I desperately want to convince myself that I have nothing in common with the people who desperately want to convince themselves that they have nothing in common with the people who disagree with them; but even as tired and ickly as I am, I can't quite manage to ignore that particular absurdity.
So it seems to be a natural feature of the hnau of this planet to try to place everyone into a little box as we decide who is like us, who is unlike us. And the ones who are unlike us and who we happen not to like must be wholly unlike us, incomprehensible to us and uncomprehending of us. This saves us time. If we already know that we will never understand nor be understood, then all the hard work of communicating may safely be skipped over and we can go straight to the vilification and the fighting. We're so much smarter than they are, anyway. We have logic, intuition, morality, and common sense on our side, you know. If our opponents do not recognize this, it is only proof of their inferiority.
Said a few days ago to the incredible skygypsy
: "if you simply must define yourself, define yourself in a way that leaves your box open-ended. Define yourself as the efflorescence resulting from the collision of a jack-in-the-box and a distant sun. Call yourself a cross between an African tea rose and a pan flute. Explain calmly that you are what happens when an iridescent sense of justice is painted with pink polka-dots. But don't tell people you're a mixture of a wolf and a hummingbird, because your totem animal has that one covered." I did pick my name, this cross between two disparate creatures, as a way of trying to escape being categorized as one thing or another based on my handle. Of course, people categorize you anyway. They assume gender, religion, fashion statements based on nothing more than a name. Let them see your face or learn about your past history, and they become certain of incontrovertible facts about your psychology and your potential future based on nothing more substantial than side effects of genetics and circumstance. It makes things interesting.
If you are foolish enough to engage my opponents in debate, they will commit the logical fallacy of making appeals to authority, stating that X must be true, unquestioningly, simply because some high leader or spurious bit of scripture stated X. We do not commit that fallacy. When we cite authority, everyone knows that our authority is always right.
Sometimes they will try to convince you of something by stating that "Everyone knows X is true," that all the ignorant masses gathered in their herd like sheep must be bleating in unison because of some self-evident truth. But everyone knows that throughout history the majority has frequently been altogether in the wrong. When we appeal to common sense, we do so only
when the truth clearly is obvious to every sane and rational person.
Our opponents, when questioned, will add to their words many specious and complicated arguments in a feeble attempt to hide the evident contradictions of their position. When they complain that we seem to be contradicting and overcomplicate our arguments, it is because they have no appreciation for the beauties of subtlety and paradox.
There really is no arguing with these people. We have nothing in common.
There really is no arguing with these people. We are far too much alike.