I feel like people approach the term “open minded” nowadays in much the same way they as they publicly identify with quotes of grand selflessness. More specifically, they take the idea as willing to hear, instead of willing to listen, to interact with the idea, to form logical counter-arguments or most importantly, have the heart to accept that your mind can be changed.
Here’s some quick background: I’m what many people would consider “left wing”. I’m a pacifist. I believe that David Cameron is ruling with ignorance; I believe that certain papers are selling by capitalising on prejudices and megalomania. I believe that we should be accepting refugees and putting more money into things that will make life better for the majority (NHS) than safeguarding with paranoia (Trident). And I believe, in my heart, that I am right, and that this is the recipe to being a decent human being.
But of course, I could be so grossly wrong. I’ve never been in a position of wealth and power; I’ve never been a leader, and I’m not the one who has to make difficult decisions and hide the uncertainty to assure my image remains strong willed, whatever the outcome.
Every time I discuss political and humanitarian matters with my friends and we get annoyed at the opposing views, there’s always a tiny part of my mind that says, “What if?” 99% of me is as vehemently against the latest controversial policy as my friends, but 1% of me says, “What if?” And I think it’s important that we take that 1% (for I’m sure that plenty of other people who have it too), and we extrapolate it, using it to view every possible angle and bias.
Sometimes it’s a matter of understanding why the opposing “wing” believes what they do. Are they ignorant and prejudiced, or are we stubborn and self-righteous? I certainly don’t think we are, but it surely can’t be unhealthy to consider this. Today, I saw an article on a group of students who stood up and walked out of the lecture when a controversial figure who hungers for attention (and shall therefore not be named) finished talking. And I was right there with these students, until I saw the comment, “Should have debated with her, typical students, think only their opinion maters…” And of course whilst my initial reaction was that she could not be reasoned with, I then had to stop and realise that the very core of my beliefs is that more people need to put their pride aside and talk. Walking out was a brilliant display of protest, but ultimately you’ve not taught that person anything new. In fact, you’ve probably incited them, more than anything. Closed minds twist events into something they can digest and turn against others instead of themselves.
I feel very strongly about allowing refugees into the country. They’re fleeing warzones, and it is our duty as fellow humans – of no nation but one world – to shelter those in need as best we can. I think that keeping them all out due to the potential danger of terrorists hiding among them would be to fall prey to the very nature of terrorism: spreading fear, disrupting all that is good in the world. But. BUT. The 1% remains. At least some of those who want to close the borders do so not out of irrational prejudice, but legitimate caution. I’m sure that if I were put in direct danger due to the refugee situation, I’d regret my stance. It’s not something to be taken lightly.
It is something to be discussed like civilised people.
Democracy does not work when people are not heard. And it’s not just the common person who isn’t heard, it’s the government. We’re not listening to them. I abhor saying that, but look at any comments section in social media when official news sources post parliamentary matters. We behave like beasts, and whilst it’s only representative of a vocal minority in the direct sense, it’s not all that less extreme with the majority. Whilst I disagree heavily with most of what the government says and does nowadays, it’s no surprise they’re not listening when our best retorts are to call them names and form arguments on false facts and hearsay. If we truly oppose the very nature of what they are doing, we must listen closely to their side of the argument, understand why they believe how they do, and use facts and measured, in-depth discussion of universal topics such as the nature of being human to debate against them, and implore them to view events from perspectives outside their own pockets and legacies.
Perpetually Perturbed 