Recently, a usual everyday incident took place at the National Assembly.
In the beginning, the pro-government MP told the media that he had argued with the opposition MP and struck at him with his hand (“an educative slap”). Then the opposition MP presented the journalists his version of the occurrence telling that actually he had the advantage over his political opponent, gave him tit for tat and hit him with his foot (“he met with my leg”). Such things, of course, have happened both in our and almost in all the parliaments of the world. It’s another thing that one should not be so excited to tell the media about it.
I’m talking about something else. Today, when the “Internet culture” is so developed in Armenia, as well as throughout the world, this, simple to say, boyish approach has become massive. In other words, in any dispute it is important to have your words the last, moreover, possibly piercing and crushing, which will prove that you took the advantage over your opponent. But as long as the person facing you thinks just like that, the dialogue becomes long and boring.
Suppose, an X writes something, the Y interprets, it is followed by dozens of comments, whose authors are solely the X and the Y. The topics may vary: “whether the parliamentary trio will carry out a regime change”, “who is the angel and who is the devil: Russia or the United States?”, “Why does Vardush wear such a short dress?” Pertaining to meaning and content, these questions have approximately the same meaning for me, but, agree that much better opportunities are created for being unfriendly to each other and hitting by hand or foot. I do not know, maybe I am wrong, but it seems to me that if arguing around this kind of issues means “fighting for persuasions”, then this “ideological fight” seems ridiculous to me, and the aspiration of saying “the final word” or “taking the advantage” reminds me of the posture of preschool aged children.
Read also
I have more to confess: even when my viewpoint is argued, the desire to respond and argue by my age-growing is gradually decreasing with me. Let the one arguing with me think that his arguments are invulnerable, and I cannot do anything to oppose them, let him rejoice that he has wrecked and “disclosed” me, what does it change?
I treat this way and recommend others. Rather, not me, but the great poet Joseph Brodsky, ” What your enemies, acquires its value or importance, because, as you react to it all. This can prevent the cells of your brain from the junk excitation. Change the channel: you can’t stop the broadcasting of this network, but at least you can reduce its rating.”
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
