When Questioning leads to Demonization

[AgnosticBoy]

Many agnostics tend to have the question-everything attitude. One challenge they may run into is being demonized for questioning (or considering something alternative to) some political, religious, or philosophical view. I have already discussed elsewhere about how agnostics tend to be labelled as closeted Christians or closeted atheists (or atheists with no balls), depending on which view the agnostic defends or goes against. But if the agnostic wants to get into politics, with the same question-everything attitude, that's where I think they can potentially run into trouble not only with being labelled as the opposing side, but even as being a bigot, unpatriotic, and other similar inflammatory words that politicians tend to throw around to demonize their opponents.

Some examples I can think of is, say that an agnostic wants to question some part of the LGBT narrative?
Say that the agnostic wants to question some of the Christian values?

I don't think it would be too hard to imagine the word bigot, immoral, and other words being thrown around even just for questioning.

For Discussion:
1. What are some things that an agnostic can do to preempt being demonized just for their question-everything attitude? (Of course, if you say something that is hateful or harmful to a group, then you would fit the label).
2. Share your own experiences, and what you think you could've done to preempt it.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

What are some things that an agnostic can do to preempt being demonized just for their question-everything attitude?

One thing I tend to do is to preface my comments with some relevant context of my position before I address anything in particular. For instance if I was going to make a comment about something I disagree with, one thing I tend to do is to say that I don't agree with such and such entirely, but rather just an aspect of it. Or if I'm against some ideology entirely, then I preface my comments with saying that I have a simple disagreement but I do not hate it.


Something more aggressive the agnostic can do if prefacing their comments doesn't work is to expose the person making the charge of bigotry. Show that person is attacking you just for questioning, and if so, that means they want their view to go unquestioned.

You can also show such a charge of bigotry is only being made by one side. In a politically polarizing environment, real bigotry would likely be when both sides would condemn your view as being bigotry.

 

[bbyrd009]

im recently playing around with not developing or having an opinion about many things, or even pretending that that is my position when i do have one. Too early yet to really say what effects if any that will have, but i am noticing some interesting reactions based upon others’ desire for polarity/lack of polarity

 

[AgnosticBoy]

im recently playing around with not developing or having an opinion about many things, or even pretending that that is my position when i do have one. Too early yet to really say what effects if any that will have, but i am noticing some interesting reactions based upon others’ desire for polarity/lack of polarity

To me, it some times feel like some state of meditation, like an emptying of the mind before you evaluate something. Others might just say you're being neutral. I don't think it's natural though; it takes effort.

I thought I had a conversation somewhere about the benefits of that. I'll link it here if I can find it.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Couldn't find that discussion on the benefits of neutrality. Probably confused that with the conversations on being open-minded.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

1. What are some things that an agnostic can do to preempt being demonized just for their question-everything attitude? (Of course, if you say something that is hateful or harmful to a group, then you would fit the label).

One thing I tend to do is to preface my comments with some relevant context of my position

Just wanted to share a recent example of where I had to preface my comments. I recently made a post about the war in Ukraine that is unpopular. I think that those who are for the war in Ukraine would try to demonize me as being for Russia, or being a communist, or against Democracy, etc. But to preempt this, I sort of already address the type of attacks I might get with the following before I offer my view on Ukraine war:

As with any controversial view, I find it helpful to preface my statements to tamp down on any pushback for simply offering an unpopular view (eventhough it's possible for the unpopular view to be backed by evidence). I strongly accept that Russia was in the wrong to invade Ukraine. I also believe that Ukraine is in the right to defend itself. Given all of that, I think that it has come to a time for the US to stop supporting Ukraine's war efforts. I also would say that we should focus our efforts on a peace deal.

Some may still choose to demonize me or my position despite my statement, or they might say they don't believe me. At that point, I think I can then start exposing why someone would choose to demonize instead of engaging my position with evidence. One reason is that they are more interested in taking sides than getting to the truth. Another thing I can bring up is that the demonization is simply an attempt to silence me. I can also play out the logic of those who would demonize. Such demonizers probably think that we can cancel Russia or never have any dialogue or dealings with them, which of course would be impractical and dangerous in some instances. I can also bring up how demonizing leads people to divide as opposed to uniting despite our differences in opinion. I think there are many more tactics that I can expose by those who only want to demonize.