3 ms·

I didn't say I didn't like them. I could work together with a vast majority of them just fine. Only handful of them were actively people I would not look forwar

I didn't say I didn't like them. I could work together with a vast majority of them just fine. Only handful of them were actively people I would not look forward to being in a meeting with, for example. But that doesn't mean I would invite most of them over for a beer, talk about politics, and still expect to have a good time.

syshum 5y ago
>>that doesn't mean I would invite most of them over for a beer, talk about politics, and still expect to have a good time. The question is why? Because they would disagree with you? They would challenge your beliefs? I am finding that more and more. People want agreement and echo chambers, not debates and arguments. I love arguing politics, hell sometimes I will take a contrarian position just to have the contrarian position not because I believe / support it. Debate and augmentation is how with strength our principles, our worldview, and solidify our beliefs as we age. As a society (in the US at least) we seem to be losing the ability to sit down with people that have different politics, have a heated debate/conversation, but then still walk away as friends or colleagues. that is very bad for society over all
- ThePadawan 5y ago
  > The question is why? Because they would disagree with you? They would challenge your beliefs? No and no. Because I couldn't get a word in edgewise. And they can shout louder than me, and for longer. I have been in that meeting at work before, and I have left with a headache, and they with a sense that "they've won". Imagine trying to have a beer with Piers Morgan, or a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. Sure, it might be productive. But it wouldn't be fun, and I feel that was the premise - I don't think the idea of a "family-like atmosphere at work" was to imply "everybody hates each others guts, but still has to get along somehow".
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

syshum 5y ago

>>that doesn't mean I would invite most of them over for a beer, talk about politics, and still expect to have a good time. The question is why? Because they would disagree with you? They would challenge your beliefs? I am finding that more and more. People want agreement and echo chambers, not debates and arguments. I love arguing politics, hell sometimes I will take a contrarian position just to have the contrarian position not because I believe / support it. Debate and augmentation is how with strength our principles, our worldview, and solidify our beliefs as we age. As a society (in the US at least) we seem to be losing the ability to sit down with people that have different politics, have a heated debate/conversation, but then still walk away as friends or colleagues. that is very bad for society over all

ThePadawan 5y ago
> The question is why? Because they would disagree with you? They would challenge your beliefs? No and no. Because I couldn't get a word in edgewise. And they can shout louder than me, and for longer. I have been in that meeting at work before, and I have left with a headache, and they with a sense that "they've won". Imagine trying to have a beer with Piers Morgan, or a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. Sure, it might be productive. But it wouldn't be fun, and I feel that was the premise - I don't think the idea of a "family-like atmosphere at work" was to imply "everybody hates each others guts, but still has to get along somehow".
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]