Do you approach conversations in good faith?

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by wegs, May 8, 2019.

  1. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    I was watching a pretty riveting interview with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and she poignantly conveyed the need to start changing course, in how we approach conversations with one another. (as they relate primarily to controversial topics)

    Whether it be about politics, religion, science, spirituality, race, gender issues, etc...we should always try to approach another person with the dignity and respect we'd like to receive in return. We don't have to agree on the issues we're discussing, but our society is only going to change, if we can start taking a different approach.

    Personally, I enjoy discussing varying topics with people of opposing viewpoints, because it provides an opportunity to learn. By showing empathy, and understanding, it helps me to see where they're coming from, plain and simple. I'm not looking to ''win'' an argument, or even sway opinions to my way of thinking, and often times, that never happens with one single conversation, if we're honest. Most of the time, I'd say all of us appreciate being heard, and conversing with people who respect our position.

    Unfortunately, I've seen discussion (er, argument?) styles that mimic a courtroom, where there is a prosecutor and a defendant. The intimidating prosecutor brashly interrogates the lowly defendant, because the prosecutor wants to win a case. If we approach people with the idea that someone couldn't possibly disagree with us, and still be smart, then we've got some work to do. Attacking, criticizing, shaming, and degrading someone will only create distance. I've always believed that when someone stoops to that method of ''debating'' me, they don't feel confident in their points, anymore. (But, I don't say ''gotcha!'')

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Whew, okay. Just wanted to get this off my chest, and hoping we can have a good discussion about it.

    Do you approach controversial conversations in good faith or as debates, that you need to win? Do you think that you need to improve in this area?
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2019
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Except with strangers, I avoid controversy.
    Whatever is controversial among family or co-workers usually involves a vested interest: we want something our own way, and we are each advocating for a course of action or outcome that we care about. Winning matters more than being intellectually right - but costs more, too.
    With strangers, a conversation on matters that are controversial in the world at large isn't necessarily between advocates of any particular side. Most people have opinions, some better informed than others, on most subjects, but their feelings about and interest in subjects vary greatly. At the start of a conversation, you don't usually know how invested or knowledgeable the other person is. Your reaction will solidify as the conversation proceeds: it may remain mildly curious, become politely bored, or develop into stronger points of view.
    If I want to learn about the topic, I'll read an article or listen to a lecture by some who actually knows about it.
    If I want to find out how somebody thinks and feels, conversations form and change my attitude toward that person.
    In politics, listening to more evil clowns won't get me any closer to the goal of taking power away from evil clowns before they kill the whole world.
     
    wegs and sideshowbob like this.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    That's true. But, when it comes to politics or any other potentially polarizing topic, do you think that it's possible that most people approach conversations believing they are right, even if they're not knowledgeable on the subject? If someone isn't knowledgeable on the facts of current events, would you try to help them understand, in an empathetic way?

    Okay.

    Really? Have you ever lost/gained respect for someone, from said conversations?

    But, maybe the goal is to bring us all back to the center, and not necessarily drag them over to our way of thinking. I kind of wish we could all be moderates, as we've become too polarized and extreme, in our views.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    I think, in person most non-politicians are respectful with their discussions and most people don't talk much about controversial subject in their real life.

    It's more "confrontational" here, more so by some than by others. When positions are more "extreme" then responses tend to be a little more forceful. If someone is talking about unicorns it's harder to say "you have an interesting perspective and you may be on to something since there's a lot that we still don't know and thanks you for your perspective".

    If it's a factual issues and the other person is just living in their own world, it's even a little harder to do that. Of course we should all be civil and open-minded but online very little is discussed that involves being "open-minded". The unicorn example makes that point.

    Regarding the discourse in politics today, it's terrible of course and not helpful or productive at all. You should be able to be more open-minded if you are liberal and are discussing a valid conservative position as life is a mix of both.

    You also can't be too sensitive if you bring up certain subject. If you believe in flying saucers you shouldn't have thin skin if you are going to continue to post all the details about flying saucers IMO.
     
  8. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    If they have ever vote, they must have some political conviction or preference. They must have taken that position, believing it to be right. Why else?
    Depends on whether I actually could feel empathy for them. I do try to stretch my tolerance-cover, but it's finite.
    Of course, all the time, either or. I don't engage unless I'm genuinely interested.
    From the far right, yes.
    From the near right, center and center-left, yes]
    No time.
    Anyway, the "moderate" positions of recent Liberal and Democrat governments have been so wishy-washy as to get very little done that a single fathead with a majority can't undo in his first 100 days.
     
  9. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Name three valid conservative platform planks that would be beneficial to a progressive world-view.
     
  10. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,985
    I just take it (an life in general) as it comes an do what i want... an im always changin but i dont make "self improvement" lists.!!!

    BTW
    Love AOC... she dont run away... ant a door-mat an gives as good as she gets.!!!
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2019
  11. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    I've been reminded in another thread, as to why I took a long break from here. I'll never understand why people quote something that you've posted, and then purposely construe a different meaning from it, and then argue against the meaning they came up with. And then expect you, to defend something you never posted.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I can't. *smh*
     
  12. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    Reducing personal taxes could benefit someone struggling to make ends meet.
    Keeping the capital gains rates could encourage saving vs spending thus give one more options later in life.
    Private health care could be better than public health care.

    I don't have to agree with all of those but they are reasonable and at least one I do agree with.
     
    wegs likes this.
  13. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    Why do you hate pixie dust?
     
    wegs likes this.
  14. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    She has stock in Pledge.
     
    wegs likes this.
  15. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Reducing it for which income brackets and by what system of calculations?
    If you take off 10% across the board, people in the lowest two brackets don't save enough to bring their ends much closer to meeting, while the $300,000+ get a whack of money they don't need, because their ends meet to the extent that they choose to budget, or spend.
    Those over $ a billion don't pay income tax, because they have clever accounting dodges (quite a lot lower, too, but they're not all guaranteed to get away with it). Their ends meet wrapped four times around.
    So, the biggest benefit goes to those with incomes of $700,000 to +/-$10,000,000.
    And the government would have less to spend on infrastructure, schools and social services - cos they sure as hell won't cut the shortfall out of military spending.

    Sounds good. Who gets to do all this theoretical saving? People who are already rich, who have already given their offspring advantages over all the poor people's kids, put them in upper income brackets long before the pater kicks off; they don't need yet another privilege.
    Poor people don't spend all their money to avoid taxation after death; they spend it on staying alive and trying to pay off their debts.
    Again, the benefit goes to those who don't need it and the revenue shortfall is taken from those who do need it.

    On this, there is a mountain of readily available factual evidence.
    To support that statement, you'd have to invent highly gerrymandered definition of "could" and "better".
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2019
  16. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    I thought you asked if I was open minded enough to come up with something from another point of view. I am. Apparently you aren't.

    I can, of course, addresses the questions that you have brought up, but then I would be sucked into a conversation that I wasn't interested in. Suffice it to say everyone can save and everyone benefits from tax laws that encourage that. Those that get more from it can pay more if that's the decision of the elected. It's not a hard issue to address for those who want to.

    To do otherwise is emotion based class baiting. "Stock markets are for the rich, hand outs are for the poor" and so on. It's nonsense.
     
  17. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    No, I asked:
    Name three valid conservative platform planks that would be beneficial to a progressive world-view.
    ie. with which I could find common ground
    It's not a matter of open-mindedness; it's a matter of goals, means and math.
     
  18. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    I'm not a conservative and I don't know what you find common ground with. Capital gains are just as good for a liberal saver and for a conservative saver. If you don't like the way those tax laws are applied to those worth over $10 million (or whatever) then change the way they are applied to those in that asset range.

    Don't assume that every liberal is too stupid to save any money or that all conservatives are rich. Many of the Trump supporters are broke and stupid. Don't assume that good tax policy is to make sure that those of more modest means have to rely on the government or they can't live. That's not good for anyone, liberals included. High property taxes aren't good for the modest earning liberal. You seem to just assume that no one who is liberal can mange to buy a house.
     
  19. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    That would mean that she should love pixie dust. Think, man, think!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    A world without dust is a world without the need for Pledge.
     
  20. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Conservative platforms are just that, conservative. They aren't interested in progressive ideals, although, there are moderates that seem to be. I find common ground with some conservative ideas and also democratic. But, thinking that the government really cares about us, from either side, is pretty naive. *shrug*
     
  21. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Aw. That'd be a sad world, no pixie dust.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    It's conservative vs liberal and Republican vs Democrat

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Po-tay-toe, Po-tah-toe

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page