Some Thoughts on Disagreeing

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I thought about putting this in the Welcome forum, but this is really the obvious place for it.

I think it is natural for people of good will to shy away from disagreeing with each other. Particularly on the internet where it is so easy for people to be misunderstood, and for feelings to be hurt unintentionally. But it is often through disagreeing -- and the process of understanding why another person holds different views and/or feelings, that we learn the most about her own views and feelings.

Jnyusa and I "met" at the m00bies at TORC. I was well known for my enthusiastic response to Peter Jackson's films, where as Jn was one of their biggest critics. The very first post that I ever saw of hers was when she stated that she had walked out in the middle of The Two Towers when she saw it. My first reaction was . My second reaction was . My third reaction was . Yet, despite the fact the gap between our opinions of the main subject matter discussed in that forum only narrowed some what over time, it did not take long for us to both recognize a kindred spirit, questing for knowledge and understanding. Since that time we have agreed on many things, and disagreed about others, but our friendship has continued to flourish and grow, in large part because we know that we can disagree with each other without fear of offense.

And that is very much the atmosphere I would like to foster at the Hall of Fire. If we all agreed about things, there would be no need to discuss anything. I would very much like to nurture an environment in which people will feel safe in disagreeing with each other, and that people will do so with the goal of furthering understanding rather then cementing distrust. Even on hot-bottom issues on which people are not likely to change their minds, I still see great value in at least developing a better sense of why different people of good hold different views on these subjects.

This is not to say, of course, that agreeing is not also a good thing.

[Jnyusa]

[Note: This is one of several threads from which Jnyusa removed some or all of her posts. We regret that the integrity of these discussions has been disrupted in this way. While we support the right of our members to edit their posts if they have second thoughts about them, we believe this type of wholesale removal of posts goes beyond that, and is damaging to the community.

Voronwë_the_Faithful, Primula Baggins, Whistler, nerdanel]

[removed]

[Whistler]

You walked out on The Two Towers? Are you crazy, lady?

[Jnyusa]

[removed]

[JewelSong]

I totally agree.

With everything.

[Whistler]

I don't agree with any of this.

[Impenitent]

Vinnie, you are mediator as part of your legal work and hence must be able to place your hands (keystrokes?) on material which provides some guidance on how to argue civilly (ie argue an idea, rather than argue a person).

It may be a Very Good Thing if you could create a Dummy's Guide to Debating or Arguing or Disagreeing thread with some down-to-earth suggestions. I feel that many disagreements turn personal because people don't know the lingo; they want to be civil but haven't been trained in the techniques of debate.

What do you think?

[truehobbit]

It's scary how much I usually agree with Voronwë!

Excellent post!


Hmmh, I think I said this to Ber when we were planning: disagreeing is, basically, walking on egg-shells. If you remember this and tread carefully, you shouldn't go too wrong, IMO.

[Ethel]

You are wise, Voronwë. Not a news flash, I realize, but still worth saying.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Vinnie, you are mediator as part of your legal work and hence must be able to place your hands (keystrokes?) on material which provides some guidance on how to argue civilly (ie argue an idea, rather than argue a person).

It may be a Very Good Thing if you could create a Dummy's Guide to Debating or Arguing or Disagreeing thread with some down-to-earth suggestions. I feel that many disagreements turn personal because people don't know the lingo; they want to be civil but haven't been trained in the techniques of debate.

What do you think?

Imp, I don't really have any magick words to offer. Lord knows, I've been known to say the wrong thing and give offense when I did not mean to. But I think that most important thing is remember that we really are all people of good of will, and to keep that in mind both when disagreeing and when being disagreed with. I think it is important to try to make it clear why you think or feel a certain way about something, but I think it is equally important to show an interest in understanding why the other person thinks or feels the way he or she does. Sometimes just making the effort is enough, even if you still don't fully understand. You might say to yourself "what do I know about this person that would help explain whyhe or shee thinks or feels the way they do." And if it is someone that you don't know very well, then perhaps that is opportunity to learn something about them.

(And I find that well-placed smileys help too )

[sauronsfinger]

Voronwë
if you are too busy, I will be happy to write a primer on the ins and outs of how to conduct a peaceful and civilized discussion of even the most controversial hot button issues without it becoming personal or ruffling any feathers. Of course, a major part of it wil be on how to gain insight into the thoughts of the other side so you can really walk in their shoes and see them as feeling and intelligent people who simply disagree with you.

I guess this is where I insert the appropriate smiley faces .....

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Another point, humor (and particularly gentle self-parody) is often a helpful icebreaker.

[SilverScribe]

All I Ever Wanted to Know About Successfully Navigating Manwë . . . but was afraid to ask . . .

I think the core of being able to disagree amicably boils down to respect, not only for another persons views, but for the basic reality that everyone is entitled to have different views, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

[Semprini]

I love to disagree with people. It is always enriching. It opens new horizons. This means that I have always enjoyed disagreeing with you Voronwë, especially concerning PJ's films.

But... wait a minute... this also means that I have to wholeheartedly agree with you here. Damned!

I think it was Oscar Wilde who said that he did not like when people agreed with him (perhaps because he knew this meant no enriching discussion?)

[nerdanel]

I also like - not quite to disagree with people - but the process of discussing/debating with people who hold different views. Is that just being nicer about the same thing? In fact, I consider it to be a rather pleasant form of recreation. In essence, it forces me to consider views that I would otherwise dismiss out of hand. It forces me to clarify my own views for myself and work on expressing them sufficiently well that other people will not dismiss them out of hand. For me, it's not just an unpleasant part of the messageboard experience, but the entire point of the exercise. I have previously left Internet communities because I felt I was agreeing too much with everything being said - and thus entirely failing to grow from the experience of participating in them. To be sure, it's pleasant to have people with whom you agree fully, as long as a community has a whole has a pleasant diversity of views.

Thus, it rarely occurs to me to take disagreement personally (in a Manwë/Symp/LBL style forum), and this is in one way a problem - I expect the other sides to do the same thing. Often, I can be very deep into a discussion, arguing intensely but in no way taking the exchange personally, and a third-party will have to alert me that the person I'm arguing with IS taking it personally and getting hurt by it. This frustrates me greatly - if you're in a discussion forum, surely you are willing to discuss (i.e. be disagreed with)! However, I am trying to be more sensitive to the concept of "hot-button issues" and differing sensibilities.

for the basic reality that everyone is entitled to have different views, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

But I think this is the heart of the matter. None of us thinks that every view is equally acceptable. There are some views that we can agree are simply morally wrong to hold - for example, an extreme racist perspective. Yes, you're entitled to hold such a view, in the sense that I don't think you should be legally penalized for holding it, but most people of good will agree that a belief in some people's inferiority due to their skin color is simply not an acceptable belief to hold.

The problem is when the issue is not as clearcut to everyone. For example, there are other forms of prejudice that I believe are every bit as egregious, reprehensible, bigoted, and outrageous as racism; I simply do not accept that certain discriminatory beliefs are acceptable views to hold. However, others would say that these views are justifiable due to their religious beliefs or different secular worldview. And it is in these situations where disagreeing respectfully becomes more of a challenge - where your respect for the person is called into question, because they hold a belief that you find outrageous and morally wrong AND where you cannot simply state that you respect their belief because you do not.

In essence, this is the situation that hal and I hit in our abortion discussion on b77 - and I hope he will forgive my quoting him here - where he said, "I can't say we should just agree to disagree, because I truly have no respect for your opinion."

I'm not criticizing hal for making that statement, because I think it's inevitable we will all feel that way about someone else's opinion at some point - that we will believe that their view is so morally outrageous that it defies respectability. The biggest challenge is for each of us, at that point, to continue to treat our debate adversaries with the respect they merit as people, even when we simply cannot respect the opinions they are putting forward.

And SF, . That was pretty funny.

[vison]

Well, yesterday a Manwë adversary/kindred spirit told me: "A plea for understanding is a plea for submission", and I nearly fell off my chair.

I have always loved to argue. I have been known to be sarcastic and I have been known to argue against my own beliefs, just for fun. I like to find out what other people think, and I enjoy having my convictions challenged, simply because I find it a useful exercise: if my convictions are real and worthy, they will stand the test. If they're not, then I'm better off.

I'm not "touchy" myself. I've been annoyed, and even angered, by some posts on the several messageboards I roam among. But I've never been "hurt". No one knows me well enough, I suppose, to know what might "hurt" me. Simple disagreement isn't going to do it.

This seems like a pretty good forum, actually, although I have chosen to stay out of one thread I am getting a lot of "pleasure" or "stimulation" from following.

Without wishing to offend or hurt or annoy ANYONE, I have to say that I believe I am never going to be a m00bie, here or elsewhere. This is just the way things are. I wasn't there at the beginning, and I can't seem to fit myself in.

I think I started this post because I want to say this: I never, ever post anything with the aim of hurting anyone. I never intend to be dismissive or contemptuous, and I try very, very hard not to post in anger. The fun of being on a messageboard means a lot to me. I don't get out much, don't have a lot of contact with other adults who share my interests. This place and a couple of others are important to me.

Thanks for opening this Pub. Barkeep! I'll have a coffee, with Bailey's in it, please.

[Padme]

Always walk a mile in the other persons shoes, that way when you argue you'll be a mile away.


I would love to see a set of rules of debate somewhere. I am so sick of the simple yes/no debates. I loved to debate in college, in fact one time we debated the importance of coyotes. I was given the task of debating for them. I had to do research and actually present information, not just opinion and not just one line thoughts, but real in depth stuff. Sometimes I see the 'roberts rules' of debate thrown out the window on the net. It would be nice if it was otherwise.

[Frelga]

Like TP, Semprini and Vison, I enjoy disagreement. That may come as a surprise to certain posters who may have formed an opinion of me as a peaceful person who avoids conflicts. I don't take disagreement as a personal attack and while sometimes I get angry when the other person is being obstinately blind to the brilliance of my opinion , I don't feel hurt or rejected.

However, like TP, I found that some people do feel hurt and attacked by disagreement and to me the pleasure of debating not worth inflicting pain on real people. I also found that people get upset for what to me were unfathomable reasons - such as complete strangers not enjoying some movies as much as they do.

I agree with TP (again? ), anyone who goes into a forum specifically designated for debating, should not expect that everybody shares their opinion. Yet in my experience such expectation actually exists, usually with people who spend their lives within a like-minded close circle, so that the wide spectrum of opinion accessible on the Net comes as total shock.

My ideal of Net debate was Teremia's M00bies reads the b00ks thread, where a wealth of opinions was flung on the table like a heap of multi-colored jewels, each unlike the other, all adding to the brilliance of the total. (Forgive the metaphors of a severely sleep-deprived writer ) Posters would say, "I've never thought of it this way! How fascinating!" instead of grumbling, "What a ridiculous thing to suggest!" We never even tried to agree although we often did.

If this board is going to be any different than other arenas for hand-to-hand debate, that would be the model I would like to see us follow. Just a personal opinion, of course.

Always walk a mile in the other persons shoes, that way when you argue you'll be a mile away

... and you have their shoes.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

My ideal of Net debate was Teremia's M00bies reads the b00ks thread, where a wealth of opinions was flung on the table like a heap of multi-colored jewels, each unlike the other, all adding to the brilliance of the total. (Forgive the metaphors of a severely sleep-deprived writer ) Posters would say, "I've never thought of it this way! How fascinating!" instead of grumbling, "What a ridiculous thing to suggest!" We never even tried to agree although we often did.

Frelga, I've already told Teremia that I would love to see her finish the trek to Mordor that never completed in that thread here. Quite a few of the participants are already here, and maybe we'd be able to attract some of the rest, plus bring in the perspectives of some of the other wise people that are already here.

I intend to keep bringing this up until she agrees just to shut me up.

[SilverScribe]

for the basic reality that everyone is entitled to have different views, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

But I think this is the heart of the matter. None of us thinks that every view is equally acceptable. There are some views that we can agree are simply morally wrong to hold - for example, an extreme racist perspective. Yes, you're entitled to hold such a view, in the sense that I don't think you should be legally penalized for holding it, but most people of good will agree that a belief in some people's inferiority due to their skin color is simply not an acceptable belief to hold.

I think you might have misunderstood my meaning TP. I meant that having different views is not necessarily a bad thing, not the views themselves.

I agree that there are folks in the world whose views on certain things I simply cannot agree with or respect, such as, well, say the Klu Klux Klan. I find their ideas of white supremacy and the treatment of black people abhorrent, to the point where I have next to no respect for them as well.

However, that doesn't mean I hate them. I can hate a person's point of view while not hating the person. Just as I can love a song but not be crazy about the artist as a person . . .

I suppose that made no sense whatsoever either . . .