3 ms·

> (it doesn't mean that they are either Then we should start with the assumption that they're not, right? I'm guessing that starting out by assuming the worst

> (it doesn't mean that they are either Then we should start with the assumption that they're not, right? I'm guessing that starting out by assuming the worst in others is one thing that contributes to the current polarization in US politics. > Please, protect yourself from the backlash from these "seemingly reasonable" people. What specifically do you advise that I do here? I don't want to just ignore challenges to the idea that accessibility should be a requirement. If I pay attention to these people and put in the effort to understand why they think as they do, then I can become a more effective advocate, or possibly even revise my position. Yes, the latter may lead me to question whether I should even exist, but it seems to me that a healthy mind should be able to dispassionately contemplate hypotheticals that even threaten oneself.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
I think that empathy is something we should all try to cultivate more of, and I try to do this myself (much to the derisive contempt of some people who do indeed think you should just assume the worst based on the smallest possible evidence). However, while we definitely need more empathy, the world is also full of stupidity, and there's a point in everything where you need to be able to stop putting your energy into fighting the stupid. There's a point where you have to say "no, wait, these people are not actually arguing in good faith, i've explained to them over and over again why they are wrong, why the evidence of the last N years shows them to be wrong, and they have no answer to this, and just keep repeating the same falsehoods. I'm done". Now, if you're not at that point with the people you engage with about this, great, keep aiming for empathy and understanding. But if you are, move on. There's a company I collaborated with once who had an epiphany when they realized they had been putting way too much energy into trying to prevent people ripping off their software. They changed direction and focused on ignoring the people who did that, and instead tried to provide the best possible customer service and support they could to people who had paid them. Things got better for everyone. I think there's a general lesson here about where best to direct one's energies.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

I think that empathy is something we should all try to cultivate more of, and I try to do this myself (much to the derisive contempt of some people who do indeed think you should just assume the worst based on the smallest possible evidence). However, while we definitely need more empathy, the world is also full of stupidity, and there's a point in everything where you need to be able to stop putting your energy into fighting the stupid. There's a point where you have to say "no, wait, these people are not actually arguing in good faith, i've explained to them over and over again why they are wrong, why the evidence of the last N years shows them to be wrong, and they have no answer to this, and just keep repeating the same falsehoods. I'm done". Now, if you're not at that point with the people you engage with about this, great, keep aiming for empathy and understanding. But if you are, move on. There's a company I collaborated with once who had an epiphany when they realized they had been putting way too much energy into trying to prevent people ripping off their software. They changed direction and focused on ignoring the people who did that, and instead tried to provide the best possible customer service and support they could to people who had paid them. Things got better for everyone. I think there's a general lesson here about where best to direct one's energies.