ideas: from people
I am always right. Almost always
I believe we are killing the earth, and only massive, job-destroying action will reverse some of the damage we have done and prevent untold changes to our ecology and how humans live their lives.
I believe Sondre Lerche is the best singer-songwriter you’ve never heard. On the planet.
Short of healing the sick in impoverished lands, I think journalism may just be one of the most noble and important occupational pursuits.
I believe American Beauty is the greatest film I’ve yet seen. It is the definitive fable of a generation.
Bruce McAvaney is the finest sporting commentator in the country. His guttural football calls do things to me. Unspeakable things.
I believe Australia must become a sovereign Republic. It is a symbolic but deeply important step in our nationhood and for our sense of identity as a people.
I believe The West Wing is the finest television show produced. For the pure entertainment of smart characters saying smart things at rapid pace, and the fantasy of politics for pure good.
I believe censorship of any form is morally repugnant. That means we have to live with the unpalatable consequences of free speech, but it’s never quite as bad as the alternative.
I also believe democracy’s great flaw is that dumb people get to vote. But we just have to live with those consequences, too.
Melbourne is better than Sydney.
Ellen really IS my favourite lesbian.
I believe commentators on the Right like Andrew Bolt, Piers Ackerman and Janet Albrechtsen are much more rabid (and prolific) than those on the Left, and between them don’t have a single original idea aside from tired conservative cookie-cutter ideology cemented in the past.
And there really is nothing divine about Miranda Devine.
The world would be a better place if the wretched body of Alan Jones finally succumb to cancer.
I believe religious organisation has been the source of more harm than good in the world. I believe religious leaders who espouse archaic beliefs like rejecting the use of condoms have blood on their hands for sexually-transmitted disease in the Third World; I believe those who preach intolerance against homosexuals are culpable for the hate crimes committed against them and the suicides as a result of the fear and loathing it creates.
Kerry O’Keefe has the most infectious laugh of any human being.
I believe citizens who don’t consume some news media every day are something akin to traitors. It is a civic duty to know what is happening in the world and be part of the global conversation.
I believe love is all you need. (Except for food and shelter, but neither are more important.)
These are beliefs I hold strongly. To my core. I’m well aware most of them (and all the others) are simply personal taste. But they are truth to me. An intrinsic personal truth that requires no definitive evidence.
I am unshaken in my resolve to uphold these truths. I might come to different conclusions in my own time (though it’s unlikely), but I cannot be swayed. By anyone. What’s more, knowing it for myself is rarely enough. I want to sing praise and heap scorn. And I want to convert; like a missionary approaching people convinced they just don’t know any better. I find it difficult to maintain relationships with people who oppose me on an ideological level. Some of this stuff is just too fundamental.
But there is a level of intolerance, of righteous duplicity, involved that doesn’t quite sit comfortably with me. I acknowledge it.
It occurs to me there is a fine line between defending your core beliefs and being a zealot. And maybe there’s no difference at all. Certainly not in the definition.
But I know at some point the persuasion becomes obnoxious. Even hurtful. I’m finding it more and more difficult to know when and where that point is.
Do we censor our biggest ideas? We must, surely, have the courage to stand up for what we believe. It is human nature. But at what point do you concede the point, or at least agree to disagree?
At what point do you shut the hell up?
Seriously. I’m asking…
Tags: ideas Discussion
12 comments for “I am always right. Almost always”
Post a comment
Maybe there’s a zealot gene?
I think the ‘point’ has a lot to do with the ‘love’ and how you interpret both.
I like this:
“I believe citizens who don’t consume some news media every day are something akin to traitors. It is a civic duty to know what is happening in the world and be part of the global conversation.”
I shudder when people say to me they don’t read or watch the news because they’d rather not know. I don’t know what leads to choosing this kind of ignorance but it’s sad. The people who don’t consume news media are less compassionate, engaged, passionate and believe in less.
Couldn’t agree more, @kissability. Unengagement is very unattractive.
Thanks for the feedback! Keep reading…
Do you think I have this zealot gene?
If such a thing exists, should we genetically breed it out of society?
I believe love is inevitably exclusive. Those that say they have love for everyone invariably are more selective. There’s a wonderful irony in religion preaching tolerance yet certain faiths are extraordinarily intolerant of difference.
I think it’s hard to find the balance between “defending your core beliefs and being a zealot”. I struggle sometimes too. I am not a particularly militant about anything and I’m a peace maker, at heart – that helps. I don’t censor my biggest ideas, no one should. I care little for what people think of me because if I’m speaking from a place of awareness, compassion and tolerance, who are they to judge?
Life is too short not to speak up about what you believe in but the way your message is delivered is important (real zealots don’t realise this). I think that conversation, debate and exposure are more persuasive than bloody minded conversion! If only all the Andrew Bolts of the world would realise that because they speak from a place of hate and intolerance, I’m just not listening.
Personal motivation is the only thing that matters.
Campaigning for the purpose of personal gain makes you horrible; fighting for the moral good makes you admirable.
In my opinion, motivation is the only reliable measure of character.
What’s wrong with Alan Jones?
Where to start on Alan Jones, James?
I don’t think anyone in this country whips up the rednecks to more damaging effect than Alan Jones. His call to arms during the Cronulla riots was the best example.
I always think of a scene from Angels in America when I think of Jones – the sad, closeted little man who pulls strings and makes powerful friends to compensate for abject loneliness. The speech from conservative gay lawyer Roy Cohn:
hmmm…the difference between defending your core beliefs and being a zealot…i think it might be that a zealot doesn’t believe others might have core beliefs that aren’t identical to their own. I can’t believe I’m going to write this but a zealot may not recognise “core and non-core” beliefs. For the zealot, core is not even a question to be asked or recognised. for them, there are only beliefs, and the only ones are theirs.
Yes? No? Maybe?
That seems to be the consensus, Wendy. That being a zealot perhaps is where you can’t accept other views exist. That passionate beliefs are fine if you at least acknowledge the opposing view.
I like the theory. It makes me feel better about it.
Zeal is a kind of fanatical enthusiasm. Defending your core beliefs is one thing, but going out and actively propogating them… I don’t believe there’s a difference between that and zealotry.
If there is a difference it’s probably in perception. My righteous warrior is your obnoxious zealot.
As others have said, I think the most important thing to bear in mind is that we could be wrong. About anything. Or everything. We are all zealous on some matters. Not everyone can be right, but we can all be wrong.
Oh, and I’d like to add one to your list. People who willingly use Microsoft products when they are aware of the alternatives should be locked in a small box with spikes on the inside
[...] I am always right. Almost always [...]