9 ms·

I think this might collapse at the edge cases: If I'm a black man and the opinion is that I'm an animal, and the person with the opinion uses this reasoning to

I think this might collapse at the edge cases: If I'm a black man and the opinion is that I'm an animal, and the person with the opinion uses this reasoning to abuse me, then I may be ethically correct to not listen or keep myself in their presence. Or, say, I'm a disabled person and someone tells me they think social services should be cut so people like me can die off for the good of humanity. It may be actively emotionally harmful for marginalized people to be listening to toxic opinions that they are worth nothing. (EDIT: To be clear I think listening to opinions I disagree with in good faith is a good thing that we need more of in society. However, I also believe marginalized voices are, by sake of being marginalized, are forced to engage in a significantly higher volume of significantly more emotionally taxing opinions, and therefore may need to protect themselves, and that isn't wrong.)

__blockcipher__ 6y ago
If someone is expressing a good-faith opinion then you shouldn't write them off just because you disagree. Of course, "good faith" is a subjective judgement. Over time I've come to realize that usually there's a legitimate reason why someone believes what they do. Often they are either optimizing for different things, or view the matter differently. If listening to someone's opinion is actively causing emotional harm, then sure, don't listen to them. But I worry very much about the rise in offense-taking. Perhaps it's an illusion but I've felt it's become incredibly difficult to talk to people with different [political, etc] opinions than my own: not because of me, but because of their attitude towards dissent.
- KittenInABox 6y ago
  I agree it has become difficult to talk to people with different political opinions than my own. I just think the statement suggested was logically too strong, and entirely non applicable in very important failure modes. There are often legitimate reasons why someone believes what they do, but sometimes the belief is "I think there should be no consequences to murdering someone like you, because you're not worth the social resources you take with your disability", which was a belief expressed to me, and I need to protect myself emotionally from people who genuinely believe I should be dead.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  > If listening to someone's opinion is actively causing emotional harm, then sure, don't listen to them. I think that might be the most important time to listen to them. If merely hearing an opinion threatens your model, that’s probably a warning sign indicating that your own ideas are fragile and unsustainable, and they need to be exposed to ideas that challenge them. Engage with painful ideas, break your own models down and reformulate them into something more robust. I think the unwillingness to do this is what leads to the problems you mention. I’m reminded of “The Coddling of the American Mind”
  - chipotle_coyote 6y ago
    > If merely hearing an opinion threatens your model, that’s probably a warning sign indicating that your own ideas are fragile and unsustainable, and they need to be exposed to ideas that challenge them. This doesn't strike me as a universal truth. It's good as a general principle to test your ideas against ones that challenge them and make sure they're as robust as possible -- but if that "challenging idea" is "your group has no right to exist," then it's not reasonable to argue "if merely hearing that you have no right to exist threatens your model, that's a warning sign that your own ideas are fragile and unsustainable," is it?
  - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
    So, my own philosophy is 100% listen to them, I don’t believe in closing off my mind due to fear of “emotional harm” etc. My point was more like, if person X really does feel that way, then sure they can retract themselves from discussion. But they should do so knowing it’s their own failing/weakness and not blame it on the other person being “toxic”.
shitgoose 6y ago
I have no idea what your point it, but you may want to add one more example. Let's say I am a Trump supporter and the opinion is that I am a scum and should die before the election, then it may be ethically correct not keep myself in their presence.
- KittenInABox 6y ago
  I mean, honestly, yes, if someone wishes your death I don't know if it is healthy to expose yourself continually to their opinions that you should die. That's emotional abuse.
philwelch 6y ago
It's easy to come up with these kinds of excuses for not tolerating the opinions of people you disagree with. If you disagree with me about abortion, you are either trying to murder babies (and hence I shouldn't have to be civil to you) or you're trying to control women's bodies (and hence I shouldn't have to be civil with you). If you disagree with me about health care reform, that's a life and death issue and hence I shouldn't have to be civil with you. If we disagree about a military intervention, that's a life and death issue and I shouldn't have to be civil with you. Justice Ginsburg and Justice Scalia disagreed on just about all of these issues and got along fine. I don't think that's because they didn't care about their respective principles and about the issues that were at stake. I think it's because, as a point of fact, we have to live in a society with each other regardless of our differences. And most of those differences are genuinely rooted in good or at least understandable intentions in the first place.
- TeaDrunk 6y ago
  I think this is an easy handwave to ignore that some people get more disagreement than others about whether or not they deserve civil rights, life, etc. While you espouse a need to listen, you’re not really listening at all here or even trying to understand what is being said.
  - philwelch 6y ago
    It's not a handwave and it's not even remotely easy. If it were easy, it wouldn't have taken centuries of bloodshed for humanity to develop the basic concept of peacefully tolerating disagreements over fundamental values.
    - jkhdigital 6y ago
      Millenia, not centuries. Living in relative peace is a novel and stunning development in world history.
      - jbotz 6y ago
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
> If I'm a black man and the opinion is that I'm an animal That’s not the opinion though. That’s exactly what the parent is referring to. You need to listen, understand, and empathize before assuming that people who don’t agree with you must be racist.

__blockcipher__ 6y ago

If someone is expressing a good-faith opinion then you shouldn't write them off just because you disagree. Of course, "good faith" is a subjective judgement. Over time I've come to realize that usually there's a legitimate reason why someone believes what they do. Often they are either optimizing for different things, or view the matter differently. If listening to someone's opinion is actively causing emotional harm, then sure, don't listen to them. But I worry very much about the rise in offense-taking. Perhaps it's an illusion but I've felt it's become incredibly difficult to talk to people with different [political, etc] opinions than my own: not because of me, but because of their attitude towards dissent.

KittenInABox 6y ago
I agree it has become difficult to talk to people with different political opinions than my own. I just think the statement suggested was logically too strong, and entirely non applicable in very important failure modes. There are often legitimate reasons why someone believes what they do, but sometimes the belief is "I think there should be no consequences to murdering someone like you, because you're not worth the social resources you take with your disability", which was a belief expressed to me, and I need to protect myself emotionally from people who genuinely believe I should be dead.
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
> If listening to someone's opinion is actively causing emotional harm, then sure, don't listen to them. I think that might be the most important time to listen to them. If merely hearing an opinion threatens your model, that’s probably a warning sign indicating that your own ideas are fragile and unsustainable, and they need to be exposed to ideas that challenge them. Engage with painful ideas, break your own models down and reformulate them into something more robust. I think the unwillingness to do this is what leads to the problems you mention. I’m reminded of “The Coddling of the American Mind”
- chipotle_coyote 6y ago
  > If merely hearing an opinion threatens your model, that’s probably a warning sign indicating that your own ideas are fragile and unsustainable, and they need to be exposed to ideas that challenge them. This doesn't strike me as a universal truth. It's good as a general principle to test your ideas against ones that challenge them and make sure they're as robust as possible -- but if that "challenging idea" is "your group has no right to exist," then it's not reasonable to argue "if merely hearing that you have no right to exist threatens your model, that's a warning sign that your own ideas are fragile and unsustainable," is it?
- __blockcipher__ 6y ago
  So, my own philosophy is 100% listen to them, I don’t believe in closing off my mind due to fear of “emotional harm” etc. My point was more like, if person X really does feel that way, then sure they can retract themselves from discussion. But they should do so knowing it’s their own failing/weakness and not blame it on the other person being “toxic”.

shitgoose 6y ago

I have no idea what your point it, but you may want to add one more example. Let's say I am a Trump supporter and the opinion is that I am a scum and should die before the election, then it may be ethically correct not keep myself in their presence.

KittenInABox 6y ago
I mean, honestly, yes, if someone wishes your death I don't know if it is healthy to expose yourself continually to their opinions that you should die. That's emotional abuse.

philwelch 6y ago

It's easy to come up with these kinds of excuses for not tolerating the opinions of people you disagree with. If you disagree with me about abortion, you are either trying to murder babies (and hence I shouldn't have to be civil to you) or you're trying to control women's bodies (and hence I shouldn't have to be civil with you). If you disagree with me about health care reform, that's a life and death issue and hence I shouldn't have to be civil with you. If we disagree about a military intervention, that's a life and death issue and I shouldn't have to be civil with you. Justice Ginsburg and Justice Scalia disagreed on just about all of these issues and got along fine. I don't think that's because they didn't care about their respective principles and about the issues that were at stake. I think it's because, as a point of fact, we have to live in a society with each other regardless of our differences. And most of those differences are genuinely rooted in good or at least understandable intentions in the first place.

TeaDrunk 6y ago
I think this is an easy handwave to ignore that some people get more disagreement than others about whether or not they deserve civil rights, life, etc. While you espouse a need to listen, you’re not really listening at all here or even trying to understand what is being said.
- philwelch 6y ago
  It's not a handwave and it's not even remotely easy. If it were easy, it wouldn't have taken centuries of bloodshed for humanity to develop the basic concept of peacefully tolerating disagreements over fundamental values.
  - jkhdigital 6y ago
    Millenia, not centuries. Living in relative peace is a novel and stunning development in world history.
    - jbotz 6y ago

lawnchair_larry 6y ago

> If I'm a black man and the opinion is that I'm an animal That’s not the opinion though. That’s exactly what the parent is referring to. You need to listen, understand, and empathize before assuming that people who don’t agree with you must be racist.