2 ms·

If you're hearing the biography so you can attack the ideology, you're missing the point. Ideology is nearly pointless to discuss. Instead, the author suggests

If you're hearing the biography so you can attack the ideology, you're missing the point. Ideology is nearly pointless to discuss. Instead, the author suggests talking about topics that are more personal. By talking about experiences, you can expose the nuance that's so easily blown away by swapping talking points. Perhaps the author and the woman both agree that people should be less cavalier with pregnancy, and there's a productive way forward. Perhaps they both agree it's a heartbreaking issues and more people need support to deal with it. Even abortion is not so black and white, and arguing about it abstractly is a much less fruitful way to find common ground.

Ntrails 10y ago
> Even abortion is not so black and white, and arguing about it abstractly is a much less fruitful way to find common ground. So my common response to strong ideological positions is to take a hypothetical which exposes something I feel uncomfortable with if I were to accept that ideological framework. The world is pretty much all shades of grey to me (indeed to an extent which occasionally offends), so I find ideological certainty very hard to relate to. It's not that I think they're wrong and I'm right, I'm not attacking their position, I just want to get my head around the fact that when faced with all the ramifications of their position - they're still certain. These conversations are really interesting to me, and I love talking to people who see the world so differently.