2 ms·

Interesting take, I suppose. It's pretty dismissive of people who don't agree with your beliefs as 'whiners' rather than trying to engage in some sort of discus

Interesting take, I suppose. It's pretty dismissive of people who don't agree with your beliefs as 'whiners' rather than trying to engage in some sort of discussion with you. I agree that sometimes it's useful to pose arguments and skip the citations, but that usually relies on both parties agreeing that the axioms are at least plausible. I'm willing to entertain discussion on things I don't necessary agree with or don't have data for if I think there's a chance they are true. I suppose if you are trying to be more evangelical about your ideas rather than inviting discourse on them, then by all means, continue. I just see so many people these days who are closed off to new perspectives who also insist they are having 'rational' discourse about a topic.

cmdshiftf4 7y ago
Not the GP you're replying to, but thought it'd be interesting to chime in to point out that evidence shows that it seems we would have to be absolutely overwhelmed with contradictory evidence, and people we respect bringing it to us, to actually change our opinions or beliefs on anything. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont... As such, despite being the type to spend countless hours on back-and-forth, pulling up sources, etc. in conversations, I can fully understand GP's point of view that it's fruitless because neither of us (engaged in the back-and-forth) will come out any the better for it, if not worse off due to the entrenching effect the engagement an have on us.