4 ms·

Can't this only really work if your 'opponent' agrees to also do the same up front? Imagine believing a troll arguing with you has fully honest and positive i

Can't this only really work if your 'opponent' agrees to also do the same up front? Imagine believing a troll arguing with you has fully honest and positive intentions (or you can convince them to be so) while they savage you. That's some weird self-torture. Or, if your opponent isn't interest in the strategies, you're back to square one. Training yourself to ignore the individual behind the comments and focus on the content sounds more useful in my opinion over time, as it allows you to debate under broader circumstances, without any social contract. I might be completely wrong, but I also imagine it would lead to better recognition of circular logic, ad-hominem and other useless argumentation rhetoric because you're actively working to remove the emotional triggers that blind you.

smeej 4y ago
I think the point is that your "opponent" might agree to this if you express openness to it from the start by showing them you understand and share their deepest motives, but they will almost certainly be closed to you if they perceive themselves (rightly or wrongly) to be under attack. It's always up to you to assess whether there's any hope for a productive conversation with someone. It's also up to you to define "productive." If there is no hope, by whatever definition you select, it's probably a better use of your time to set a boundary and disengage. This strategy seems to be geared toward maximizing the chance that your "opponent" will be able and willing to hear your points, but there's only so much any strategy can do if someone is determined to see you as an enemy from the start.