), but everyone who uses that argument with Avatar they always use the same 4 or 5 other films that are really like it. And that is a rather small pool. Besides, there are few truly original stories that you can tell and I think Cameron took his story and added some really good creative elements that tie in the themes well. This was a not prequel Star Wars bomb and it is also brought about amazing advancements in filmmaking and Cameron does deserve the credit he is due. Not for the story, but rather an overall impressive presentation of innovation. It definitely had a hype factor to it, that really, it was never going to live up to. That is the last thing I will ever write about Avatar, I promise.
This was a ridiculously long comment response.
Haha, no worries.
You're right. Nickelback sucks the bag. Big time. No question.
I guess I should clarify why I even wrote that short blog in the first place. It a really brief (and perhaps ambiguous) way of making a statement. I really, really, really did not like that movie. It was bad enough (to me at least) that I didn't feel I needed to explain why "it sucked," rather, I thought (subjectively of course) that the onus should be on those who did like the movie to convince me, why in fact it was good.
It was a brief and rather abrasive statement on majority mentality (which isn't always a bad thing). Because I belong to a minority opinion, it's always up to me to convince the majority of my belief, whereas the majority (most of the time, not in this case) can just say "it was awesome," or "good" with no explanation and no one asks any questions.
That was my main point. More of a statement on majority/minority debates, and how the majority most of the time has a much easier job to do.
Question: you and I are (in the larger scheme of things) part of the minority that would say that a band such as Nickelback (just as an example) sucks. But the majority would disagree with us. So what makes us, the minority, in this case, OBJECTIVELY right in saying that they suck? What makes the majority wrong in this case, is perhaps the better question.
A long response to a response. Sorry.
do you think conflicts are a bad thing in all situations?
[i can see connection with robs avatar thing... and the connection with our (me and you) convo where i was in blatant disagreement with rob's opinion about the movie..]
here's the thing. that disagreement is a good example of why rob is one of my best friends. we bicker like old folks and i think are better off for it. not everybody wants somebody around to stroke their.... ego...... we need those conflicts and disagreements to challenge our own thinking.
to be frank, 'mediation' often hurts a good solid conflict because it muddles the resolution. it's just one more filter a message goes through before it gets to the recipient. i have found personally that the 'yes men' are the ones that end up really hurting you in the long run (because their conflict with you comes to a head when it has built up and MUST be resolved) which is why i don't tend to shy from conflicts with my friends. even if they are just about movies.
movies are fun. but arguing like children about them is fun too... if you look at the bigger picture that is...
oh and ps...
the reason i disagreed with robs 'avatar sucks' in the first place is the same reason im telling you now to not hate on nickelback... ready for it?
WHAT DO YOU WANT TO HAPPEN?!
if you yell 'nickelback sucks' from the rooftops are you hoping that people will be like, "hey he's right, lets go like pearl jam"... do you want nickelback fans liking your music? (likewise do you want avatar fans to all of a sudden like your favorite movie?).. the bees are busy distracted at their hive, don't fuck it up and draw them over to me eating my delicious delicious honey.. got it?
I don't have a problem with conflict per se. I have no intention of stopping conflict because it is an inevitable occurrence in human relationships, but I have found that people tend not to actually confront the issue, but rather snipe at the person's character and never actually resolve the issue that led to the broken relationship. My whole thing is that I usually try to step in and offer a possible explanation on behalf of the nonpresent party. Give them the benefit of the doubt and prompt my friend to work through it or at least move on. I would rather see the conflict resolve one way or the other. There's nothing worse than unresolved conflict that is not moving forward. I mean, ideally I like seeing relationships reconciled because the conflict becomes a greater understanding of your relationship to the other person. You understand them and what they care and think about.
Conflict is not a bad thing. Unresolved conflict is a bad thing. That's where a mediator comes in. To not sedate the conflict and just give a bunch of "yes man" answers to their friend, but rather push them back into fray and give good advice, perspective and encouragement (unless the conflict is more extreme like an abusive relationship).
As for sharing opinions on such things as music and movies, I like hearing people's objections, suggestions and thoughts on things. Not because I want to see what is truly better and whose got the best reasoning, but rather I want to know why. The question of why you like or dislike something is way more important than what you actually like. The movies and music that you like does say something about you, but not nearly as much as why you like something. Maybe that's why I wanted to coax something more out of Rob initially, because I wanted him to get to the meat of the matter. I know he has some good thoughts on the things and I wanted him to say more because I have the opinion that is the point of a blog. Funny enough, it was his approach and the aftermath of a flurry of comments back and forth that was caused by the initial post did exactly what I wanted. I would like to think that I know Rob and you a little bit better.
I don't care to convince people to take my opinion. I mean it's nice to know people's true opinions especially on movies and music because if you generally agree with another person, it's a good source to help you find other things you might like. But for instance, I don't care if you, Jason, don't really like Foo Fighters, but I like how you talked about how you wished you did because of Grohl's connection to one of the most intense songwriter's from the era you and I grew up in. That's why I like the explanation for why something is good or bad, not to argue people into sharing my opinion, but to better understand the person. That said, I understand it looks like I was trying to change Rob's opinion, but only because I thought he was a little too hard on Avatar. It's fine if Rob didn't like the movie, but I think it's important to remember that artists for the most part are putting themselves into their art and I think it's important to recognize the good aspects of a person's art.
Post a Comment