Last week I wrote about my renting experience with Watson Realty Corp. In my column, there were some misrepresented facts: after Sharon Giddens left the company on good terms — for she was not fired, nor did she quit — one of my roommates stayed in contact with another person from Watson Realty. I, however, was left in the dark for the period of three months. This was not Watson Realty’s fault. Though our relationship was not ideal, Watson Realty does not deserve the disservice of falsity. My sincerest apologies.
Anyway, I have been known to watch things branded as “liberal comedy” like “The Daily Show,” previously “The Colbert Report” and now “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” “Last Week Tonight,” etc. I watch these shows because I think the hosts are funny, witty, not overly-caustic, and in general, they shed light on — typically — heavier and darker topics.
And of course, I laugh at the ridiculous things that some conservative people say or the way these comedians mock someone like President Donald Trump, but at times, I find that people may take what these comedians say too much to heart. I’m not talking sensitivity from conservatives, but belittling from liberals — and vice versa in the case of conservative political comedy. Specifically, I’m talking about the mindset that comes from laughing at someone and being aware of the line you may cross if you watch too much of these kinds of shows.
When I watched too much of this kind of comedy, I ran into the ease of generalization.
Since Trump would say something stupid about China creating climate change or he would be rude in general, I would then think that anyone who supported Trump tended to be the same way. The more radical things Trump would say and the more his supporters would rally, the more I would think less of his supporters. This thought trend of mine continued and for a moment before I checked myself, I was thinking that all his supporters were racist, xenophobic, stupid and other nasty things. These are characteristics that I would now not brand someone so carelessly.
This was also a trend I saw by the end of the campaign after the results were in. However, what I also saw was the myopia of so many people. Most, at least in my bubble, were negligent to consider how Trump voters (not radical, die-hard supporters) would have felt if they lost. A certain skill we all must have: empathy.
What I’m finally getting at is how we address the huge divide we have in our country right now. In recent events because of the Paris climate agreement, how we, as educated individuals, may address certain adversarial individuals like climate change deniers — to name one issue. Of course, times are changing and more people are accepting this idea, but there are still many in disbelief of the effects of climate change, and the way I see people address these deniers is unsettling.
From what I’ve seen, the way to tackle climate change deniers — and many other issues for that matter — has been to unceasingly lecture deniers with facts. This does not work. Yes, I understand the weird time we’re in where people can seemingly choose which facts they want to believe and how ridiculous that is, but if we desire change, we need a new approach. I don’t have the answers, but maybe if we listened to one another before we set out to lecture someone, maybe, just maybe, that person might listen to us.
Empathy is the tool of change. We must be aware of ourselves and others. Not everyone cares as much as you do. Not everyone knows as much as you may know, but they may be willing to listen to you if you listen to them first — and on the bright side, you might learn some funny conspiracy theories about climate change.
James Hardison is a UF English sophomore. His column appears on Thursdays.
