Korean Job Discussion Forums

[billybrobby]

I've been thinking lately about the nature of disagreements and how so many of them are not related to the facts at hand but are more driven by personal pride and other petty concerns.

For example, take the Dokdo controversy. Now, my ultimate position is that regardless of historical claims, good relations between Japan and Korea are more important than any fishing or mineral rights associated with the Dokdo islets, and they are certainly more important than ownership of the actual islands which are rather small and inconsequential.

I've found that if I dicuss this with a Korean person, they almost invariably start from the mainstream position that any Japanese claim to Dokdo is an insult that is not to be stood for. But if I acknowledge the validity and justifiability of their position and express my position in a reasonable way, we almost alway find a common ground on the issue. But then there are other times when I find myself tired of all the nationalism associated with the Dokdo controversy and I get downright condescending and contrarian about it. And then it almost always turns out that the person with whom I'm talking to completely disagrees with me. And now I think it's not because of the concrete facts surrounding the issue, but more that they've been directly insulted by what I've had to say and are responding to it on a personal level.

And really, this is only fair because I have been condescending and somewhat disingenious from the start. Now, fortunately, I've been able to elicit both kinds of responses, but I imagine that there are some people who find themselves so unable to reconcile themselves with the mainstream Korean position that they only elicit the latter type of response i.e. indignant unreasonableness. And as a result, they are confident in the fact that Korean people are as a whole entirely unreasonable. But in fact, it's not so much the fault of Korean people, but rather the divisive way in which they approach the issue. In other words, they broach the issue in such a way that it can only confirm their preconcieved notions about how Koreans think.

And this is only one example out of many. But in my experience, the way you approach an argument and the way you state your case has a vast impact upon how your audience will receive it. As rational people, we would like to think that arguments are won and lost by facts and reason alone, but all too often they come down to a battle of personal wills. And so there are certain people who walk around convinced that Korean people are wholly unreasonable when much of the problem stems from the incredulous and condescending way the person approaches talking to Korean people.

An example of this would be Shakuhachi's blog Occidentalism.com. It's an interesting blog and he's apparently put a lot of effort into it, but it devotes so much energy to insulting Korean people, historically, sexually, and otherwise, that it completely taints any debate that might occur. As a result, the people arguing the Korean position become completely indignant, and somewhat rightfully so. And in turn, Shakuhachi assures himself that Koreans are generally indignant and unreasonable. But really, in the end, it's just an exercise in mental masturbation. Because Shakuhachi frames the debate in such a way that it only serves to reinforce his own notions of how Koreans think. In other words, he's mainly arguing against his own conception of the "Korean" argument.

[gmat]

Billy: you have too much time on your hands

[billybrobby]

Man, when I reread that it kinda seems like a bunch of rambling bullsh1t, doesn't it?

Here's another example to make it more clear. I'm American and I'm totally willing to listen to criticisms of America from people who come from other countries. Usually, the main problem I have with such diatribes is that they are incomplete. But sometimes, when I'm listening to such things, I get the feeling that the person is just taking stabs at America to get a rise out of me. So I I respond in kind by making pretty unreasonable defenses of American policies. It's not that I disagree with the facts at hand, it's just that I get tired of self-righteous blowhards. If they had laid out their arguments in a less aggressive manner, they'd probably find nothing but agreement from me. But when it becomes a pendantic, categorical listing of all things wrong American, I can't help but recoil against it.

[mithridates]

I like to be wrong too though. I thought that Singapore didn't have prostitution because they outlaw oral sex there, but it turns out that isn't the case. Imagine my embarrassment if I had been talking to the Prime Minister about prostitution in Singapore and was all "Mr. Harper, Singapore has pretty much no prostitution because they don't stand for it" and he was like "Uh...no. It's Canadians like you that don't know anything about the rest of the world that sometimes make me want to quit this job early and forget that we both hold the same passport." That would be embarrassing.

[gmat]

Billy, just stop listening to those people. It is not worth the effort. As soon as some self-righteous blowhard begins, look at your wrist, say "Is that the time" and walk away. Why aggravate yourself? Life is too short to waste on a** ho1es.

[Qinella]

[mithridates]

This thread reminds me, I've often wondered what would happen to the board if for a few days the names and avatars on the left were made to disappear. It would be really odd seeing people answering each other based on what they've written as opposed to who they are.

[gmat]

mith: I think it would be complete chaos. No accountability brings out the worst in people.

[doggyji]

[Ya-ta Boy]