While your comment is short, you’ve said a lot. Our response:
There’s responsibility on both sides. Do you agree with that? If you do, what is the listener’s responsibility?
You’re right, the communicator has the responsibility to clearly communicate. But as we said in the OP, people communicating ideals often don’t have the vocabulary to do so, so THE LISTENER’s role is to probe, ask questions, seek to understand, before replying and definitely before drawing conclusions, such as “oh, this person doesn’t like capitalism. He must be a socialist.”
You may know what “socialism” means, but the person speaking might have something else in mind, but doesn’t have adequate words to express it. Effective communication requires both people performing both roles. SO if you, as a listener are assuming you know what people are talking about, without asking clarifying questions first, you’re in for miscommunication, arguments and strained relationships. Which is what we’re seeing in many countries. Including the US.
As an aside, many people asking for something different from capitalism don’t call what they are asking for “socialism”. Usually, some listeners label such people with that term. They (listeners) don’t seek to understand. Instead they listen from their own comfortable point of view, which often is fueled by fear, label the speaker from that fear, then respond to what the person is saying as if their label accurately corresponds to who that person is or what he or she thinks or says.
Do you do that? By your response, it seems to us that you do.
don’t try to whitewash this ideology.
So now we’ll ask: Please tell us what you mean by “whitewash?” Because we think we know what you mean, but we want to make sure before we respond to this comment.
Do you think we are whitewashing our ideology?
You don’t like that someone calls you a “Socialist”, then you should explain what Socialist is and why you are not one of them instead of trying to make the term meaning something better then it actually means.
So now, are you saying that in addition to being sure they are communicating clearly, the communicator also has to clarify for listeners what they are hearing after they’ve been misheard?
So instead of a listener asking questions, they can knee-jerkingly label someone, then it’s the responsibility of the speaker to clean up the listener’s lazy listening?
Is that what you’re saying?
Isn’t that putting both the role of communicator and listener both on the communicator? What is the listener’s role then? Wait until the communicator stops speaking so the listener can say his piece?
Yes, people are afraid of Socialism and rightly so. Socialism inevitably leads to dictatorship and break up in economy.
Socialism does lead to economic failure. As we wrote earlier, capitalism does too. It just takes longer. Both depend on the exact same factors to function. So both have the same flaws.
Otherwise what is next? Someone saying that we should not be afraid of National Socialism because he was called a “Nazi” and decided to “reclaim” the term?
🙄 Thanks for proving Godwin’s Law.
First off, you’re taking this conversation to this extreme example, which to us demonstrates a lack of logical thinking, a slippery slope argument, and potentially, a little lack of emotional intelligence:
Second, we aren’t reading any empathy for communicators in your response.
So we have to ask: Do you really not believe there is any role as a listener, any responsibility for making sure communications are received?
Are you saying you’ve never been a communicator and experienced not being understood by your listener? We’re 100 percent sure the answer to that second question is “no, there are times when I’m not understood”. Especially if you’re married 😜
But also because lazy listening is rampant in modern society.
Fun aside, in other words, it sure seems to us that you are putting all the responsibility on one party of a two party dynamic, so that you can lazily listen, which isn’t listening at all. Is that what you’re doing? Is that what you’re saying? (notice what we’re doing here 😉)
What we’re saying is such statements as this Godwin’s homage, or any form of speech, should not trigger fear and its accompanying knee-jerk reactions expressed as speech. Having your fear (and then your behavior) triggered by someone’s words, demonstrates lack of self control and maturity as well as low emotional intelligence.
Let’s look at your homage to Godwin’s Law, for example. If you have emotional intelligence, maturity and self control demonstrated by good communication skills, and you have no other contextual information about the speaker (such as demonstrated behavior or historical information about the speaker, for example) the appropriate response to such a situation (if we understood it accurately) is to first seek to understand…
From Stephen Covey:
If you’re like most people, you probably seek first to be understood; you want to get your point across. And in doing so, you may ignore the other person completely, pretend that you’re listening, selectively hear only certain parts of the conversation or attentively focus on only the words being said, but miss the meaning entirely. Do any of the following sound familiar?
Seeking to understand means employing effective listening skills….from University of Chicago:
Back to your Godwin’s law homage: No, that’s not next. But let’s take this Godwin’s law homage and learn from it.
Here’s what we would do, if, like we said above, we had no other information about the person. We’d ask/probe:
“Hey man, looks like you’re calling yourself a Nazi. Our experience is people who have referred to themselves that way believe XYZ and do XYZ and want XYZ. Do you believe that way, do those things and want that kind of future?”
And then we’d listen while seeking to understand what the person is saying.
Usually though, people who claim that term (Nazi) demonstrate behavior consistent with it. So you usually have more information to draw conclusions from.
In the case of people calling others socialists, usually the obvious lack of substantial context is ignored. Usually because the listener isn’t listening.
Just because a person wants free education doesn’t make them a socialist, for example. They may want free education, but not know how to make that happen. OR they may know of only historical ways (taxes, government supplied, etc.) to have that. But when they are knee-jerkingly labeled what they aren’t, it’s no wonder they sometimes appropriate the term.
It’s always better, in any conversation, for the listener to perform their role to the best of their ability. That means: seek to understand first. If you don’t, as a listener you’re just being lazy and contributing to many problems we see in the world.