3 ms·

> I have had problems with people thinking I'm arguing or > attacking their ideas, when I am only looking for a > debate and a more thorough view of thei

> I have had problems with people thinking I'm arguing or > attacking their ideas, when I am only looking for a > debate and a more thorough view of their ideas and > line of thinking. Noble intent, poor execution. Consider that people in oppressed groups (women, victims of sexual assault, ethnic minorities) have had their legitimacy questioned and denied throughout most if not all of history. And then along comes you, the noble truth-seeker. Probing and questioning their views. Looking for logical holes. What wonderful subjects these people make for your rhetorical sparring! The reality is that your intentions are good but from their perspective, chances are that you sound pretty much the same as the last few millenia of people that have shouted them down and questioned their legitimacy. Give them room to express their views, even if you think they're wrong, because this is something they are often denied the right to do. The solution is simple but not easy. Make sure you're listening and reading a hell of a lot more than you're speaking and writing. I 100% believe your intentions are good, by the way. Just understand that intent is not magic.

blumkvist 12y ago
Well, I'm making conscious effort to improve, but to be fair I never did quite go so far as to question obviously disturbed people. What I describe is more in line with a heated discussion of politics or history. In any case, this lead to micro conflicts I wasn't aware of and so poor relationships. Your solution is spot-on. I had such difficulty following through, that I literary tied up a piece of red string on my left wrist to remind me of conflicts and my unmindfulness. Nowadays the Internet is my battleground for heated debate :)
- JohnBooty 12y ago
  I'm with you in a lot of ways. Debate/dialectic/etc is how I generally would like to come to an understanding of things. And that's not wrong. It's just... a lot of people don't work that way, and frankly we're being jerks if we try to force it on others.
Thriptic 12y ago
> Give them room to express their views, even if you think they're wrong, because this is something they are often denied the right to do. Everyone should have a platform to safely express their opinions, but if their opinions are incorrect then they should be challenged and debated. Statements shouldn't be protected from scrutiny just because they are being uttered by a woman or a minority.
- ticviking 12y ago
  > Everyone should have a platform to safely express their opinions, but if their opinions are incorrect then they should be challenged and debated. Statements shouldn't be protected from scrutiny just because they are being uttered by a woman or a minority. Precisely this. Granting special exemption from the normal process of discourse and debate is infantilizing. Treating someone as your equal and expecting that they are capable of defending their ideas is not wrong, particularly when they share their ideas in the public sphere.
- tunesmith 12y ago
  So, a couple of things - I enjoy thinking about this subject so I've made some distinctions for myself on this in the past. First, I like the distinction between dialectic and debate. It's possible to learn more about someone's point of view through asking interested questions and (together) exploring where their beliefs lead, without necessarily challenging them in a debate sense. Debate often means scoring points using non-logical rhetoric. Dialectic is more the spirit of being on the same team, exploring a point together, and I don't see it as less efficient in any sense. Second, normative conclusions (as most opinions are) are a combination of moral axioms and a bunch of logical syllogisms. I think an opinion can be judged "incorrect" in two ways. First, they are reasoning badly from their premises (valid but unsound). That can be fun to explore in a dialectic sense to see if the logical framework can be tightened up or if the conclusion can be modified. But the other common way an opinion can be "incorrect" is if it soundly, logically flows from moral axioms (values) that you simply disagree with. And those sorts of axioms aren't correct or incorrect by definition. This is usually the appropriate time to agree to disagree, or respect where the other person is coming from. But either way, this all requires having a certain level of empathy or respect for your counterpart's point of view and intent.

blumkvist 12y ago

Well, I'm making conscious effort to improve, but to be fair I never did quite go so far as to question obviously disturbed people. What I describe is more in line with a heated discussion of politics or history. In any case, this lead to micro conflicts I wasn't aware of and so poor relationships. Your solution is spot-on. I had such difficulty following through, that I literary tied up a piece of red string on my left wrist to remind me of conflicts and my unmindfulness. Nowadays the Internet is my battleground for heated debate :)

JohnBooty 12y ago
I'm with you in a lot of ways. Debate/dialectic/etc is how I generally would like to come to an understanding of things. And that's not wrong. It's just... a lot of people don't work that way, and frankly we're being jerks if we try to force it on others.

Thriptic 12y ago

> Give them room to express their views, even if you think they're wrong, because this is something they are often denied the right to do. Everyone should have a platform to safely express their opinions, but if their opinions are incorrect then they should be challenged and debated. Statements shouldn't be protected from scrutiny just because they are being uttered by a woman or a minority.

ticviking 12y ago
> Everyone should have a platform to safely express their opinions, but if their opinions are incorrect then they should be challenged and debated. Statements shouldn't be protected from scrutiny just because they are being uttered by a woman or a minority. Precisely this. Granting special exemption from the normal process of discourse and debate is infantilizing. Treating someone as your equal and expecting that they are capable of defending their ideas is not wrong, particularly when they share their ideas in the public sphere.
tunesmith 12y ago
So, a couple of things - I enjoy thinking about this subject so I've made some distinctions for myself on this in the past. First, I like the distinction between dialectic and debate. It's possible to learn more about someone's point of view through asking interested questions and (together) exploring where their beliefs lead, without necessarily challenging them in a debate sense. Debate often means scoring points using non-logical rhetoric. Dialectic is more the spirit of being on the same team, exploring a point together, and I don't see it as less efficient in any sense. Second, normative conclusions (as most opinions are) are a combination of moral axioms and a bunch of logical syllogisms. I think an opinion can be judged "incorrect" in two ways. First, they are reasoning badly from their premises (valid but unsound). That can be fun to explore in a dialectic sense to see if the logical framework can be tightened up or if the conclusion can be modified. But the other common way an opinion can be "incorrect" is if it soundly, logically flows from moral axioms (values) that you simply disagree with. And those sorts of axioms aren't correct or incorrect by definition. This is usually the appropriate time to agree to disagree, or respect where the other person is coming from. But either way, this all requires having a certain level of empathy or respect for your counterpart's point of view and intent.