3 ms·
On the contrary, I find it very realistic. We don't have time to argue with every single individual who thinks we're wrong, no matter how much we might think _t
by cercatrova 5y ago
On the contrary, I find it very realistic. We don't have time to argue with every single individual who thinks we're wrong, no matter how much we might think _they're_ the ones in the wrong. With people like the GP, there's just no convincing them, you just have to move on and not waste your own time trying to debate with them.
- wolverine876 5y ago> We don't have time to argue with every single individual who thinks we're wrong Sure, but then don't enter the discussion at all. It's generally no faster to fight with the other person than to try to understand them. > no matter how much we might think _they're_ the ones in the wrong That assumes that's the point of the discussion. Do it to find out about the other person, help them find out about you, and to explore what they know and what you know. > there's just no convincing them I think that assumes, again, this adversarial fight. I'm not trying to convince them (see above). And often, people are open and curious if you approach or respond to them differently.