|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: How Do You Deal With People Who Disagree With You?
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
I don't know if any of you have noticed lately, but I see things all over the WWW that purport to separate humanity into two groups: the ones who are "right" because they agree with the premise of - whatever - and the unwashed and wrong heathens who disagree.
Does someone have to agree with you to be right?
As a card carrying Libtard, am I justified in not liking a card carrying conservative?
Is that what God wants for us?
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Disagreeing with and disliking are mutually exclusive.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
I think it depends on what you are disagreeing about. Some things are able to be overlooked or ignored. Some are more important.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Is that what God wants for us?
You mean the supreme being who said that either you accept everything he's ever said (or his vicars on earth claim he said) or you are damned to eternal perdition?
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Is that what God wants for us?
You mean the supreme being who said that either you accept everything he's ever said (or his vicars on earth claim he said) or you are damned to eternal perdition?
My, you read a lot into my post that I never intended. What made you think I meant anything like that? I ask so I can write more clearly in future.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I tell them they are wrong, and going to hell....
Firstly, I will discuss and try to understand. I will attempt to engage in a discussion with them. And I totally accept that other people have different views, different opinions than me. I don't have a problem as such, I only have a problem if they argue their position from false perspectives: if they explain that Brexit is good because we will have 250M a week extra.
But it is always about the issues, the arguments, not the person. I can respect the person, while disagreeing with their views. Sometimes at least - as long as they are not arguing that I should also accept their position or I am going to hell.
So a recent social media question - feeling sorry for Theresa May. I do feel sorry for her, because she has has a nightmare speech. It all went wrong for her. I can feel sorry for her while still thinking that her policies and those of her government suck like a black hole and she is a danger and a rubbish PM.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Is that what God wants for us?
You mean the supreme being who said that either you accept everything he's ever said (or his vicars on earth claim he said) or you are damned to eternal perdition?
My, you read a lot into my post that I never intended. What made you think I meant anything like that? I ask so I can write more clearly in future.
Herein lies part of the problem with the internet.
I'm like 99% sure that was a joke. But it's impossible to tell for sure.
Lack of clear ways to convey or read tone leads to disagreement.
[ 07. October 2017, 16:10: Message edited by: Og, King of Bashan ]
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I don't know if any of you have noticed lately, but I see things all over the WWW that purport to separate humanity into two groups: the ones who are "right" because they agree with the premise of - whatever - and the unwashed and wrong heathens who disagree.
Does someone have to agree with you to be right?
As a card carrying Libtard, am I justified in not liking a card carrying conservative?
Is that what God wants for us?
On the internet, all we generally see are the typed words. So people often like or dislike based solely on those because it is the entire context.
It isn't good or healthy, but it is natural.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
When I encounter someone operating on the assumption that all journalists/Trump non-fans/whatever are Wrong, Bad, Going to Hell, and so on, I try reason and a little humor. I point out a couple of places in which I don't fit their basic assumption. Sometimes it works, and they calm down. Sometimes it doesn't - and I walk away.
And no, I don't think that's what God wants for us. The sheer quantity of free-floating hatred out there is certainly bad for all concerned.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I've determined in my real life to try to delay responding until the next day. Just not talking and withdrawing. If this can't be done, then saying little more than I have heard the person. If that isn't enough simply saying I am on a different page. And neither giving in nor becoming hostile.
I have long liked interpersonal theory: Harry Stack Sullivan** through Hans Strupp. Where when people say things they can be classified on dimensions of friendly (love)-unfriendly (hate), dominant-submissive. Friendly encourages friendly, hate begets hate. Dominance encourages submission. The key is not to provide the "complementary" responses. The disagreeable person has an idea of winning (dominance) and may be unfriendly. Thus not submitting nor being unfriendly is the interpersonal stance to generally take to the disagreeable. Creating different "interpersonal space" in the jargon.
**Sullivan's The Psychiatric Interview plays well 70 years later. So does Timothy Leary's pre-LSD work. No one reads these things any more in an era of information processing metaphors, CBT, executive coaching, humour as fact, being winners not losers, hucksterism.
[ 07. October 2017, 16:31: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
It depends on the issue.
Some disagreements are trivial and incidental, I'm not going to dump my spouse if I love Lord of the Rings and he thinks it's a stupid, waste of time.
Politics is dicey, because politics often involve ethics. For example, I support national public healthcare, and one reason is that it provides healthcare for those who can't afford it. What underlies my position is an ethical judgment on taking care of those less fortunate.
I "may" get along with someone who disagrees with public heathcare based on economic arguments, I probably will not get on with someone who disagrees with public healthcare if he doesn't give a rats hoot about those less fortunate.
And there are issues where you cannot separate evaluating one's opinion without making a personal value judgment. This is where most racial issues, fall, I cannot separate disagreeing with a Nazi without intensely disliking a Nazi.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Does someone have to agree with you to be right?
Depending on the issue, yes. If it is
(a) a matter of fact and not a matter of opinion (speed of light in a vacuum versus best ice cream flavor, as an extreme example of each), and
(b) the matter has been decided by trustworthy people (scientists without an axe to grind, e.g.)
(c) I believe X, and they believe not-X, and
(d) X and not-X are mutually incompatible,
then at most one of us can be right. (We might both be wrong of course.)
A big part of the problem is framing the question so that it is, in fact, a question of fact and not opinion. But when it comes down to it, some things are in fact just wrong. Flat-earthers are simply wrong. Anti-vaxxers are simply wrong. And so on.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
What made you think I meant anything like that?
I never thought you meant anything like that. But I don't understand how God fits into the question of whether or not you have to like people who don't think as you do. So much blood has been spilled through the ages by people who thought (and still think even today) that unless your understanding of God is the same as theirs, you don't deserve to live.
My point is, let's leave God out of it. I think the question posed can be debated without asking ourselves if our opinion on the matter in what God wants it to be.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Which are you trying to do? :-
1. Reassure yourself of the rightness of your own position and reinforce your commitment to it? or
2. Persuade those who are are bystanders to the argument (e.g. those watching a television programme or reading your posts) to agree with you and disagree with the other person? or
3. Show others who belong to the same in-group as you'd like to be associated with that you are one of them? or
4. Persuade the other person to agree with you, to think or feel as you do?
Those are all reasons why people might debate or discuss with one another, but the motivation makes a big difference to what is going on. Each is also as good as mutually in exclusive with the other three.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Disagreeing with and disliking are mutually exclusive.
Then how do you explain that I both dislike and disagree with Trump, Driscoll and the Change Management process at work?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I'm not going to dump my spouse if I love Lord of the Rings and he thinks it's a stupid, waste of time.
I'd say that's pretty much a deal-breaker...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
What prompted the thread was a book I am thinking about buying which sets out, among others, the proposition that liberals lack compassion for conservative Trump supporters. A Tump supporter friend of mine certainty feels way.
The POTUS is an important issue. Is it worth disdaining those who like Trump? How is that helpful?
Another way to look at it is does it in fact lessen the potential to change hearts and minds if "the other side" feels your contempt?
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
The problem is, not that I lack compassion for conservatives, it's just that when I see them going round and breaking shit that's taken decades to build and people rely on to feed them, clothe them, house them, keep them warm and give them a little cash in their pockets, it doesn't matter if I have compassion for them or not.
I just want to stop them from breaking shit.
Then we can talk.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
There's another similarly extraordinarily foolish blogger (don't think it's a book yet) who argues that Trump won because liberal women refused to have sex with conservative men. Yes, it's all women's fault after all, oh the surprise.
To which the proper response is, A woman can refuse to have sex with anyone she likes. She is not obliged to so much as look at you twice, never mind touch you with a ten-foot pole.
And so it is with compassion. You want compassion? Demanding it is not going to help. At all.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I don't know if any of you have noticed lately, but I see things all over the WWW that purport to separate humanity into two groups: the ones who are "right" because they agree with the premise of - whatever - and the unwashed and wrong heathens who disagree.
Does someone have to agree with you to be right?
Well, in my mind-- and everyone else's-- yes.
Obviously if there are two mutually exclusive positions on an issue and I've chosen one, I believe I"m right and the other guy is wrong. If I thought the person disagreeing with me was right I wouldn't be disagreeing with them.
• Of course, it's also quite possible that I'm wrong and just don't realize it.
• And it's quite possible the issue is more complex and nuanced than I realize and there's some whole other non-binary "right" answer-- or some version of both/and
• And it's quite possible that even though the person disagreeing with me is wrong, they're still a good, decent human
Recognizing all the above is key I think.
Although some of the people disagreeing with me this day are challenging that last one for me.
[ 07. October 2017, 23:30: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
It depends what we are disagreeing over.
When it’s a matter of taste ‘Red blinds are much better than blue ones’ - then there is no ‘right’ answer and all is negotiation as to which blinds to buy.
When it’s a matter of religion, where there is no proof it’s rather similar to the question of taste.
It’s when morals come into the question that things become sticky - usually in the realm of politics.
I have very good friends and we disagree on most things taste, art, music, film and religion - wise. But politics? I can’t think of any of my close friends who disagree fundamentally on politics.
How to get on with someone whose ideas you see as morally wrong?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But politics? I can’t think of any of my close friends who disagree fundamentally on politics.
How to get on with someone whose ideas you see as morally wrong?
My best friend and I are on the opposite side of politics.
Sometimes it's a matter of not speaking of certain issues - we will never agree. Sometimes it's a matter of a conversation - each probably trying to convince the other as well as putting their side across, but knowing deep down it probably won't have any effect. But it has helped me to see where he is coming from at times, which was different to what I assumed.
So, it can work. We have far more in common in other areas, so that probably helps overcome the political issues.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But politics? I can’t think of any of my close friends who disagree fundamentally on politics.
How to get on with someone whose ideas you see as morally wrong?
My best friend and I are on the opposite side of politics.
I deliberately asked on twitter for a Tory I could follow to get a diffferent view. He is posting that he is in despair of his party.
I would struggle to remain friends with someone who thinks that Food Banks are a good solution for the poor. Who thinks that sanctioning disabled people is working. Those are the moral or ethical questions, and I would argue with them, but if they felt that this was working, I would not be able to remain friends.
If you are married to them, of course, it becomes a more complex issue.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
Serious Answer: I try to look for the good in people. There's usually a fair bit there. However, if I am feeling tired and irritable my capacity for hatred increases exponentially, usually requiring an apology when I regain my composure. End of serious answer.
I have a friend with whom I agree on just about everything. When we get together for lunch, one of us will have attempted to glass the other by no later than 6pm.
Also, on the LOTR thing, my wife doesn't like Fawlty Towers or Seinfeld. I would have divorced her but she is very very rich.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I think it depends on what the issue is and who the people are to you.
I'm in awe of people like Dylan Marron who are able to talk calmly to people who have come out with some unbelievable crap online (including trolling).
I guess I might try to talk with a friend or relation who was a Trump supporter, but I don't suppose that a political conversation would last very long.
Personally, I wouldn't talk to a Trump supporter or a neo-Nazi in any way that gave any kind of legitimacy to their nonsense.
Because there are limits.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
Some excellent advice here, which puts things rather better than I can, Here are some personal guidelines I've been working on:
1. Remember that I may be wrong. I must actually consider the possibility regularly.
2. Deal with the strongest elements of their argument, not the weakest, because that's where learning happens best on both sides.
3. Never disrespect a genuine opinion or argument, however 'unusual'.
The problem is, I'm so bad at doing the above. I generate much more material along the lines of “God, please sort me out with this” than I am remotely comfortable with.
When on a Fairtrade stall, it happens that people tackle us quite aggressively on Foreign Aid. We do feel tempted to say something like, “Don't be such a ***ing skinflint (or worse).”
However when one actually listens to their POV, getting across the actual amount of FA we give, the monitoring regime or whatever seems far more effective in achieving our goals.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Does someone have to agree with you to be right?
I get things wrong sometimes, so that agreeing with me isn't always the same thing as being right.
But - assuming it's an issue on which it's meaningful to talk about being right or wrong - clearly I'm going to think they're wrong until they succeed in showing me by reasoned argument or evidence that they're right and I'm not.
The bigger question is whether I treat them as being an "OK" person while they're still in the process of trying to construct a valid reasoned argument...
As that famous 1970s book said, a healthy relationship works on the basis that "I'm OK, you're OK".
Treating someone as a moron or a demon because they disagree with you really isn't constructive.
The number of actual morons or actual demons you meet is really vanishingly small. Even at a political party conference of the party you wouldn't vote for if they paid you.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
3. Never disrespect a genuine opinion or argument, however 'unusual'.
I'm curious to hear more about how you identify an opinion as "genuine" and what "disrespect" means in this context.
Can a Nazi not hold "genuine" (ie truthfully and honestly held rather than pretend) opinions about the Jews? What does it mean to respect those views?
quote:
When on a Fairtrade stall, it happens that people tackle us quite aggressively on Foreign Aid. We do feel tempted to say something like, “Don't be such a ***ing skinflint (or worse).”
I used to run a fairtrade stall and used to get these comments. But then I eventually lost faith in the fairtrade concept and now believe it is mostly a marketing gimmick. It helps, but usually not very much.
I hate it when that happens.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
3. Never disrespect a genuine opinion or argument, however 'unusual'.
I'll be honest and admit this is very difficult for me at times. Especially when their opinion isn't backed with much evidence and is not reasoned out.
I am going to differ with a Conservative on the economy. Some, though believing differently to me, have thought out their position. There is something to reason with.
Others will spout whatever they read in the papers with no understanding how anything actually works. Rather difficult to respect, or deal with politely, this sort of person.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I'll be honest and admit this is very difficult for me at times. Especially when their opinion isn't backed with much evidence and is not reasoned out.
I am going to differ with a Conservative on the economy. Some, though believing differently to me, have thought out their position. There is something to reason with.
Others will spout whatever they read in the papers with no understanding how anything actually works. Rather difficult to respect, or deal with politely, this sort of person.
I think there is a phenomena - which I'm sure there is a name for but I can't think of it at the moment - where two people are so far apart in their thinking about a certain topic that conversation is extremely difficult.
For example, I think someone who is a libertarian conservative economist is probably going to struggle to talk with a Marxist economist.
It isn't just that the one thinks that the other is completely wrong-headed - it is also that they're each so used to thinking within a certain paradigm with certain initial assumptions that it is extremely hard to think out of it.
In those situations sometimes you just have to give up, because the other side is arguing with a strawman that they've been led to believe is a real reflection of your opinion rather than the thing that you actually believe - and explaining it fully is extremely difficult.
This can be frustrating, but isn't necessarily something which needs to be unpleasant. If two sides become aware that they're struggling to find middle ground upon which they can begin a discussion then they've either got to commit to listening to each other to understand the other or have to just talk about something else.
To me that's a different scenario to where (for example) a Neo-Nazi is sparring with an opponent who fully understands - and hates - the basis of the argument he is putting forwards.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Putting a slightly different slant on this, I've gradually realised that for me it makes a big difference whether I can imagine myself thinking or feeling like the person I don't agree with. Unlike I suspect many shipmates, until the traumas of 2016, I haven't normally had convictions on politics that have got outside that range. I've been more disturbed about those that do and how a person can feel so strongly and unequivocally about things like politics, economics or social policy than about the issues themselves.
So there's a wide range of subjects where I know what I think, but I can see how a person might think differently.
There are, though, two areas where I've realised that I do have problems. The first is where somebody is advocating something that is so far outside the parameters on which I work that I can't imagine how a person can think that, feel it or can honourably reach such a position without some form of serious internal dishonesty. So it's so far beyond my range of the comprehensible that I can't relate to it.
The other, which can feel much the same, but is something very different, is where the position somebody is advocating, or the way they are doing so, scratches what I think people call one's shadow side, part of oneself that one feels threatened by and so doesn't relate to.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
It was when a Certain Person boasted happily and with chuckling pride of his ability to grab genitalia without criminal prosecution and a hard jail sentence, that I realized I would never comprehend such vile loathsomeness and that evil must be combated with all my powers. (if there were an emoticon of St. Joan holding up the sword of Charles Martel it would go here)
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
The person you're referring to is one of the most striking examples of what I mean by,
quote:
somebody ... so far outside the parameters on which I work that I can't imagine how a person can think that, feel it or can honourably reach such a position without some form of serious internal dishonesty. So it's so far beyond my range of the comprehensible that I can't relate to it.
I'd also class voting for such a person or suggesting to others that they should do so in the same way.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I can't find the Post link now, but there's a long article over there about why Evangelical and Christian voters stick with a pussy-grabbing, gambling-based, pathological liar with a mean streak as wide as the Potomac River. It all has to do with the fading power and presence of Christianity in the culture. Way to go, guys! This is a powerful witness, for sure! Whited sephulchres for the win!
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
I think I have a problem with putting Trump supporters and neo-Nazis in the same boat. Happy to argue it out if needed, but I'm going to assume that's not necessary.
In the mid-1980's I had a mate. We used to play a boardgame together and travel to tournaments in Sydney and elsewhere to play. One day when he turned up he was a skinhead, the full look, doc martins, swastika tats the lot. That was a bit of a shock. He was totally the same otherwise. We'd play the game, sink beers, smoke dope. I liked him. He affected a surly demeanor, but that was as per normal.
I really don't know what was going on with him, but I just felt I should treat him as I found him. I also felt in the back of my mind that something had gone seriously wrong for him.
I saw him again in 2000. I was very screwed up myself at the time. He hadn't changed from the 80's much at all. He was very close with the other guys who had stayed on the tournament scene, and was maybe more prone to drinking and aggression, but I wasn't in a state to observe closely.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I think I have a problem with putting Trump supporters and neo-Nazis in the same boat.
No problem at all provided it's on a collision course with an iceberg.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
So, dialogue to discover points of agreement and to try and understand what concerns Trump supporters is right out?
Not sure how easy it is going to be to change their hearts and minds if they know you hold them in contempt.
Not unlike, say, the folks who label such as myself a libtard and feel that judgment is enough. If I had any sense, I would see the obvious truth of their position.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I don't know if any of you have noticed lately, but I see things all over the WWW that purport to separate humanity into two groups: the ones who are "right" because they agree with the premise of - whatever - and the unwashed and wrong heathens who disagree.
Does someone have to agree with you to be right?
As a card carrying Libtard, am I justified in not liking a card carrying conservative?
Is that what God wants for us?
On the internet, all we generally see are the typed words. So people often like or dislike based solely on those because it is the entire context.
It isn't good or healthy, but it is natural.
Bingo! I have a friend who is a card carrying Tory and who is one of the best and bravest people I know and who had my back a few years ago when all was not going well. Frankly I'd stop a bullet for her. If all I knew about her was her opinions via social media I'd obviously be less enthusiastic about her. And whilst I am pretty sure I am right about most things I am pretty sure about, I have enough self-knowledge to realise that this does not automatically punt me into the category of 'Holy Saint Of God'. Whilst I think that the internet is a good thing in general it does lead us to treating people as bearers of opinions with which we agree or disagree with and not as people in all our fucked up complexity. It does tend us to incline to divide our fellow humans into agents of darkness and emissaries of light, which I suspect, does not do a whole lot for the discourse.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
quote:
posted by Boogie
I have very good friends and we disagree on most things taste, art, music, film and religion - wise. But politics? I can’t think of any of my close friends who disagree fundamentally on politics.
How to get on with someone whose ideas you see as morally wrong?
I think that illustrates two groups of people with quite a stark divide between them.
Some people see politics as a test of someone's morality, in that right and wrong are evident, and that in people's choices we get to see whether they choose to side with right or wrong. From that point of view, someone has already done something wrong by disagreeing with you.
Others think that political choices are mainly prudential, that there are many values and priorities involved which sometimes conflict with each other, that most policies have some advantages and some disadvantages, that the consequences of policies are very difficult to predict. From that point of view it's no surprise to find people disagreeing with you.
I think there is considerable mutual incomprehension between holders of these two points of view. For that reason I generally avoid political discussions online.
But as a holder of the second point of view, I find it easy to deal with people who disagree with me. I am a person of reasonable but not special intelligence, and no outstanding insight. No excuse for disagreeing with me is required.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
3. Never disrespect a genuine opinion or argument, however 'unusual'.
I'm curious to hear more about how you identify an opinion as "genuine" and what "disrespect" means in this context.
Can a Nazi not hold "genuine" (ie truthfully and honestly held rather than pretend) opinions about the Jews? What does it mean to respect those views?
By genuine, I mean 'actually believed' rather than trolling or putting an argument out there to wind me up.
By disrespect, I mean take the view that it's crazy no intelligent person could ever believe it, and react with unpleasantness. I should listen to it, evaluate its merits fairly, and even if I conclude it's almost certainly wrong, mustn't see it as a source of arrogant humour.
I have met people with anti-semitic views. I think the most effective way to deal with them is to explore the views respectfully, openly but rigorously. It's the only way to change minds.
I must also remember that I believe that a (kind of) human came back to life. Some would laugh at me.
quote:
I used to run a fairtrade stall and used to get these comments. But then I eventually lost faith in the fairtrade concept and now believe it is mostly a marketing gimmick. It helps, but usually not very much.
There's a tangent here which I'll keep to a very short line segment. I'm quite sure you're wrong about that, and the vast majority of research will back me up on that.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
quote:
I have met people with anti-semitic views. I think the most effective way to deal with them is to explore the views respectfully, openly but rigorously
Easy to say if you're not affected by it. How do you expect a Jewish person to act to a Nazi? Or a gay person having to deal with the Westboro Baptist Church?
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jacobsen
seeker
# 14998
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Does someone have to agree with you to be right?
Depending on the issue, yes. If it is
(a) a matter of fact and not a matter of opinion (speed of light in a vacuum versus best ice cream flavor, as an extreme example of each), and
(b) the matter has been decided by trustworthy people (scientists without an axe to grind, e.g.)
(c) I believe X, and they believe not-X, and
(d) X and not-X are mutually incompatible,
then at most one of us can be right. (We might both be wrong of course.)
A big part of the problem is framing the question so that it is, in fact, a question of fact and not opinion. But when it comes down to it, some things are in fact just wrong. Flat-earthers are simply wrong. Anti-vaxxers are simply wrong. And so on.
Ah, but (b) includes the flat-earthers of the medieval period. The trouble with scientific "facts" is that they can change or become disproved. "True at the time of going to press" is the most you can say for them.
--------------------
But God, holding a candle, looks for all who wander, all who search. - Shifra Alon
Beauty fades, dumb is forever-Judge Judy
The man who made time, made plenty.
Posts: 8040 | From: Æbleskiver country | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Does someone have to agree with you to be right?
Depending on the issue, yes. If it is
(a) a matter of fact and not a matter of opinion (speed of light in a vacuum versus best ice cream flavor, as an extreme example of each), and
(b) the matter has been decided by trustworthy people (scientists without an axe to grind, e.g.)
(c) I believe X, and they believe not-X, and
(d) X and not-X are mutually incompatible,
then at most one of us can be right. (We might both be wrong of course.)
A big part of the problem is framing the question so that it is, in fact, a question of fact and not opinion. But when it comes down to it, some things are in fact just wrong. Flat-earthers are simply wrong. Anti-vaxxers are simply wrong. And so on.
Ah, but (b) includes the flat-earthers of the medieval period. The trouble with scientific "facts" is that they can change or become disproved. "True at the time of going to press" is the most you can say for them.
You can say a little more than that - "Almost certainly truer than the ideas that they replace."
As with flat earths.
Doesn't always follow, but nearly always.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
Oh! I met a flat earther when I visited the White House last year, BEFORE the election.
He sucked me in by announcing that the earth was flat and then took me over to a board he had set up with a map on it, and said "See. It's flat." He then said that Jackie O was in cahoots with the FBI to murder her husband, that Lincoln's wife was the one that shot him, and then he revealed his true purpose: I can't remember what that was.
He had a specially made jacket with pockets all over it for his brochures. He gave me two or three of those, but when I started to back away slowly he made a grab for them. I managed to keep one from his recycling grasp, and that is now attached to my fridge by one of those magnets cum clothes pegs.
This is another example of someone with whom I profoundly disagree but nevertheless enjoyed conversing with a great deal. In fact, I reckon this is the third time I have posted this story on these forums, and I fully intend to do it again. I loved the encounter, and I love remembering it. It was my favorite bit of my trip to Washington.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Jacobus: quote:
Ah, but (b) includes the flat-earthers of the medieval period.
Actually, learned people in the Middle Ages were well aware that the Earth was not flat. For example Bede and Thomas Aquinas clearly state that the Earth is spherical, and this was the scholarly consensus. Most ordinary people did believe that the world was flat, but most ordinary people couldn't read either and spent most of their lives wondering where their next meal was coming from rather than pondering theoretical questions of cosmology.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Dante's Comedy, written in the early 1300s, clearly depicts the earth as a globe.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
A very cool flat-earth map:
"Ingenious 'Flat Earth' Theory Revealed In Old Map" (Live Science).
Enlarge the map, however you can.
NOT a flat-earther. I just like vintage and/or unusual maps. And it's fun to selectively play with unusual and/or vintage ideas.
Terry Pratchett did a great job of this in his Disc World books. DW is a flat disc (so both flat and round), carried on the backs of four elephants, who are carried on the back of a giant, space-swimming turtle.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
FWIW: I think that if your days are filled with hunting and gathering; or traffic jams, work for pay, loved ones of whatever sort, tweeting, even taking a plane trip but not looking around...you can do a lot without any need to think of a round world. And, if you don't get to see the dome of the sky at night, filled with stars, it just may never occur to you. The hunters/gatherers might actually have a better chance of figuring it out than "modern" people, if they watch the sky at night.
All that might be a reason some current, modern people insist on flat earth. Even that football player who argues with Neil De Grasse Tyson.
Might also be they think the world is too complicated and chaotic, and going too fast. So a stationary, flat earth might be a comforting way to make everything simpler.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Folks have known that the earth is not flat, but its circumference as well, since at least 240 B.C.
Following that vid, on the playlist created when I clicked the link, was one refuting the first. And it makes sense. From a limited perspective. And it shows why people might fall for the flat earth hokum. Simple explanations that are easy to process and make apparent sense if one ignores the complete picture.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
