Sandy Supposes....

To Disagree...

PROMPT: War Chest Wednesday! What is the difference between 'judging' someone and simply 'disagreeing' with someone? Is it possible to let someone know you disagree with them without judging them?

          Hmmm, this is a humdinger of a question. I suppose this hinges upon degrees of seriousness. Is the disagreement life-altering? Life or death? For both judging and disagreeing, opinions are a factor. Sometimes, a judgement is formed from a distance without any interaction, like those dreadful photos that are shared on social media re Walmart shoppers. Invariably, people are captured in strange, or humiliating attire. These shoppers are mocked and judged without their knowledge. Obviously, the photographer formed an opinion, usually a negative, or disagreeing one. I think a true disagreement needs at least two dissenting people, in other words the two people must communicate and participate. They exchange their opinions, and their judgements.

          Facebookers post comments and photos which evoke feelings, comments, advice, criticisms, reactions, opinions, and yes, judgements. It's an atmosphere of sharing, and anything seems to be accepted. Not all sharing is friendly and positive. Not all comments are well-written, or well-received. Not all posts are believable, or truthful, or helpful, or relevant. I think that at the heart of this is judgement. People form opinions that they feel impelled to share. Some people simply wish to provoke. Certain topics stir stronger sentiments.

         Judging and disagreeing go hand in hand with the judicial system. Imagine being a juror seeing, and listening to evidence, and testimony. The prosecution and the defence both present arguments about the same occurrence/crime. What is the character of the defendant? Do the witnesses seem trustworthy, honest, plausible? Does the evidence make sense, is it logical? Jurors are required to make judgements. Jurors do not always agree with each other.

         The current Presidential campaign in the U.S. seems to involve a great deal of mud-slinging, innuendo, gossip, misdirection, and evasion. The two candidates represent two political parties with differing agendas, supporters, solutions, plans, etc. They disagree, they dissent. They have chosen to attack each other personally, more so than debating issues. They question each other's character, in other words, they are judging each other. They have formed opinions.

         People are emotional creatures. Too often disagreements are taken personally. Tempers and hurt feelings flare. A perfect example of this are the myriad of talent shows that have flooded mainstream television. Hopefuls who believe they are the next Elvis, the next Beyoncé, the next Fred Astaire, or whoever eagerly perform their songs and dance routines before a panel of judges considered to be experts in the entertainment field. Despite willingly performing and knowing that they will be either praised, or pilloried, many hopefuls react negatively to being denied a chance to advance in the competition. Essentially, the judges have disagreed that the person is talented, and the disappointed disagrees with this assessment. It's all a matter of opinion.