Everyone has their opinions. And everyone has counterpoints to certain topics of discussion. That is of course a given.
But here’s a hot tip: If you’re going to share those, first make sure they at least convey what you’re trying to say and don’t inadvertently make you look bad.
I recently mentioned that my union is currently on strike. One of the main items the union wants to negotiate about with the company (/government, in this case the owners of the company) is job security.
In looking over some early newspaper articles about the strike, there were comments on the articles citing variations of what has become a common take on any discussions of anything good that anyone else may get: “No one else has that. Why should they?”
Here, that meant job security. The person making the comment never had that, so why should those people get it?
In the U.S., this has been the cried retort to any discussion of topics like student debt forgiveness: “We had to pay back our student loans, so why shouldn’t they?”
Dear reader, please, whenever you wish to chip in your two cents in a discussion where someone stands to gain ground in whatever field, by all means, counter away, if your points are actually valid. But never use this argument.
It’s… well… dumb.
The whole point of that argument is that the group in question, the ones who would benefit, should rightfully have to contend with, suffer with the same thing that you did, or that you still do.
‘If I don’t have job security, neither should they.’
‘If I had to pay back my student loan, so should they.’
Sincere question, though: If no one should get by without having to deal with the struggles you did, without any benefits or bonuses because you didn’t get any, then how, pray tell, does anyone anywhere ever make progress?
On a bigger scale, if everyone felt that way all the time, how could humanity as a whole ever advance?
After all, if that group is getting something good that we never had and we stop it, they’re now in the same situation we are. They’re kept in the same situation everyone is. That only serves to maintain the status quo.
How would that have gone in the past?
“Why should they get a press to make printing faster and more efficient when we had to write everything by hand?”
“Why should they get carriages that move on their own, without needing horses, like we did?”
“Why should those people fly when we never did?”
… the list goes on and on, and grows by the day.
Suggesting that no one else should get anything you didn’t runs at exact opposites to any progress for them or anyone else, and does so entirely and solely because you didn’t get whatever they’re getting.
If you’re thinking “Why should they get [that] when we didn’t?” is a good argument, you’re wrong.
If you’re thinking it’s a self-important, selfish, myopic, detrimental (in brief, dumb) argument that only tries to keep everyone down, you’re correct.
Debate better.