"What I have to wonder at this point is why you continue to engage with people when you know they aren't in a position to respond to you with equanimity."
Because people who disagree, especially online, rarely speak to each other with equanimity. I wish this weren't the case, but it is. But Dianne isn't really attacking me, she's actually quite happy to recognise where her generalisations don't apply to me. She's just defending a generalised view of men that is inaccurate and, as Penny eloquently points out above, only really hurts her in the end.
I don't expect people to change their minds in real time. Even if I make an absolutely airtight case, all that usually happens is that the person stops responding. Ego and all that. But I do believe that calm, reasonable arguments persuade people over time. And sometimes the cumulative effect of many people pointing to the flaws in arguments
I've seen this many, many times amongst my own readers and in general. So I guess I'm taking a longer term view. And lastly, the comments also get a lot of views. So even if Dianne is unreachable, somebody else might not be.
Although I love your work, I haven't subscribed because I don't see the value in The Commentary, which tends to get redundant, that I do in your Medium articles. Provide them here, too, and I'll subscribe. You need to replicate them *somewhere in case they ever kick you off.
(BTW: Deplatforming #3 for me yesterday - CounterSocial, a Twitter alternative. They didn't say why of course, but the night before I'd posted an article about the lack of science behind gender-affirming care).
This is what Steve does. And he does it respectfully. The enemy is still human and you never know when he might reach someone and help them to their next step of understanding. You should check out the work of Daryl Davis if you want another example of how patient compassion can literally change people's minds: https://www.fairforall.org/profile/daryl-davis/
It's not helpful for us to think of people as "enemies" and thereby justify dehumanizing them - not speaking to them, etc. I prefer to think of people who I feel are misguided as just that - misguided. Of course, everyone has the right to not engage with whomever they choose. But, I respect Steve for engaging these people.
"What I have to wonder at this point is why you continue to engage with people when you know they aren't in a position to respond to you with equanimity."
Because people who disagree, especially online, rarely speak to each other with equanimity. I wish this weren't the case, but it is. But Dianne isn't really attacking me, she's actually quite happy to recognise where her generalisations don't apply to me. She's just defending a generalised view of men that is inaccurate and, as Penny eloquently points out above, only really hurts her in the end.
I don't expect people to change their minds in real time. Even if I make an absolutely airtight case, all that usually happens is that the person stops responding. Ego and all that. But I do believe that calm, reasonable arguments persuade people over time. And sometimes the cumulative effect of many people pointing to the flaws in arguments
I've seen this many, many times amongst my own readers and in general. So I guess I'm taking a longer term view. And lastly, the comments also get a lot of views. So even if Dianne is unreachable, somebody else might not be.
Although I love your work, I haven't subscribed because I don't see the value in The Commentary, which tends to get redundant, that I do in your Medium articles. Provide them here, too, and I'll subscribe. You need to replicate them *somewhere in case they ever kick you off.
(BTW: Deplatforming #3 for me yesterday - CounterSocial, a Twitter alternative. They didn't say why of course, but the night before I'd posted an article about the lack of science behind gender-affirming care).
This is what Steve does. And he does it respectfully. The enemy is still human and you never know when he might reach someone and help them to their next step of understanding. You should check out the work of Daryl Davis if you want another example of how patient compassion can literally change people's minds: https://www.fairforall.org/profile/daryl-davis/
It's not helpful for us to think of people as "enemies" and thereby justify dehumanizing them - not speaking to them, etc. I prefer to think of people who I feel are misguided as just that - misguided. Of course, everyone has the right to not engage with whomever they choose. But, I respect Steve for engaging these people.
Seconded. Time is our most precious resource, three score and ten is a gyp already.
When people announce their unreachableness, why waste any more time on them. Some fell on rocky ground. Use your talents on the more promising.