mokie: A tiny, sad cardboard robot walks in the rain (sad)
First, I completely fail to see how invested the other person is in the topic. Then I find the hole in their argument and poke at it, because that's how I think at things: But what about... Part of this may include playing Devil's advocate and presenting the opposite side for consideration, because that's also how I think at things: On the other hand, we can't forget about... I'm trying to be logical in context and thorough, because that's what examining the holes and holding the topic up to peer at all sides is about, being logical and thorough. This generally means I come across as far more invested in the topic than I usually am.

And then somebody sighs and shrugs and walks away, because I'm being obnoxious. And I am, but I'm working on it, honest.

Or somebody tells me I'm scaring away other participants by refusing to allow them their opinions. But I'm not--I just tackle their argument the same way I'd tackle my argument. I'm learning to point out where they make good points, and to bolster those, before I poke their holes.

Or someone takes up 'my side' and presents an argument with holes, and I point out the holes, maybe even swap sides (the slightly less devilish advocate?), and everybody gets very frustrated because how do I feel already?! and I explain that I don't necessarily feel one way or the other, I think, and I'm more interested in a full and interesting discussion than taking a side and defending a flag.1 And they get offended, because to them it's not about a full and interesting discussion but about being right, and they feel my stance mocks or belittles that. I understand completely--I just can't do anything about it.

Or somebody blows up, because the topic steps on one of their triggers and they didn't really want to discuss it as much as rant about it, and I'm frustrating them by sticking to the discussion at hand. This is why I'm wary of talking to atheists/agnostics about anything pertaining to religion, because for many any discussion of religion always becomes their own personal boxing match, relived over and over and over, regardless of the actual framing and context of the current discussion.

Or somebody blows up, because the subject doesn't jibe with their world view so they don't really want to discuss the issue brought up as much as they want to discuss their world view as it relates to the subject, and I'm frustrating them by sticking to the original issue. I've seen a Southern Baptist try to sit through a class on Judaism and fail miserably because he couldn't step outside his world view and see the course material from its own context.2

Logic-in-context protip: if you sit down in a circle discussing the significance of Catholic iconography, and someone asks what the symbols associated with St. James are, and you respond with, "It's all a tool to manipulate the masses"? Not logical in context, because the context is not whether you believe. Also, you're being an asshole.

But anyway: I've got to learn to ignore that little voice that squeaks up from the back of my head, "But what about...?" It's never as interesting to me as it is frustrating to the other party.

1 If it's an issue I have strong feelings about, I'm probably not going to engage in debate about it much, precisely because it's a big issue to me and I don't like feeling like it's being reduced to two sides defending their flags, and don't want to get tetchy at someone who is, like I do, just trying to explore all the facets of the discussion. (Told you I understand.)

2 To be fair, it's very likely that he intentionally enrolled to be disruptive and evangelize to us poor kids being led astray by a damn liberal college, so I don't feel all that bad about the rabbi accidentally making him cry.

Profile

mokie: Earthrise seen from the moon (Default)
mokie

January 2025

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930 31 

Credit

Page generated Wednesday, 11 June 2025 11:57 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

About dream/reading tags

y-* tags categorize dreams.

For types: beyond the obvious, there are dreamlets (very short dreams), stubs (fragment/outline of a partially-lost dream), gnatter (residual impression of a lost dream).

For characters: there are roles (characters fitting an archetype), symbols (characters as symbols), and sigils (recurring figures with a significance bigger than a single dream's role/symbolism).

x-* tags categorize books.

Material is categorized primarily by structure, style and setting. If searching for a particular genre, look for the defining features of that genre, e.g. x-form:nonfic:bio, x-style:horror, x-setting:dystopian.

Tags