For starters, let us get
real for a moment: sharing opinions is one of bedrocks of our
democracy, as there are some countries that do not have that necessity. There comes a time when we can elaborate, share, tweet, post (by pictures, blogs, etc.), talk, deliberate and the more about what our opinions mean to us. Sometimes, sharing one’s thoughts and opinions usually is not an issue at hand, but when one imposes their opinions as superior or rightful to others that becomes problematic and seen as an infringement. When someone becomes demonstrably dominate with her/his opinions, that dominance could shows as a sign of unwillingness to disagree cordially.
democracy, as there are some countries that do not have that necessity. There comes a time when we can elaborate, share, tweet, post (by pictures, blogs, etc.), talk, deliberate and the more about what our opinions mean to us. Sometimes, sharing one’s thoughts and opinions usually is not an issue at hand, but when one imposes their opinions as superior or rightful to others that becomes problematic and seen as an infringement. When someone becomes demonstrably dominate with her/his opinions, that dominance could shows as a sign of unwillingness to disagree cordially.
Initially, this idea about the validation of opinions stemmed from our dissonance in our political climate – and I know my opinions differ from many others – but, more so, this societal shift toward discourse has become interesting because sharing opinions (whether political, societal, financial, etc.) has finally broadened my mindset and has empowered me to hold onto my opinions. On the other hand, there are times when I believe some of us find it difficult to agree to disagree with viewpoints such as with economic growth. It is funny how some people may think that cutting funding to programs may fuel a trend to our economy. Certainly I could listen to a differing opinion from mine, but when I tell my viewpoint(s) and one criticizes for sounding non-factual, it certainly can set as condescending. It seems when the tone and context of the dissenting remarks from another’s views might be a factor that either starts a confrontation (possibly verbal or physical) or lead to a rational disagreement among parties of people. Perhaps some of us remain or feel numb to hear dissenting opinions that make us react in certain manners. Just maybe, if we could resolve by consensus – whether by discussion or genuine respect – let people just be and articulate what drives their compassion of their beliefs and viewpoints without denouncing or inferring our voices are more valid than one another. Healthy debates, commonalities and differences could surprisingly give us pause and hold our beliefs dear to ourselves.
On another point, whenever
we conserve our viewpoints close to our hearts, we become responsible for any
criticisms, backlash or consequences for our displays of speech, expression and
any other displays of dissent. In that case, if we demonstrate our motions of
the First Amendment with acts of violence, then some people may perceive those
actions as threatening or uncivil. Even though our intentions are not to be
hateful it could bear those perceptions and ramifications. Therefore, yes, many
people appreciate the uniformity and meaning of our First Amendment of the US
Constitution; however, by unfortunate and unintentional circumstances, we could
face ramifications of our words and actions for demonstrating our civil
discourse. If we misuse the rights of our First Amendment it could later as
consequential – when we did not intend it that way.
Comments
Post a Comment