And by reducing communication, it reduces the chances of people changing their beliefs. It might even strengthen their existing beliefs. And that goes for both sides of the argument, so you better make sure you're right before you start jumping on others for their 'wrong' beliefs.
I consider it an important goal to be as patient and open to communication as possible with others, and politely decline communication (or friendship) only when it's clear that there is nothing to be done, and that our views are too far apart.
Often I've failed at that. I've had my moments where someone's views were so offensive to me that I could not stay calm and continue conversing, but I consider that my failing, and something to work on. And to some extent I accept that I have my limits.
One of the reasons I take this approach, is that I've been utterly wrong in my beliefs in the past (conservative Christian, bible-belt style). Or rather, I think I was utterly wrong. And yet I was the same 'rational' person I am now.
Another reason is that I've spent most of my life being around wildly different people and cultures and belief systems. And the one thing it made me realize is that most people are not 'evil' in their beliefs, but that they either 1) never really thought about them much, or 2) made a fundamental error at some point of the process.
For example, it was only when I started reading 'republican' blogs that I started to understand and to a degree even appreciate their point of view on many things. Understanding the religious elements in this dynamic made this a bit easier too.
Perhaps the problem the author describes is a result of people living in very 'homogenous' surroundings, and as a result perhaps they never learned how to disagree in a civil way, or respect someone's views even though they disagree with them.
Say thanks. Even if you disagree with the point being made it's always insightful to hear another point of view. Whether the insight is regarding the point itself or why others hold this different point of view. Discourse is one of our best tools for understanding the world around us and we should always appreciate it.
For some reason we have almost completely lost the ability to disagree with each other civilly. I'm not going to bother opening the can of worms as to why I think we have but I think something that can help is a reminder that: if someone's opinion is at odds with yours it does not invalidate yours or you in anyway, and we should never treat it as an attack on us even when we think it is meant as one. There's no winner in that game.
This is just how people should communicate with each other. It's polite, it invites others to be civil yet still argue with your point, and it doesn't appear arrogant.
If I enter a conversation where I'm unsure how the audience will interpret my opinion, I'll start by making sure everyone knows that I'm open minded, have an opinion, and have no expectation of others to have the same.
I'll follow-up with my thoughts on the matter, and close by reassuring my audience that it's just an opinion, I'd love to hear their arguments too, and yes, I AM confident in my views, but I've certainly been wrong in the past, so I'm all ears.
Why not point out why you disagree instead of just insulting someone? If you want to change minds, or even be tolereted in conversation, this is not the way to do it.
If you get into an argument with someone and they keep coming back for more, they probably enjoy it in some way. Just make it clear that while you disagree, you still respect them as a person. You'll probably be fine.
Rarely does one get into an argument with a whole group. That's a different game that is best avoided.
You don't get to tell another person what beliefs they are allowed to have.
For example you listed certain things that you think everyone must agree with.
But another person might think those things are unimportant and climate change is the thing no one is allowed to disagree about "because it's going kill everyone", which makes it easily outweigh your things.
> I have no need or desire to pretend that we’re having a mere policy disagreement.
In your mind everyone must agree with you, except on things that you define as "policy disagreements"?
What happens when another person feels just as strongly as you, but in the other direction? Is the only possible result a never-ending fight?
You seriously can not think of single argument against your positions? If you can't, then you are problem, not them.
People can't seem to tolerate dissent or contrary opinions worth a damn nowadays; is it possible you're not actually super argumentative after all? I mean far be it from me to encourage someone who's honestly self-examining, to look away from the mirror and blame everybody else in the world... but still. Consider the environment you're working in.
But to the degree it's your fault, and even if it's not, it will help others digest your arguments if you preface/frame them a little bit. "The following is me trying on ideas for size." or "Hey what if..." or making clear it's just your opinion rather than The Truth... "I don't believe in ___ - I'm more of the opinion that ___" Or there's always the standard disclaimer, although I find those kind of ineffective and I'll give you an example: "By this I'm not trying to imply that your very existence is a foul and intolerable travesty that must be eradicated across the land henceforth or anything like that." It's ineffective because despite themselves they won't think "Oh that's good," they'll be more like "HEY he said my existence is a travesty!!!"
Anyway as a final note, some tact & humility is always called-for, since we're all just idiots and precocious apes without the fur. You don't have a direct line to The Truth any more than anybody else.
This is the way. You don't even have to argue, it's usually enough to confidently note that you disagree with the points being made. In a group setting, that's all it takes to prevent a false impression of consensus from emerging. In private settings, it can plant that seed of doubt.
Very rarely will anyone push you to justify your disagreement, and you absolutely don't need to engage if they do. In a friendly context you can say it's not worth arguing about, in a more adversarial context you can let the other person know you have no obligation to engage.
Take a note from the people who deprogram extremists or cult members. You won't get far if you argue with the person all the time, nor if you pretend they're right. You confidently tell them they're wrong on this one, make it clear this doesn't affect your opinion of them as a human being, and change the topic to something friendly. They have enough self-doubt to do the rest for you.
We should shut down other people who are being needlessly facetious.
But to suggest that rejection should be our default behavior is absurd. Discussion should be encouraged because, more often than not, neither side is 100% correct. The way we further ourselves is by talking to those people with dissimilar views.
This might not be ideal, but I just don’t bother engaging with people where there are deep fundamental differences in terms of basic values or worldview, especially when it’s obvious they’re not interested in hearing anything contrary. My goal isn’t to convince anyone, it’s to find people with whom I already have some shared basis of understanding and reach a point where we can at least understand each other’s perspective.
If I’m truly confident that somebody else is deeply and fundamentally wrong, like creationists or Holocaust deniers or whatever, I don’t take responsibility for their misconceptions and I don’t think I have anything to learn from that person so I just ignore them. Convincing such a person that they are wrong conveys zero benefit to me and is not something that the other person even wants me to do for them. I guess a more positive way of phrasing that is that, when I pick arguments, I do so just as much to give the other person a chance to convince me. If there’s no chance of that happening, it’s not worth my time.
I've learned to be careful about whom I discuss things with. If you talk to the wrong crowd, all you're going to get is unreasonable and angry people. People have to be primed and qualified before you share too much, or else they will react violently to your message.
I don't think that there's any problem with disagreement or common and civilized discussion. The problem arises when the discussion turns into a contention, and the contention gives into resentment, bitterness, name-calling, etc. Once something has devolved that far, it is generally irredeemable, so if you things heading down that path I think it's more often better to just leave it, even if the original comment is inflammatory and accusatory, because those people have already forsaken reasonability and intelligence (usually as a response to being stumped), and what's the point in discussing a thing with one like that, or one whose biases are immovable and emotional?
If I were having a conversation with a friend I would prefer Prrometheus' comments to yours. If I were told in response to something I said: "Belief qua belief does not deserve respect", first of all I would think "Alright! Half-baked Latin! That justifies the price we paid for these coffees!" but also I would be happy to be given the chance to advance the conversation. I would have been given a choice either to explain to my friend that I had not got my point across and to try again, or I could discuss why "belief qua belief" does deserve respect.
However, if the conversation began with my friend telling me "you will probably just dismiss this" and especially "many others believe this" I would feel insulted/dismissed.
> IMO anyone who disagrees either doesn't know enough of "the situation" or has simply scanned over your words, not actually digested them.
That's not a useful stance to take on things. "Anyone who disagrees with this is ignorant or didn't understand" is a recipe for never having a useful conversation.
You want people to change their minds? Spend at least a little time listening to them. Not "I'm waiting for you to shut up" fake listening, actual listening. Learn why they think what they do. You have to counter their biases/ignorance/arguments on their own terms, anything else is more self-important posturing on your part than useful debate.
But the strategy of defining disagreement as evil, and then stating that the other person is so morally below you as to be not worth communicating with, is a great way to ensure you'll never have to question or change your beliefs. Cognitive dissonance: solved!
You didn't justify anything logically, you're expressing a great deal of emotions, particularly anger and frustration because you can't accept that people might have a different opinion from yours.
Disagreements are not a personal attack on you, no one knows you or is going to use any of this against you. Remain civilized and respectful with those you engage in discussion without presuming bad intentions and prejudicing them.
If you can't do that then so be it, but this advice is for your own personal well being. I don't really care at the end of the day what kind of unempathic outraged psychopath you've decided to construct in your mind about me, all I'm trying to let you know is that having those kinds of thoughts about people who disagree with you is inherently unhealthy and only results in you becoming a jaded and cynical person.
Choose what you wish to do with this advice and all the best to you buddy.
This is such a refreshing comment. It's far better to engage in dialogue with those whom you disagree in order to understand their position opposed to assuming they are evil, stupid, or otherwise sub-human. Wouldn't it be wonderful if such an approach was applied not only to religious conversations but those of politics, work disputes, conflicts with your significant other...everything?
you're obviously free to believe whatever nonsense you want, but it says more about your lack of social skill than anything approaching a truth.
I go to a D&D group with 2 devout christians, 1 agnostic, 1 atheist, and 1 hindu.
We've all been good friends for probably 15 years at this point. Do you think we all agree?
maybe stop limiting yourself.
reply