Let’s say zero is straight up shutting your ears, going lalala and storming out of the room, let’s say 10 is sitting down with a Nazi, genuinely making an effort to see things from their point of view just to see if you could.
Sure this may sound ridiculous but it’s basic knowledge that studying your opponents viewpoints is the best way to counter them and get new insight yourself.
Me? Id like to think I’m a 6, I don’t cut family ties over their political opinions but I’m very likely to shut that down with a “I don’t want to speak politics with you”
Lemmy can be an echo chamber sometimes, but that doesn’t mean everyone here is a mindless zombie, how do you all deal with others who believe differently? Can you back it up?
I straight up told my father to drop politics or I’ll go home.
He wasnt thrilled about the ultimatum but he stopped. I got the cold shoulder for the remaining evening. :p
Really depends if the viewpoints involve the oppression of other beings than near zero if not maybe 6.5.
By that criteria, 10. Like, if a Nazi wanted to seriously talk with me, I’d be fine with that. Glad, even. The thing is, they don’t usually do a whole lot of thinking or analysing, or they would have stopped being a Nazi pretty quickly.
It’s usually more about psychoanalysis - trying to figure out how their irrationality works. I spend a shit ton of time trying to get inside the head of the people who maintain the world’s problems. So, still 10.
It depends on what those opposing viewpoints are. If they involve actively targeting and harming vulnerable people, I have no space at all for those viewpoints or the people that hold them.
For the other stuff, maybe a 7.
Unrelated to the specific question you asked but you would probably enjoy reading They Thought They Were Free by Milton Mayer. The author befriended ten nazis after the war and writes about what he learned from that.
7.5/10. I find that most people I encounter, even if they support causes against those which I support, would agree with my viewpoints, as long as I don’t say “socialism”. That is an unfortunate consequence of being raised in an environment of capitalist realism.
Where’s the other 2.5 points? I’ll happily listen to my opponents recount the life experiences and thought processes that make them oppose my viewpoints. But for my own sanity, I refuse to engage with those who merely throw attacks at me.
I back off from arguing on the internet in general, also for my own sanity.
So a general view I’m seeing here is, “sure if it remains civil”, what if it gets tense? These are tough issues after all. How far do you think you can tip that scale before it becomes an argument? I would agree that yes once name calling happens we have stopped debating and started arguing.
Hard to say personally since I can’t remember the last time I had a real-life conversation go tense. I’ll entertain some pretty wild thoughts, but once the other party centers the debate over emotion at the expense of evidence, I’d say that’s the point I start losing patience.
7.5
It depends on what you mean by viewpoint.
If they’re disagreeing about objective reality, 0/10. If we can’t agree on an objective level, there’s no point.
If they’re disagreeing about following the social contract of tolerance, -10/10. They break the contract, they aren’t covered by it, they should be removed with prejudice.
If they’re disagreeing about the value of certain concepts, solutions or programs, 3/10? I’d talk to someone about something for a little while, I might give them a reference, but it’s not my job to educate them.
Of course just talking to people, I’m like a 5/10 in general…
It depends on what you mean by viewpoint. If they’re disagreeing about objective reality, 0/10. If we can’t agree on an objective level, there’s no point.
This is pretty much the crux of the problem right here. How are you supposed to have any kind of productive conversation about the world if they are living in a fictional one that doesn’t actually exist?
Depends who they are. The effort I put into empathising depends on how much of an arsehole they are.
Basically this. Most people are decent enough, that is they are not trying to burn down the world. Many, including me, have unclear ideas about what is happening. Often, people use opposing words and history to really mean the same goals.
But it’s exhausting figuring it out for more than friends and people in my echo groups. So I don’t usually try. They have to be worth it to me.
That said, this is for the mental stuff. When it comes to political actions that need to be done now, and cannot wait, things are different. There is a time crunch then. And it’s not about tolerance , but results.
4
This depends on whether the other person is willing to do the same. I have a few basic premises which I base my political opinions on, starting with “All humans are of equal value.” If they come to different conclusions from first principles we can agree on, there is an interesting conversation to be had.
If someone has an entirely different set of basic principles, I will have a hard time understanding them, but if they are willing to try to understand mine, I will listen to them as well. I will give no time to someone whose mind is already made up.
EDIT: To more directly answer the question, I don’t think talking to a hardcore, true believer-type nazi will go anywhere, but if someone who had a right-leaning viewpoint handed to them by their upbringing and surroundings is willing to listen, I would at least want to know how they got where they are so I know how to best make them understand my own point of view. Is this the same as empathising? I couldn’t help myself but try to convince them of my point of view.6.5
Depends on the topic. Entertainment 10; social issues not much 4 all. Politics… if your MAGA I have zero tolerance.
4
Empathize as in understand motivations and perspectives: 8
With some effort to communicate, I can usually understand how someone got where they are. It’s important to me to understand as many ways of being as possible. It’s my job to understand people, but the bigger motivation is that it bugs me if I don’t understand the root of a disagreement. Of course, this doesn’t mean I condone their perspective, believe it’s healthy/logical, or would recommend it wholesale to others.
I mean, the nazis weren’t all bad…
Like a 3 or 4 LMAO. I’m pretty set in my ways, I’m willing to hear most people out but only in an effort to change someone else’s mind, not really to change my own. That said, if you are on the left (i.e. identify as anti-capitalist, at minimum), then I will legitimately take your perspective and stances into consideration.
This doesn’t mean that I’m not empathetic or that I shut people down, I’m very conflict averse as well. I just take in what people say, push back maybe a little, and try to understand their perspective while mine still remains unchanged.
6
I think the premise is missing a few key points. Namely, do we mean in the context of a one on one debate where I’m trying to either convince someone or others involved, or a dialectic where both parties are attempting to come to an agreed upon truth? How serious is my ideological opponent taking MY point of view, or are we just talking in the abstract, like can you imagine in your head tolerating the fact that others have differing opinions with you and living with that reality.
Basically, I’m a materialist, so for the majority of everyday folks especially including those in my life, I don’t attribute someones political opinions to moral failings or rectitude on their part. 9 out of 10 times it’s due to their upbringing, the material conditions surrounding their childhood and early development, as well as the things that happen to them throughout their life that form someones worldview. Morality might have something to do with it, but ultimately morality is subjective, so who am I to say that someones idea of right and wrong is better than mine. Everyone is justified and righteous in their own mind.
That said, if I’m actively engaged with someone who isn’t taking what I say seriously (as fascists often do, whom I consider by definition non serious actors in a debate), or is simply using ad hominem attacks on my character, I pretty much am done talking at that point. I feel like I come off as very patient and try and empathize with most people, usually because if I’m actually having this conversation in real life, they’re in my family or in my day to day life, and I try to present my opinion as something that’s naturally compatible with their worldview, because I’m confident that my opinions are correct and I don’t need to insult or demean someone to get my point across.
TL;DR, 8
7.5
Let’s say one on one, and your opponent is no better than the average Joe, a 6, he will hear out your arguments but will you probably won’t be changing his mind. He will let you speak without interrupting if you give him the same courtesy.
This is exactly where anyone who has an interest in actually changing someone’s mind wants to be.
90% of these conversations, which are often shared between friends or at least acquaintances, can be “won” by listening to the other person and meeting them on their own terms. People are way more receptive to hear what you have to say when they feel like what you’re actually saying is relevant to the points that they are making, etc. For example, if someone complains about immigration, it’s likely that they want Americans to have those jobs instead and see immigration as a threat to their way of life. The way to handle something like this is always to address the problem radically, i.e. from the root, and say something like: “I hear what you’re saying, but what if the countries that most immigrants are coming from didn’t have so many issues that they feel like they need to risk their lives/livelihoods to come all the way here? Why is it that these countries in central/south America have so many economic problems relative to the US?” Now the conversation has been re-framed so that it’s actually addressing a root cause, and this person will walk away at least having a thought provoked about US imperialism and it’s consequences, which is an important concept to understand.
If you simply resort to shutting down topics like this, because you feel a person who holds this worldview is a racist, xenophobe, etc, and therefore morally inferior, you never allow yourself the opportunity to win. You’ve already given up the ghost if you follow your instinct and resort to ad hominem attacks, scolding and finger wagging, and you prove that you lack the rhetorical ability to actually SELL your project, something that is an absolute necessity if you have a genuine interest in the electoral gains of any kind of socialist/populist/proletarian project. My political platform is already popular. People don’t need to be convinced that it’s desirable, only that it is possible, so I am happy to debate and share my opinions with anyone who will listen.
Depends on the conversation. If I find I’m speaking with a disingenuous bigot who is speaking in bad faith or being hipocritical, then 0. If it’s an honest disagreement with well reasoned arguments made in good faith, then a 8ish plus or minus how polite they are.
