It’s a Matter of Preference
Last Sunday, the serenity of Easter rippled when I noticed a somewhat heated exchange in one of the Facebook Messenger group chat conversations in which I am a member of, I got intrigued with a passionate message of support for pink power. Then there were rebuttal messages from a representative of the red resurgence. What caught me was a comment questioning the content of history books and a reply of inquiry of where then could truth be found if not on books. It’s not really my habit to interact in these gc’s but I felt like being nosy. I wanted to know how the series of back and forth presentation of positions got started. I traced it back to the middle of the morning (when probably many or some of us were attending Easter masses or services), some member posted a link to a video that presents support for the sole female presidential candidate. Then another member sent a message of affiliation with the major opposing candidate. The message was so brief; it was just two words. Then, a handful of supporters from the other side of the town sent a barrage of arguments, questioning the red guy’s choice of candidate. I have to admit the pink panel did raise valid points from history to honesty to the honors of higher education. The pink pals were practically ganging up on the red ranger whose only argument up his sleeve seems to be that his candidate is his personal choice. He was defending his stand with the principle of personal preference. Oh, wait. Later, he did toss in some points about moving on from the past. He did encourage the debaters from the other side of the aisle to do their research, but it seems that in that same session, he had a hard time presenting research based specimens. (This went on about the same time as the group of candidates Lacson, Moreno, Gonzales, sotto, and Ong, sans Paquiao was holding a press conference to give statements which they could easily give to the reporters who are assigned with the beat to follow their respective campaign trails. (I mean, why the need to hold a press conference, when for the past months, correspondents from different media companies have been hounding them. They could declare any statement they want to anytime anywhere. What’s so special about that?)
On the online group, temperature seemed to hike up between the parties as statements turned direct and emotional. Fortunately, some seemingly neutral and level-headed member inserted a proposal of prayer. That diluted the deliberation down. Soon, the participants were exchanging, “peace, brother” greetings.
The following day saw a series of posting of links about the ills of Martial Law, a documentary on the plight of Martial Law victims, the humble beginnings of one favored candidate. Some discreet moves which were not delivered in direct statements but were undeniably intended to take jabs against the red ranger from the day before. This steady stacking of links to videos and sites continued until the third day when hell broke loose. Another gc member (apparently an ally of the Sunday’s red ranger) went on a tirade on cursing against partisan politics in a non-political organization. When I say cursing, I mean he went ahead liberally with f words and the local counterpart of p.i. The Sunday red ranger was quick to stand alongside cursing crony, and took swings at the other sides, even to the point of dropping names. There were even threats and challenges of blocking accounts and leaving the group. The duo did raised good points on the unethical practice of dragging the discussion of politics in a group which was supposed to be intended for professional development of people of similar trade. But what discredited them was their unhinged use of curse words. Now, who’s being unethical?
I don’t remember different parties being this passionate in the election six years prior. Yes, there were DDS then, but no equal fervor on the other side. This time, there would certainly be bruised egos when the smoke settles sometime next month.
Red ranger repeatedly reiterated that whatever argument be laid before him, he would not change his position because it’s his preference. Maybe, that’s what all these political exercises boils down to. Maybe, it’s all personal preference. One decides to go with this color because he/she “feels” he/she’s good. You can’t really get through to him with reason, because decisions have been made based on “feelings”. In the same way, history defenders would not accept any argument from history deniers; or maybe people who think they’re making decisions based on reason actually made their decisions based on their “feelings” on which is reasonable. So, how could you convince a person to change his mind on how he feels?
“Welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions” -Romans 14:1