3 ms·
> Should people be striving to remove friction in discourse in the first place? I mean, if something hurts to hear, surely that should sound the alarm that it's
by unimpressive 10y ago
> Should people be striving to remove friction in discourse in the first place? I mean, if something hurts to hear, surely that should sound the alarm that it's worth confronting, rather than running away from, right?
Not necessarily. I personally prefer Scott Alexander's criteria for commentary at SlateStarCodex (http://slatestarcodex.com/ http://slatestarcodex.com/). A comment should be two of: True, kind, necessary.
Plenty of things cause near-visible sparks when you put them in discourse, and most of them are mean, pedantic, or just not true. You're interested in the set of comments which are true and necessary, this is a tiny subset of the comments which cause friction.
- shrugger 10y agoI guess it's just how I look at things. When I'm debating an issue with someone or at a conference or whatever, when someone says something totally incongruous, it always surprises me and I always feel like I've missed something. I try and understand what would make a person feel so strongly about it that he felt like it needed to be said. Some comments cause more friction than others, definitely, but are they of lesser merit for that reason alone? If something is true but not critical to know, and not 'kind', that doesn't mean that it just doesn't matter, right? Ugly truths are out there, and they can be of great use if confronted maturely, understood, and conquered. Right?