4 ms·

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. O

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”.

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”.