4 ms·

Sure you can? Someone can be affected by things and still end up with false beliefs. It’s possible to still be kind to someone and argue a belief they hold is

Sure you can? Someone can be affected by things and still end up with false beliefs. It’s possible to still be kind to someone and argue a belief they hold is wrong. What’s true can be in conflict with deeply held beliefs (and often is). Part of the core issue is when one side won’t engage in actual discussion of the content and only argues at the meta level about identity. I think roflc0ptic’s examples are good ones - thankfully it seems the discourse around this kind of stuff is shifting back to being more moderate.

throwaway82652 5y ago
You're absolutely correct, but that still isn't helpful to someone who is already committed to being a single-issue activist. You're taking completely the wrong angle. You have to address the why and not the belief itself. Edit: It's not particularly important or relevant to what's been said here if you see the mainstream discourse as shifting to being "more moderate". This is a given with any single-issue activist, it's your business if you deal in organizing activists. The shift to being moderate only happens through this process, there's no other process. If you don't concern yourself with organizing activists, then this isn't your wheelhouse, and I don't see why it was brought up.
- gonehome 5y ago
  Ah I understand - you’re commenting more on strategy around being able to get through to someone when a core value is in conflict with what may be true. Yeah, on that I agree - requires more deft communication skills. I think you can still “blame them” for holding false beliefs though (or phrased differently not give them a free pass on dogma) while still understanding it’s going to be an emotional thing for them, but this sounds like it might be us just disputing definitions over “blame” and we mostly agree.

4 ms·

Sure you can? Someone can be affected by things and still end up with false beliefs. It’s possible to still be kind to someone and argue a belief they hold is

by gonehome 5y ago

throwaway82652 5y ago
You're absolutely correct, but that still isn't helpful to someone who is already committed to being a single-issue activist. You're taking completely the wrong angle. You have to address the why and not the belief itself. Edit: It's not particularly important or relevant to what's been said here if you see the mainstream discourse as shifting to being "more moderate". This is a given with any single-issue activist, it's your business if you deal in organizing activists. The shift to being moderate only happens through this process, there's no other process. If you don't concern yourself with organizing activists, then this isn't your wheelhouse, and I don't see why it was brought up.
- gonehome 5y ago
  Ah I understand - you’re commenting more on strategy around being able to get through to someone when a core value is in conflict with what may be true. Yeah, on that I agree - requires more deft communication skills. I think you can still “blame them” for holding false beliefs though (or phrased differently not give them a free pass on dogma) while still understanding it’s going to be an emotional thing for them, but this sounds like it might be us just disputing definitions over “blame” and we mostly agree.