Zen and the Art of Referenda

zen3Yes voter? No voter? Remain In, Brexit Out or shake-it-all-about political-party floater? Whatever your political persuasion we could surely all do with a happier, more egalitarian referendum this time around, on social media and beyond. To pre-cleanse your referenda muscles and make sure we all make it to the other side a little more intact than previously, just follow these four simple rules with built-in rewards for claiming back positive time and energy to make a great case for your cause.

1. Exempt yourself from discussing politics with masked twats on Twitter.

If someone’s unwilling to show anything traceable of their identity on social media I wager that same someone knows they’re speaking just a tad of shite. Otherwise, why hide? Mysterious avatars featuring weapons, black/red Playboy inspired colour schemes and Twitter handles like @darthbegone2 are basically, in my experience, klaxons for highlighting people who’d never say in public what they say when emboldened by online anonymity. Hit them hard with the block button and if you see them harassing anyone else, report them. Would you speak to a mask-wearer who approached you with aggression in a pub or any other social setting? No? Then you’re off the hook for engaging with that online too. Hurrah!

The breakdown: Time gained by following the rule: sixty-nine million hours per week.
Pros: no energy wasted on twats, possible reform of a twat forced to rethink their ways.
Cons: none

2. Exempt yourself from convincing anyone about what they should vote unless they flat out ask you what they should vote.

This is a major coup, time-wise. Chances are you have absolutely no responsibility to convince anyone about anything to do with their political identity. If that’s the case, you’re in the blissful position of being able to simply listen to other people and not have that hideously compelling feeling of wanting to hook them up to Dr Spock’s mindmeld machine for a bit of brain swappery. Post-listening, you can then state your view, all the better caveated with a phrase like, ‘in my opinion’ or, ‘in my experience’, which reminds everyone that you’re in fact not there to disrespect or behave as if you’re in all ways informed because – NEWSFLASH – NONE OF US ARE! Simultaneously, if the person you’re speaking to is blowing a gasket trying to change your political identity and clearly unfamiliar with an unevangelical path to The Garden of Understanding, you can simply smile enigmatically and go on your way. Know that smiling does not always equal endorsement and life never changed for the better because an irrational person demanded it.

The breakdown: Time gained by following the rule: forty-two full weekends and sixty-five canny lunch hours across a year.
Pros: facial flushing kept to an all time low, deodorants lasting longer, blood pressure flares averted and binge drinking much more likely to end in Abba than the big white telephone calling everyone to tell them they’re bastards.
Cons: none

3. Choose sources, like sauces, very wisely.

There’s nothing quite like the burn caused by the embarrassing heat from the light of being caught with a bad source. Also, getting vinegary ketchup on your chips is shite. So, attend to your sources, like your sauces, with great care. Keep news current and if you do share information from a few years or months ago state the time lapse and why the information’s still relevant. Keep yourself honest about what’s opinion, what’s fact and what biases different sources carry. If you’re a social media hound, pop your own echo chamber with the pins of feeds from at least two sources you disagree with but can concede are bringing information to the table which is well researched or brilliantly expressed. If print media’s your thing, buy a non-tabloid paper you dislike at least once a week. If nothing else, having this information helps develop empathy with other points of view and – #feelthelove – it’s from that kind of place progress and change come. People who feel heard are less likely to shout and more likely to reciprocate listening, rather than just waiting to speak – so hear them.

The breakdown: Time gained by following the rule: None. In fact, in the spirit of honesty we’re fostering here, let’s whip out the truth and admit there’s a deficit. Choosing good sources takes time, a lot of reading and referencing’s not a hobby that’s going to compete with cake-baking. Yet, choosing crap sources is fast, cheat-laden and dirty. Only one of those options contributes to better debate.

Pros: Skyrocketing credibility, integrity ratings at an all-time high and valid use of the emoji with the slick, freshly-painted fingernails totally authorised in every single digital communication.
Cons: none

4. Amplify voices struggling to be heard.

This one’s easy and, when you start it, it’s difficult to know how you ever lived without it. Look around you and listen – who’s that talking? Stats say it’s most likely an able-bodied straight white male who can pay his bills and has some nice things in life. Stats also say that women, people of colour, the LGBTQ community, people with disabilities, people in poverty, refugees and immigrant workers don’t get heard very often at all but have critically relevant perspectives which should dictate huge swathes of our politics. Chances are you haven’t heard those second stats because some bloke mansplain-interrupted over the top of them and drowned out the point. Time to up the volume on some other stations.

The breakdown: Time gained by following the rule: At least ten hours a week. By demoting some of our opinions to make space for those with less privilege we can enjoy learning and observing how that learning changes what we thought we knew. This can be unsettling initially but is nowhere near as weird a trend as a nation who embraced having manky foot skin sucked off by tiny fish in shopping centres so I reckon we’ll get over the weirdness if we try.
Pros: Small talk and patter will be vastly improved, empathy will grow, gratitude for life will expand exponentially and a more caring next generation of humans will thrive. The stakes are really quite big on this one.
Cons: none

Comments (5)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Malcolm Kerr says:

    Like this guide a lot. Item 1 is especially important. People disagreeing with us are unlikely to change their minds whether we put better arguments politely or simply abuse them. It’s people whose views we don’t know that we need to listen to. And very important to ignore ‘masked twats’ who appear to be pro-Indy, too. If you were the British state right now, wouldn’t you be paying some of them?

  2. David says:

    Not bad, but as a pro-Indy person I think it is almost impossible to find “at least two sources you disagree with but can concede are bringing information to the table which is well researched or brilliantly expressed.”

    I see very little truth in the information provided by pro-union sources. Beliefs, yes, but not truth.
    Comments ‘below the line’ on articles in the BBC, Scotsman, Telegraph, Daily Mail, and so on have become full of errors and lies about Scotland, repeated ad nauseam. Articles and comments from such sources bring nothing to the Indy discussion except bile and anger.

  3. David says:

    Not bad, but as a pro-Indy person I think it is almost impossible to find “at least two sources you disagree with but can concede are bringing information to the table which is well researched or brilliantly expressed.”

    I see very little truth in information provided from pro-union sources. Beliefs, yes, but not truth.
    Comments ‘below the line’ on articles in the BBC, Scotsman, Telegraph, Daily Mail, and so on have become full of errors and lies about Scotland, repeated ad nauseam. Articles and comments from such sources bring nothing to the Indy discussion except bile and anger.

  4. c rober says:

    I converted a hard core brit yorskshire man , no voter in 14.

    I offered him an NHS without privitisation , taxation that inst geared for the London South East , reminded him , a miner on where his father and fathers before him industry went , free perscriptions , further education for his scots grandkids , and a future beyond atos and disabled genocide by WM. I also offered better taxes geared towards self employed , pensioner and TAX FREE Soverign investment , a scots NsandI , and not central banks not owned by govts…. or as he offered the Rothschilds.

    What a difference a couple of years is , still is anti EU though , will possibly take a little longer to convince him that the EU rather than being the problem , is a chocolate firegaurd preventing EVEN WORSE actions from WM , like min wages , ZH contracts , Destroying workers rights and so on.

    Still ironically a tory too , but now sees the benefits of YES , its time to bring them in.Offer the modified tory model of wealth creation for the many , wealth protection for all of ethical socialist capitalism.

  5. Tumshie Heid says:

    Enjoyed your guide Heather, as an advocate for people with neurological disabilities and as a disabled person who has in excess of 40 frontal lobe seizures everyday, I found a point or two from rule one contradicts some in rule four though; if you are to apply the widest sense of access and inclusion to disability in terms of listening in order to amplify, as a matter of self protection, whilst many people with neurological disabilities feel the alienation and vulnerability of their disability in terms of social inclusion and stigma, they reach out across social media but feel a great deal of intimidation and fear from it too. There are disabilities which this impacts directly, like the increased seizure count in many epilepsies from a lowered seizure threshold due to any anxiety or fear, as well as the direct implications of issues like this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/20/newsweek-kurt-eichenwald-twitter-epilepsy-seizure

    Many people with neurological and other disabilities attempt to preserve anonymity online for their own safety and are often conflated with ‘twats on Twitter’ when their conditions lead them to belligerently defend their position. They also often hide behind aliases, which make the reason for their anonymity far from obvious, as an extra level of self protection online. A little nuanced discretion is required in determining which is which, blanket use of blocking may have more impact than you think and would serve to do the opposite of amplifying vulnerable voices if applied indiscriminately.

    Rule one and four have more crossovers than many may think, if their advice is to be observed it should be with a little caution in the mix, in my opinion as a person with disabilities who doesn’t use social media for many of the reasons listed. Aside from systemic injustices, it is the single biggest source of impact on my clients dispositions and, by extension, their conditions/disabilities too; if they are excluded, how can their voices be amplified?

Keep our Journalism Independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address to subscribe for free here and receive Bella direct to your inbox.

 
Bella Caledonia