Disclaimer: This is not actually a political post, even though I am going to mention Impeachment.
I just read a news story that impeachment is not popular in what are known as “swing states.” I have lived in a swing state, and appreciate the generally kind and respectful nature of people who live there. I can envision such people wanting to avoid impeachment because it is messy and unsavory and divisive, regardless of whether they find the actions of the president to be appropriate or not.
I am always astounded by the reality that wonderful, decent human beings will take what I perceive as unfortunate behavior over confrontation any day of the week.
Like it seriously blows my mind.
And it causes me to wonder if there is something wrong with me that I lack the ability to just roll down the shades and ignore the drama going on outside.
Because trust me on this — I totally lack that ability.
I have had occasions in recent weeks to observe my reactions to what I perceive as unfortunate behavior, and I am not just talking about the national news.
Fascinating stuff, all this self-awareness.
I recognize that where I used to wade right on in, I am much better at hitting pause and considering what I might not know or understand about said situation. This is a good thing.
However, hitting pause doesn’t mean I let something go — quite the contrary. While my response is suspended, my actions are not. Instead, I am obsessively seeking evidence and data to support or refute my initial impression(s).
Frankly, it is exhausting.
The past week has reminded me of an unpleasant reality: When unfortunate behavior cannot be disputed or covered up, the strategy shifts to attacking or dismissing the person (or process) noting the unfortunate behavior.
Because of the aforementioned inability to pull down the shades on things, and because of my persistent and dogged determination to establish accuracy before I react to unfortunate behavior, just know that when I do identify unfortunate behavior I am as sure as humanly possible that the evidence supports the conclusion.
The dog was shown after the prohibited surgery. The person did cheat. The colleague did plagiarize. Policies were not followed. And so on.
In fact, I believe that being dismissed or attacked means I hit the evidential bullseye, so to speak.
Shooting the Messenger, also known as an ad hominen attack, is what we do when we cannot dispute facts. It is a dishonest, unfair, unkind way to divert attention from the unfortunate truth.
I am always surprised that people actually fall for all that nonsense.
But what really blows my mind is that some people truly do not care about the unfortunate behavior in the first place, no matter how well-documented.
Whereas I see unfortunate behavior as something that needs to be addressed, others see the cost of addressing the unfortunate behavior — or even acknowledging the unfortunate behavior — as too great.
Huh.
Humans are so interesting.
Okay — given that we have different responses to the same behavior, wouldn’t it be better to just acknowledge and accept the differences instead of attacking the character of those with a different opinion?
Of course, that requires that people agree on what they are seeing. I have been trying to think of an example of how that can happen with a good outcome and think I have one — but this post is too long and so let this end as…
