5 ms·

Where are you getting that they'd want to "dismiss you?" Smart and well-informed people can come to different interpretations of reality that are accurate in th

by kmill 4y ago

Where are you getting that they'd want to "dismiss you?" Smart and well-informed people can come to different interpretations of reality that are accurate in their own ways. It's interesting to know what sorts of consequences to such interpretations a person finds to be important for their worldview. Once we're talking about dismissing someone, we've long left the realm of good-faith discussion, which was assumed in the situation you're responding to.

ivalm 4y ago
“why it is important to you that X is true?” implies subjectivism in the belief system. While I think belief systems are largely subjective some people think of them as objective and take offense on suggestions that their beliefs are “just” subjective.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  I have a close group of friends that consists of an athiest, an agnostic, a hindu, and 2 christians, and outside of 1 of those christians, we've all been friends for at least 13 years (1 of those relationships since 1994). No one had to ask the hindu why they got upset when the athiest came by and stood next to the statue of buddha chomping on a mcdonalds beef biscuit. The athiest didn't think about it, those two had a conversation afterwards, and they still get along just fine to this day (some 10 years later). This is NOT about beliefs being objective or not. That group of friends has lasted over the years due to a fundamental respect of each other as PEOPLE. Someone who asks that particular question lacks such respect and as such are not going to be given any headspace by me.
  - vanderZwan 4y ago
    Do you realize you are making a ton of assumptions about the situation in which I ask such a question, or how? Most of them needlessly negative. Which I find odd given that I explicitly stated that I'm only doing this in a context of good faith and mutual openness.
    - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
      You do not have a right to my time. If you want a claim on my time, then you shall do so under my requirements. No native speaker is going to be surprised I ended the conversation after a question like that.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - vanderZwan 4y ago
        If you frame it like that is doesn't sound like you're particularly willing to meet the people halfway when discussing things with them, and the No True Scotsman at the end feels like an unnecessary jab at the fact that I'm not a native speaker (I don't see how that is relevant here anyway). Anyway, how you communicate with people close to you is up to you, and I'm still not sure why it upsets you so much how I claim to have healthy discussions with mine. But for the record: my partner and I essentially saved our relationship during the pandemic despite being on complete opposite "sides" of the topics of covid, vaccines and lockdowns, by communicating this way. Because truthfully, neither she nor I actually have enough expertise to really assert that the vaccine is safe or not in the long-term, whether or not lockdowns work, and so on. We just have to trust the people we consider authoritative on these matters. And for perfectly understandable personal reasons we trust different sources here and prioritize different issues. So instead of trying to convince each other of a viewpoint we could not in good faith defend as something we knew with certainty, we decided to ask ourselves why we feel so strongly about these issues. Why these beliefs that we do not have strong evidence for were so important, and to be honest with each other about those beliefs. And being willing to trust each other, open up like that and do that kind of self-reflection together works. Neither of us has changed our minds regarding covid, nor tried to change the other's mind, but we're more grateful to each other for taking the time to understand and respect each others views than that the differences upset us, because it shows we believe the other person is worth that effort. Which is more than most people who disagree as strongly about this topic as she and I do can say. If you still believe this is being disrespectful, that's fine. Outside of this meta-discussion about discussions we're having right now I have no interest in "claiming your time" and I'll still have a healthy and loving relationship with my partner regardless of what you think.
nyokodo 4y ago
> Where are you getting that they'd want to "dismiss you?" Because that kind of information is used with a common rhetorical tactic called ad hominem. > Once we're talking about dismissing someone, we've long left the realm of good-faith discussion, which was assumed in the situation you're responding to. Assuming good faith is necessary and good for any kind of productive debate but it's not necessarily or need be accompanied by the trust necessary to answer personal questions. That kind of trust is developed over time with many people. Perhaps you are more trusting by default, all power to you, but it's naive to assume everyone ought to react the same way you do.
- kmill 4y ago
  Is the content of your comment that you are explaining ad hominem to me and that vanderZwan's question requires mutual trust? Yes, I fully understand this. The only thing I am trusting here is that vanderZwan is trying to accurately report their experiences. I trust, since they say it is done in good-faith discussions, that they are sensitive to the risk of this being perceived as being ad hominem and that in-person they ask the question in an appropriate way. To be clear, I never said that I would respond well to the question. My point is that it is a large leap to go from what vanderZwan said to that this is for the purpose of dismissing someone. Also to be clear, I think it's valid for P5fRxh5kUvp2th to think that this sort of question is well outside of what is ever respectful to ask. I just happen to think it's wrong to assume that disrespect is vanderZwan's intent.

by kmill 4y ago

ivalm 4y ago

“why it is important to you that X is true?” implies subjectivism in the belief system. While I think belief systems are largely subjective some people think of them as objective and take offense on suggestions that their beliefs are “just” subjective.

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
I have a close group of friends that consists of an athiest, an agnostic, a hindu, and 2 christians, and outside of 1 of those christians, we've all been friends for at least 13 years (1 of those relationships since 1994). No one had to ask the hindu why they got upset when the athiest came by and stood next to the statue of buddha chomping on a mcdonalds beef biscuit. The athiest didn't think about it, those two had a conversation afterwards, and they still get along just fine to this day (some 10 years later). This is NOT about beliefs being objective or not. That group of friends has lasted over the years due to a fundamental respect of each other as PEOPLE. Someone who asks that particular question lacks such respect and as such are not going to be given any headspace by me.
- vanderZwan 4y ago
  Do you realize you are making a ton of assumptions about the situation in which I ask such a question, or how? Most of them needlessly negative. Which I find odd given that I explicitly stated that I'm only doing this in a context of good faith and mutual openness.
  - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
    You do not have a right to my time. If you want a claim on my time, then you shall do so under my requirements. No native speaker is going to be surprised I ended the conversation after a question like that.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - vanderZwan 4y ago
      If you frame it like that is doesn't sound like you're particularly willing to meet the people halfway when discussing things with them, and the No True Scotsman at the end feels like an unnecessary jab at the fact that I'm not a native speaker (I don't see how that is relevant here anyway). Anyway, how you communicate with people close to you is up to you, and I'm still not sure why it upsets you so much how I claim to have healthy discussions with mine. But for the record: my partner and I essentially saved our relationship during the pandemic despite being on complete opposite "sides" of the topics of covid, vaccines and lockdowns, by communicating this way. Because truthfully, neither she nor I actually have enough expertise to really assert that the vaccine is safe or not in the long-term, whether or not lockdowns work, and so on. We just have to trust the people we consider authoritative on these matters. And for perfectly understandable personal reasons we trust different sources here and prioritize different issues. So instead of trying to convince each other of a viewpoint we could not in good faith defend as something we knew with certainty, we decided to ask ourselves why we feel so strongly about these issues. Why these beliefs that we do not have strong evidence for were so important, and to be honest with each other about those beliefs. And being willing to trust each other, open up like that and do that kind of self-reflection together works. Neither of us has changed our minds regarding covid, nor tried to change the other's mind, but we're more grateful to each other for taking the time to understand and respect each others views than that the differences upset us, because it shows we believe the other person is worth that effort. Which is more than most people who disagree as strongly about this topic as she and I do can say. If you still believe this is being disrespectful, that's fine. Outside of this meta-discussion about discussions we're having right now I have no interest in "claiming your time" and I'll still have a healthy and loving relationship with my partner regardless of what you think.

nyokodo 4y ago

> Where are you getting that they'd want to "dismiss you?" Because that kind of information is used with a common rhetorical tactic called ad hominem. > Once we're talking about dismissing someone, we've long left the realm of good-faith discussion, which was assumed in the situation you're responding to. Assuming good faith is necessary and good for any kind of productive debate but it's not necessarily or need be accompanied by the trust necessary to answer personal questions. That kind of trust is developed over time with many people. Perhaps you are more trusting by default, all power to you, but it's naive to assume everyone ought to react the same way you do.

kmill 4y ago
Is the content of your comment that you are explaining ad hominem to me and that vanderZwan's question requires mutual trust? Yes, I fully understand this. The only thing I am trusting here is that vanderZwan is trying to accurately report their experiences. I trust, since they say it is done in good-faith discussions, that they are sensitive to the risk of this being perceived as being ad hominem and that in-person they ask the question in an appropriate way. To be clear, I never said that I would respond well to the question. My point is that it is a large leap to go from what vanderZwan said to that this is for the purpose of dismissing someone. Also to be clear, I think it's valid for P5fRxh5kUvp2th to think that this sort of question is well outside of what is ever respectful to ask. I just happen to think it's wrong to assume that disrespect is vanderZwan's intent.