nanojath's Journal: The Merest Shred of Truth

Is a third side possible? What I'm struck by more and more often is that the general tone, theme, apparent goal of advocacy, whatever its political or ideological flavor, seems to be all the same. Bombast, rhetoric apparently chosen for flair rather than veracity, relating to the opposing viewpoint only through making a charicature or straw man of it, through ridicule or attack.

The confidence that people who are clearly no smarter or better informed than me have in their beliefs about exceptionally complicated topics alarms me. I certainly relate more personally to certain ideologies - a particular side of the political spectrum, certain religious and spiritual contexts, and so on. But more and more I find myself exceptionally reluctant to embrace or identify with these sides of things. The advocates seem far, far too sure of themselves. I'm not exactly happy with my own confusion and uncertainty, but it is honest, or at least more honest.

Is there any escape from getting pulled into acting on behalf of one side or the other, indeed can the viewpoint of uncertainty, being truly open to changing or developing opinions based on developing information, can this stance ever have traction in a world where the structures of power have so finely developed the we're-right/they're wrong approach?