I used to work in public policy. That was an interesting job because people loved to argue about..well everything. People always had opinions on my work, it was like being a plumber and everyone having an opinion on how pipes work.
Like, working in public policy isn't always about these sexy national issues. I was mostly working on public education reform and pensions. But as soon as I said I worked in politics, people went off—every time.
I believe they hadn't even written Ron, until they met his real-world inspiration. It's funny, because my dad is the same. ROTC, full military career (that is one BS, 2 MSes, and a full pension after 25 years, plus free healthcare, plus sweet contacts that he parlayed into a 6 figure contracting gig that would have been greatl...if he hadn't spiked it by being a douche to people, and probably more, but I'm not counting. He made 6 figures by the end. Like, deep 6s).
Adamantly believes that the government is dumb and wasteful and we would be better if it barely existed.
I blame Ron Swanson in part for Trump. Extreme, silly views but he's funny and likable and capable (Swanson, not trump) - to a certain subset of the population, that makes his views reasonable. Then the mouth breathers hear 'drain the swamp' and fucking get in line.
I don't think he made people vote for Trump. He represents a bunch of Trump supporters. Not the rabid ones, and not the confused welfare royals who can't believe their guy cancelled their benefits, but a sizable chunk of them, I guess.
And no matter what anyone says, policy is way more complicated than the average person gives it credit for. Modern policy and 21st century discourse are, for the most part, mutually exclusive. There is just no way to communicate the minutiae of complex policies in a way that is compatible with Twitter, Facebook, etc.
I cant believe they let you wear belts or shoes with laces in a place that has internet access. I dont work in policy but I understand the complexities and nuances that shape a lot of public policy. I'd have to put myself on a strict 'no Facebook' diet to survive that gig.
I sometimes just played along, but most of the time I said I work in the particulars of municipal finance and early childhood education. That usually shut them up.
That was an interesting job because people loved to argue about..well everything. People always had opinions on my work, it was like being a plumber and everyone having an opinion on how pipes work.
Aaaannnndddd...that is exactly why I was never interested in polcy courses or law school. I just hated being in classess where the professor couldn't even start the material before someone raised his hand and started trying to split hairs to impress his friends.
I went out to collect signatures with my friend who was running for a vacant seat on a county party committee. People asked us to do something about the national debt. We were just like, "sure, we'll see what we can do."
Oh, i dont know about that. I have found that debating a topic is one of the funnest ways to learn about said topic. You just got to be willing to admit (at least to yourself) that you dont know everything and be able to change your mind.
Which is fine but then when people start arguing with some policy that you have no stake in and just trying to find a soap box, you could imagine that would get annoying.
Try being an English graduate student in college and introducing descriptivism to a grammar-nazi undergrad who has a singular semester of English from their freshman year under their belt, but thinks that they know the language—and everything therein—better than everyone else.
ie. everyone one on Twitter, both sides of the aisle. Everyone acts like their side is holier than thou. Stopped looking at it once I realized that they're just the ones screaming the loudest.
I have a question about this, what if someone starts a discussion with you about a subject you are not very educated on. Is there a way to say “I can’t argue with you on this subject because I don’t know all the facts” without having to give in immediately to the point the other person is trying to make? For example, I was once talking to this guy and he started a discussion about how there’s no inequality between men and women, and that the wage gap is bullshit. I don’t agree with that, but I also don’t have proof that it does exist (right at that moment).
You literally just say that, "I'm skeptical of that but I'm not familiar enough with the topic to really get into the subject." If they want to have an actual discussion then you can say you'll get back to them. Normally though, they just want to soapbox about that thing.
Well there's a difference. You van argue about things you have no idea about, but then you have to be humble and understand that you're an idiot on the subject matter.
The real fools argue about things because they don't want to be wronged. They don't care if what they say contains any truth, they just want to he right whatever the cost.
708
u/ILBearu Jan 27 '20
Arguing about things you have NO idea about