4 ms·
Of course there is something you could do. People aren't static. So what if the people who like you came here, and the ones who didn't stayed there? If you say
by xlnt 19y ago
Of course there is something you could do. People aren't static. So what if the people who like you came here, and the ones who didn't stayed there? If you say good enough things everyone will like you and it will be a mute point.
Sure it's harder because there is some initial negative reaction to overcome from the reddit group. And it may not be the best use of your time. But it could be done with sufficient skill.
- gruseom 19y agoIf you say good enough things everyone will like you Oh my goodness. You're not serious, are you? This is a strategy for obtaining misery and contempt... and deserving it!
- xlnt 19y agoI am serious. What do you think could possibly prevent this from working (other than insufficient skill to say good enough things)? You say it's a strategy for obtaining misery and contempt. But it's not a strategy. It's just a fact. The strategy of attempting to get everyone to like you in this way is something different. That's hard and I didn't recommend it, I only said it is possible.
- gruseom 19y agoWhat do you think could possibly prevent this from working The people you're trying to please have contradictory opinions and desires. What you say to please Group A will strike Group B as an outrage! And if you try to remove everything potentially offensive to anybody, well, that will turn you into such a pandering namby-pamb that the whole world will find you annoying and want to poke you with a stick. Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not saying one should go around offending people. I'm saying that trying to get everyone to like you is hopeless and that effort put into doing so will both warp and weaken you. Other edit: just noticed that pchristensen already made the same point.
- xlnt 19y agoPleasing two groups that start with contradictory opinions requires persuading at least one group to change it's mind. That's definitely possible because if they contradict then at least one of them is mistaken and would benefit from changing its mind.
- 0x44 19y agoLet's assume there exist two groups of people. The members of group A think that some improved product is better because it tastes great. The members of group B, on the other hand, believe that the same product is better because it's now less filling. Keeping in mind that the product is better because it both tastes great, and is less filling. Which group is mistaken? Which group would benefit from changing their minds?
- xlnt 19y agoTheir ideas don't really contradict. But they think they do because, apparently, both sides have the mistaken view that a product has to be better for exactly one reason.
- 0x44 19y agoMy example was obviously a gross simplification, but not all disagreement stems from contradiction. Worse, sometimes when people agree on many points they are in inreconcilable disagreement with each other on others. If we were to consider that both groups have held their position for many years, it should be immediately apparent that it would be impossible for either to change their mind. Time calcifies opinion.
- xlnt 19y agoYou are using the word "impossible" to mean "very hard", and I am not.
- 19y ago
- DougBTX 19y ago> What do you think could possibly prevent this from working? One possibility springs to mind. What if someone was to comment on an article by PG, but without reading the article itself? Someone could say bad things about you without listening to what you have to say, you'd have no chance to change their mind.
- xlnt 19y agoHeh. Well if it's good enough then word will get around. One day all his friends will have read it, loved it, and told him to read it. Plus it would be all over TV and radio and culture in general, so it'd be hard to have a normal conversation while missing all the references to it.
- pchristensen 19y agoThis assumes that there are no two people in a community with opposite viewpoints. If someone has the opposite viewpoint of you and you start writing stuff to please them, then they'll just hate you for pandering. Plus, the people that agreed with you will call you a traitor and a sellout. Fun times!
- xlnt 19y agoMy premise is more that there is a truth of the matter. Even if people start with opposite view points, that won't last when sufficiently good/true things are said (plus enough help seeing why this new view is better, and how to change, and how that will improve their life, etc).
- gruseom 19y agoYou're assuming that people want to hear the truth. That is not at all what most people want. And if you insist on offering it to them against their desires they will eat you like (dare I say) a caged lion. :)
- xlnt 19y agoThey might not want the truth now, but they could be shown why it's good to want it, and shown how much nicer that lifestyle is, and helped to change. Hard but certainly possible.
- brzozan 19y agoThis lifestyle is nicer FOR YOU. Not necessarily FOR THEM. If I like spinach and you don't, how will you show me, that not eating spinach is nicer? Or the other way around?
- xlnt 19y agoThere are exist some truths about what lifestyles are nice for everyone. If they violate some of those, then changing would benefit them. As far as we know, the truth about eating is a lot more like "eat foods you like" than "eat foods X, Y, and Z but not A, B, or C". So we can all agree that I will eat spinach because I like it, and you won't because you don't. That doesn't contradict, and is no reason for disagreement.