I now find myself in the ironic position where I disagree with many (not all) points you raise in your post. Perhaps I might, with any luck, achieve some insight into how to go about my original problem trying to frame a polite response to it.
zonk wrote: Thu Jun 12, 2025 2:12 pm
…don't be so sure that the other person is wrong. You can be mistaken, too… everyone in the conversation approaches the truth, even if that means you're the one who's mistaken… you should be open to the possibility that they have good reasons for their belief.
My disputes often sprout from
philosophical themes. For example, having been the only idealist in a room full of materialists has sometimes indirectly led to conflict, naturally about indirectly related matters, notably when they presume materialist principles in other statements which I then have reason to reject. My reasons are
a priori and a casual conversation cannot overturn them. With most people, I cannot expect even meaningfully to discuss the underlying cleft, although I know full well it is there. (If I want to weigh the merits of rival ontologies, I would rather read an academic philosopher than some random layman with an internet connexion.) The discussion must therefore remain superficial, which I think engenders much of the problem I face, although I think it would be at least as bad if we proceeded to quarrel over metaphysics or whatever else.
I think the best way to respond to people with whom you disagree is by asking honest and genuine questions. Probe their knowledge by trying to get to the bottom of why they believe what they said. Your goal should be to understand the other person's perspective out of genuine curiosity…
Oddly enough, this is what I tended to do until this year: seeking to understand them on their own terms. This approach went
far worse for everybody involved.
This practice is called street epistemology, and it usually comes up around the topic of religion, but I have applied it with respect to politics as well.
I recognise, and have indeed read in full, the book you have most likely got in mind. A street epistemologist is as insufferable as his evangelical equivalent, the presuppositionalist. Both promote only the kind of religious intolerance that I wish to flee. I do not want to be a gadfly.
…ask yourself what you hope to gain by arguing with someone on the internet. Do a simple cost/benefit analysis to decide if it's worth your time… I think the best you can do is try to at least make it as productive as possible.
I never hope to gain anything. The profit motive itself is absent in me. Words like
productive and
useful ring in my ear like
mean and
base. I think I could ignore things if only I knew how. This social skill, for somebody for whom this is not obvious or easy, is perhaps complex like learning to play an instrument, but I believe it can be taught.
I paused often when writing this. Writing on a bulletin board, where the pressure to reply in real time disappears, has felt less distressing than something like this would have been if I were in a chat room and therefore pressured to answer comments as they arrive. I also find myself revising, even cutting some segments after posting to avoid my phrasing seeming too barbed. The quick pace of a live chat might be the biggest problem.
Like before, I am using this sham break. Perhaps I should just use an em dash in future instead.
As a precaution, I have edited my Discord profile, where these unsought quarrels tend to occur, to include the statement:
I wrote:Volatile: please do not reply if we disagree about something, to avoid quarrels.
Moderators where I belong have also told me they will quench such sparking conversations before they burst into flame, but admit they cannot always be present. I also wish to avoid the threat of charges of hypocrisy if somebody else says something disagreeable. This remedy is incomplete, and I am open to further suggestions on how to prevent online strife.
