4 ms·
The question to start with is whether the argument is worth having. Irrespective of whether you disagree with a person's outlook, their opinion is likely incons
by boh 3y ago
The question to start with is whether the argument is worth having. Irrespective of whether you disagree with a person's outlook, their opinion is likely inconsequential and yields no relevant outcomes, and to argue is ultimately a time-killing indulgence.
It might be a blow to the ego, particularly since it diminishes the messaging that is marketed to us from various sources, exemplifying our importance and the need to purchase what they're selling to support that importance, but the reality is that most people are on the sidelines of any given subject, and their outlook doesn't serve any ends besides a momentary distraction (as a fan's opinion of football doesn't impact the outcome of any given game).
- throwup238 3y ago> The question to start with is whether the argument is worth having. The answer is almost always no. Not like 9 out 10 times, but 9,999 out of 10,000 times. Arguments don't persuade people, they're just a team sport to begin with, continuing with your analogy.
- dcow 3y agoCooler heads prevail though. Don’t dismiss the impact a heated discussion can have on you days/weeks/months/years later.
- grvdrm 3y agoSuch an underrated point. Put aside reputation, etc. The stress response alone is very frequently NOT worth it.
- wesselbindt 3y agoArguments are for the onlooker, not the participants.