Conjured Activism

conquering the world one oxymoron at a time

on selling your ideas

December 19, 2006 at 3:06 pm · Filed under people

I saw this book in an airport newstand, and it caught my eye because there was a picture of Michael Moore on the cover. I thought, YES, finally, somebody who doesn’t worship the ground that Michael Moore walks on, and I bought the book hoping to pass some time while waiting for my plane. It turns out that Michael Moore is #1 on the list (the book counts down from 100, Rich & Kathy Hilton, with 10 extras added in to the paperback edition), but his name is accompanied by no commentary, which was very disappointing. I want to know why this guy put Michael Moore as the #1 person screwing up America.

So I started reading the book, and the author first categorizes the people who are screwing up this country (from the feminists, to the white-collar thugs, to rappers who sing about beating up their wives). I agree with the ridiculous things he points out, but I disagree with the nature in which he presents them. It reminded me all over again of when I was in San Diego, listening to some talk about teaching evolution versus intelligent design in American high schools. I felt like the exact problems the author of the book was points out with Michael Moore is what’s also wrong with the author himself (arrogant, thinks he’s better than everybody else).

I suppose there’s no way around that. You write a book titled “100 people screwing up America”, you’re inevitably writing a book about how you think you’re better than those 100 people. Radical ideas by radical people who use too many exclamation points and rhetorical questions in regular prose is what sells books. Expert witnesses who not only presents the evidence needed by counsel, but who can also do it in a way that is degrading and belittling to the other side is what convinces jury members and what wins court cases …

I just wonder why we can’t present our ideas in a selling way without being condescending to the other side, and without giving the impression that we think we are better than other people (especially if their views are different from ours). Is there an inherent conflict in wanting to convince without belittling? I’d like to think not. Ideally, your good ideas, if you present them well, should sell themselves. You needn’t inflict snide, rhetorical, sarcastic comments on the audience about your opponents in order to win them over to your side of the argument.

Permalink

1 Comment »

Keltheyounger wrote @ December 21st, 2006 at 2:09 am

When I was growing up, my family always had that attitude. They made it sound like every Republican was an evil monster waiting to suck the life out of little children. Though I still tend toward the Democrats, I eventually realized that there are many Republicans out there who are genuine decent people.

I think objectivity is one of the highest ideals one can strive to. I think it’s a sign of a more evolved mind, and I don’t mean that to belittle the other side. I think it is a survival instinct we’re born with to feel that the “other” is less than we are. In times of war, how can we kill an enemy if we don’t see them as something less than human? But to move away from those instincts is a big step toward the understanding needed by all sides in a world of peaceful coexistence.

That’s my dramatic way of saying I agree with you. :-)