5 ms·

I also found it interesting that this article is hugely concerned with making someone feel loved for expressing a desire to literally have everybody killed who

by Udo 10y ago

I also found it interesting that this article is hugely concerned with making someone feel loved for expressing a desire to literally have everybody killed who had an abortion. I think at some point, the severity of an ideology has to outweigh the desire to accept a person as who they are. We have been somewhat culturally conditioned by the common tropes of storytelling that biography excuses, and in fact makes acceptable, any ideology. We are expected to love characters who are even downright evil, just because they suffered a personal loss. In other cases, we're expected to grant special allowances to people just because they are very offended. A bad idea is a bad idea. Making it immune to criticism on account of the personal circumstances of the person expressing that idea is a really destructive mechanism, especially when that idea affects other people.

tempestn 10y ago
The thing is, even if you take as a given that someone's idea is inherently bad, criticizing them for it will accomplish less than nothing. This is perhaps more clear than ever in the world today. Only by actually listening to a person, and treating them as a person worthy of respect, can you have any chance of having a meaningful dialogue, and perhaps, in some cases, allowing them to change their opinion. (Also of course in some cases you may find yourself reconsidering your own opinion, or recognizing some new nuance you had previously disregarded, or similar.) I actually had a conversation kind of like this with my Dad recently. We tend to agree on most things, but we were discussing a question from the political compass[1] - one of the few we disagreed strongly on. It asked, essentially, whether a person should be required to work, if able, in order to receive support from society. Our initial positions were pretty strongly opposite, and we were both surprised by the other's thoughts. We each sort of explained our thinking, and listened to the other's. I understood where he was coming from, but still disagreed with his conclusions, and that's where we left it. The next day he called me up and said that he'd been thinking a lot about what I'd said, and that he'd come to change his opinion nearly 180 degrees. What's funny was that I'd been thinking about the conversation too, and had actually moderated my opinion a bit too (although not as much), and came to agree with a couple of his points. It was really cool, because neither of us changed the other's mind; we changed our own minds after the fact. Now sure, we have a good relationship to begin with, and were having a good-natured discussion. It's going to be more difficult when you vehemently disagree with someone about nearly everything. But at least by listening it's possible that you'll accomplish something. [1] https://www.politicalcompass.org/ https://www.politicalcompass.org/
vacri 10y ago
I've been an atheist all my life, and as such have hung around on the fringes of the atheist movement. Over that time I've observed that the best way to get people to move away from faith is to let them question it themselves. I've seen so many flamewars where people just dig in and lob grenades at each other, and no-one moves. But the people who do rationally question their faith themselves - those are the people who move around. They don't change themselves because of an opponent's "perfect logical statement". It's also a slow process - most people moving away from faith take years to do it, at least, the ones I've seen. I remember an episode of The Spirit Of Things, where they were talking to an atheist who used to be very christian, and was going to an adult Sunday School. She turned herself atheist by simply asking a lot of questions, like "wasn't it wrong of God to ask Isaac to slay his son in the first place". The more questions she had, the more she said the answers sounded more like evasion than solid moral grounding; that the priest was only able to excuse biblical actions rather than explain a real moral lesson from them. So she asked more questions and grew more and more dissatisfied with the lack of internal consistency. Long story short, it means I see a point in asking people of their histories, and getting them to think about why they're where they are today; why they do the things they do today. I don't think that that means biography excuses bad actions, but that getting someone to give something deeper about themselves rather than just rote talking points... it brings something else to the table. It can also be interesting in and of itself. TL;DR: You're more likely to win people over by inviting them than by opposing them. :)
eyelidlessness 10y ago
> I also found it interesting that this article is hugely concerned with making someone feel loved for expressing a desire to literally have everybody killed who had an abortion. I think at some point, the severity of an ideology has to outweigh the desire to accept a person as who they are. If you are faced with a world that is hostile to your worldview, and you want to move people closer to it, do you think you'll be more effective by disregarding their motivations and telling them how wrong they are? Or by coming to understand what motivates them and having a conversation as peers? While ideologies may propel any number of evils, by and large people are not themselves evil. They're just complicated and conflicted and sometimes ignorant, with a lot of motivations and incentives that are not always immediately obvious, and a ton of baggage. Humble empathy isn't the same as immunizing bad ideas from criticism. Communication doesn't have to be combat.
lifeformed 10y ago
It's not saying the other person's beliefs are justified, it's saying that if you want to change their beliefs, you have to understand how they got there in the first place. If you approach it like a logical debate you're not going to convince anyone. It's not about saying all the facts, it's about helping people reprocess their feelings into more reasonable conclusions.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Chris2048 10y ago
> for expressing a desire to literally have everybody killed who had an abortion The article says: > people who have them should be arrested for murder Also, this is said by someone who considers abortion to be murder, so isn't surprising.
- Udo 10y ago
  Thanks for pointing that out. Maybe I read it wrong, or maybe the article was changed in the meantime. Whatever the case, I still want to point out that a conviction murder carries with it a life sentence and possible death penalty. > Also, this is said by someone who considers abortion to be murder, so isn't surprising. The article actually does a pretty good job of convincing me that she doesn't consider it to be murder as such, she just wants people who do it to get the same punishment, because she feels they are throwing something away that is unattainable to her.
  - gilleain 10y ago
    > she doesn't consider it to be murder as such, she just wants people who do it to get the same punishment Right, and the point is that the writer would likely never have found this out in the course of normal argument because the discussion would have got caught up in the rights and wrongs of jailing people for making choices about procreation. There's the expression "love the sinner, hate the sin" that surely applies to more than just religious sins. It is possible to disagree with someone but not hate them for it, even if their ideas might be hateful to you.
    - Udo 10y ago
      > There's the expression "love the sinner, hate the sin" that surely applies to more than just religious sins. It is possible to disagree with someone but not hate them for it, even if their ideas might be hateful to you. I'm not sure how this is a response to my comment. If you read my other comment, that's pretty much my point. I'm sorry if that was not clear.
      - 10y ago
philh 10y ago
> expressing a desire to literally have everybody killed who had an abortion She expressed a desire to have those people locked up and arrested for murder. That is not literally killing someone. > Making it immune to criticism I don't think anybody suggested doing this. You can love someone while disagreeing with them, even if you disagree with them really hard. You can criticize someone's opinions in some forums, and leave them other forums where they can vent safely.
hashkb 10y ago
> downright evil Can you define this? Just asking.

by Udo 10y ago

tempestn 10y ago

The thing is, even if you take as a given that someone's idea is inherently bad, criticizing them for it will accomplish less than nothing. This is perhaps more clear than ever in the world today. Only by actually listening to a person, and treating them as a person worthy of respect, can you have any chance of having a meaningful dialogue, and perhaps, in some cases, allowing them to change their opinion. (Also of course in some cases you may find yourself reconsidering your own opinion, or recognizing some new nuance you had previously disregarded, or similar.) I actually had a conversation kind of like this with my Dad recently. We tend to agree on most things, but we were discussing a question from the political compass[1] - one of the few we disagreed strongly on. It asked, essentially, whether a person should be required to work, if able, in order to receive support from society. Our initial positions were pretty strongly opposite, and we were both surprised by the other's thoughts. We each sort of explained our thinking, and listened to the other's. I understood where he was coming from, but still disagreed with his conclusions, and that's where we left it. The next day he called me up and said that he'd been thinking a lot about what I'd said, and that he'd come to change his opinion nearly 180 degrees. What's funny was that I'd been thinking about the conversation too, and had actually moderated my opinion a bit too (although not as much), and came to agree with a couple of his points. It was really cool, because neither of us changed the other's mind; we changed our own minds after the fact. Now sure, we have a good relationship to begin with, and were having a good-natured discussion. It's going to be more difficult when you vehemently disagree with someone about nearly everything. But at least by listening it's possible that you'll accomplish something. [1] https://www.politicalcompass.org/ https://www.politicalcompass.org/

vacri 10y ago

I've been an atheist all my life, and as such have hung around on the fringes of the atheist movement. Over that time I've observed that the best way to get people to move away from faith is to let them question it themselves. I've seen so many flamewars where people just dig in and lob grenades at each other, and no-one moves. But the people who do rationally question their faith themselves - those are the people who move around. They don't change themselves because of an opponent's "perfect logical statement". It's also a slow process - most people moving away from faith take years to do it, at least, the ones I've seen. I remember an episode of The Spirit Of Things, where they were talking to an atheist who used to be very christian, and was going to an adult Sunday School. She turned herself atheist by simply asking a lot of questions, like "wasn't it wrong of God to ask Isaac to slay his son in the first place". The more questions she had, the more she said the answers sounded more like evasion than solid moral grounding; that the priest was only able to excuse biblical actions rather than explain a real moral lesson from them. So she asked more questions and grew more and more dissatisfied with the lack of internal consistency. Long story short, it means I see a point in asking people of their histories, and getting them to think about why they're where they are today; why they do the things they do today. I don't think that that means biography excuses bad actions, but that getting someone to give something deeper about themselves rather than just rote talking points... it brings something else to the table. It can also be interesting in and of itself. TL;DR: You're more likely to win people over by inviting them than by opposing them. :)

eyelidlessness 10y ago

> I also found it interesting that this article is hugely concerned with making someone feel loved for expressing a desire to literally have everybody killed who had an abortion. I think at some point, the severity of an ideology has to outweigh the desire to accept a person as who they are. If you are faced with a world that is hostile to your worldview, and you want to move people closer to it, do you think you'll be more effective by disregarding their motivations and telling them how wrong they are? Or by coming to understand what motivates them and having a conversation as peers? While ideologies may propel any number of evils, by and large people are not themselves evil. They're just complicated and conflicted and sometimes ignorant, with a lot of motivations and incentives that are not always immediately obvious, and a ton of baggage. Humble empathy isn't the same as immunizing bad ideas from criticism. Communication doesn't have to be combat.

lifeformed 10y ago

It's not saying the other person's beliefs are justified, it's saying that if you want to change their beliefs, you have to understand how they got there in the first place. If you approach it like a logical debate you're not going to convince anyone. It's not about saying all the facts, it's about helping people reprocess their feelings into more reasonable conclusions.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Chris2048 10y ago

> for expressing a desire to literally have everybody killed who had an abortion The article says: > people who have them should be arrested for murder Also, this is said by someone who considers abortion to be murder, so isn't surprising.

Udo 10y ago
Thanks for pointing that out. Maybe I read it wrong, or maybe the article was changed in the meantime. Whatever the case, I still want to point out that a conviction murder carries with it a life sentence and possible death penalty. > Also, this is said by someone who considers abortion to be murder, so isn't surprising. The article actually does a pretty good job of convincing me that she doesn't consider it to be murder as such, she just wants people who do it to get the same punishment, because she feels they are throwing something away that is unattainable to her.
- gilleain 10y ago
  > she doesn't consider it to be murder as such, she just wants people who do it to get the same punishment Right, and the point is that the writer would likely never have found this out in the course of normal argument because the discussion would have got caught up in the rights and wrongs of jailing people for making choices about procreation. There's the expression "love the sinner, hate the sin" that surely applies to more than just religious sins. It is possible to disagree with someone but not hate them for it, even if their ideas might be hateful to you.
  - Udo 10y ago
    > There's the expression "love the sinner, hate the sin" that surely applies to more than just religious sins. It is possible to disagree with someone but not hate them for it, even if their ideas might be hateful to you. I'm not sure how this is a response to my comment. If you read my other comment, that's pretty much my point. I'm sorry if that was not clear.
    - 10y ago

philh 10y ago

> expressing a desire to literally have everybody killed who had an abortion She expressed a desire to have those people locked up and arrested for murder. That is not literally killing someone. > Making it immune to criticism I don't think anybody suggested doing this. You can love someone while disagreeing with them, even if you disagree with them really hard. You can criticize someone's opinions in some forums, and leave them other forums where they can vent safely.

hashkb 10y ago

> downright evil Can you define this? Just asking.