On these types of forums it’s easy to jump into an argument about the technicalities or a post or comment.
You should know, though, that there is a theory called Ways of Knowing which defines Separate Knowing and Connected Knowing. It’s been a part of my masters program I’m taking.
Separate knowing disconnects the humanity and context from what’s being said and tries to only argue the “facts”. But facts, and the things people say, don’t just occur in a vacuum. It often is the case when people are arguing past each other, like on the internet.
Connected Knowing is approaching the thing someone said with the understanding that there is a context, humanity, biases, different experiences, and human error that can all jumble up when people are sharing information.
Maybe even just knowing that there’s different ways to know would be helpful for us to engage in a different level of conversation here. I’m not sure. I just wanted to share!
https://capstone.unst.pdx.edu/sites/default/files/Critical Thinking Article_0.pdf
Really? Leaving people to believe stupid, damaging, dangerous things just because you don’t want to make a scene or don’t want even the least hint of rudeness (probably because you learned that extreme politeness, even at your own expense, is a value) seems a lot less empathetic to me.
But you do you and follow “your own truth”.
Are you defending leaving the people believe whatever they want, however wrong, damaging, wrongheaded, contrary to evidence or inane, just to avoid offending them? If not, what is your fucking point?!
I think you’ve missed the core point of this whole thread.
You’re also conflating empathy with acquiescence.
Separate knowing is understanding someone’s position logically or factually. Connected knowing requires an understanding of the context.
You can’t reason someone out of an unreasonable position.
Hitting a flat earther with logic and facts will obviously be counter productive. Even a modicum of empathy and curiosity as to why someone thinks the way they do will serve you well.
Conversations are about much more than who is wrong and who is right.
But in that case, the battle is already lost. I cannot engage with the person in a manipulative emotional way to use their emotions to shock them out of their mistaken positions. Any further communication regarding the matter is useless. And glossing over some topics is being an accomplice, but apparently that’s the only viable response.
Knowing why they believe ss they do will do nothing to help me show them their mistake.
Departing with people espousing damaging views for society, given that as you say reason is not a tool that works, is pointless.
It’s only pointless if your sole objective is to demonstrate to everyone how right you are about everything.
Or if you don’t want to be a silent accomplice of certain evils in society.
Would you have nice chats with a mass murderer about art?
Sorry you’ve lost me.
We usually lock up murderers to prevent them from harming others. That being the case, I guess you could chat to them about art if you were really interested in that.
That said, if you were trying to prevent future murders of course you’d need to try to understand the murderers perspective.
Indeed. This is because he lacks actual empathy so doesn’t actually comprehend the very concept.
Yes. That’s exactly what everybody here is saying.
I resubmit: you lack all capacity to comprehend any viewpoint other than yours and will only damage anything you believe in as a result.