38
votes
Are any of your political or social views exhausting to defend?
This thread isn't supposed to be about debating issues, just more of a conversation about the consequences/responsibilities for holding certain views. So what's the best way to talk to people with fundamentally different values from you?
I've come to realise that at you cannot debate a complex multifaceted topic with someone if they fundamentally disagree with your point of view. It's not because one of the participants is stubborn but mostly because generally both participants come from a different perspective (as in different set of base assumptions about a topic) than you and perspectives are just that, perspectives. You can't have a meaningful debate if the participants are cannot agree on the basic assumptions of the topic being debated. As an example take conflict theorists vs functionalists; no matter how hard you try you cannot reconcile those two views as they are fundamentally opposed to each other and both have their merits and explain society according to them. Debating perspectives is generally futile too as they are mostly internalised and changing them would be akin to altering your whole self which is something people don't do easily but experiences can. So while two socialists can meaningfully debate whether USSR was a true socialist economy (they share the same basic set of assumptions and can build their logic/arguments off of that) a capitalist and a socialist cannot constructively debate which economic system is better as they are using the diametric assumptions to build their logic/arguments which is why they'll seem nonsensical to the other participant.
PS I hope this makes sense. It probably came off as a ramble (sorry for that) more than a sensible well thought out argument as I'm typing this on my mobile from the bed.
I fundamentally disagree with the idea that a debate is about changing the other person's view.
It's just as important to exchange the views you each hold and the reasons behind them. That furthers understanding and tolerance.
Changing ones views is a process. The first step in that process is being exposed to other views and reflecting on other views that may or may not change your mind with time.
I agree with you completely but the original question says which views are exhausting to defend which to me means vexed questions. In such situations you do understand where the other party is coming from and what they are arguing and it frequently leads to just a rehashing of arguments both parties are familiar with. See my reply to the other guy for a more detailed point of view.
Along related lines, it seems that an important stage of this exchange is establishing exactly what the common assumptions are so that the underlying disagreements can be discussed. We shouldn't just raise our hands and give up just because perspectives are very different since they rarely have no common ground. I feel people often make these appeals to perspectives being too different to reconcile when one party is not trying in good faith to reconcile them. This need not be the party using this appeal. I often see discussions, for example on gun control, where one of the parties is refusing to think of the second amendment the way the other side wants to. Conservatives often see it as an implicit protection of a right to revolution, liberals often think of it in terms of personal use (thus the often heard discussions of whether or not a weapon could reasonably be used for hunting or self-defense, which is an irrelevant concern for certain iterations of the conservative position). In my experience, these discussions have become much more productive once framed in terms of the fundamental disagreement.
Not to detract much from your broader point, which I think is well said, but this example on gun control in my experience has quite a bit missing (and I think what is missing enhances your point).
When I hear conservatives talk about gun control the perspective they bring isn’t so intensely tied to a right to revolution, but rather to a positive role for guns in a home. The common use case in a conservative’s mind IS hunting, self-defense, and other positive roles in de-escalation of conflicts. Guns, which are generally in a conservative mind an engine of societal good, need to have a damn good reason to be kept from a law-abiding person. The presumption is that the person who wants to exercise the right to obtain arms should be permitted unless that damn good reason, and generally this should be case-by-case, is shown.
Liberals meanwhile typically have an urban context in mind, where guns often have a negative role in a home, either through domestic abuse or escalating other already violent situations into more deadly uses of force, person-to-person. This visceral difference in perspective for each group does form some of the backdrop for missed discussion points, even as some conservatives see a deeper good in preserving some raw power in an already very lopsided power dynamic with their government.
These different perspectives can be reconciled without needing to have a more underlying shared understanding about the nature of the 2nd amendment. Frankly, that debate had been about whether the 2nd amendment was about a militia’s right to arms or an individual’sright to arms. Conservatives currently have the upper hand legally on that front in arguing for the individual’s right to arms. But it’s important to remember that debate wasn’t “settled” case law until Heller (2008).
Very interesting. Don't you think, however, that sorting out the basic assumptions each side has is worth it? I agree that starting from different points without stating them openly is probably a good recipe for eternal confrontation. But even when discussing with someone that as a very different vision, I like reaching that point when it is clear why our postures are irreconcilable. That is, which basic assumptions we are not willing to change. That usually leaves me with a better taste at least.
While I agree with you, I answered to the premise of what views are exhausting to defend. To me exhausting means that something akin to a vexed question; something that has been done over and over with the same conclusion. You'd probably already know the assumptions the other party is making, what their arguments are going to be, how you're going to reply and where you're going to disagree which if repeated ad infinitum becomes pointless rather than meaningful. As an example take the abortion debate; its a topic that has been discussed to death (no pun intended) and the end result is always the same the Pro-life (or whatever the politically correct nomenclature is) believes it is murder as you're ending a viable life regardless of the stage of its development and generally whatever parallel you argue to justify abortion can also be somewhat applied to a living person through which they equate abortion with murder. Pro-choice people (again excuse the nomenclature if it offends anyone) and pro-life people essentially argue over at what point does a group of cells turn into a human and as that is more of a metaphysical question than a scientific question (we as humans have given ourselves a special status among living things which is scientifically speaking arbitrary) so essentially the debate concludes on at what level of maturity do cells become a human. You can probably appreciate how repeating this over and over can become a futile exercise with nothing gained and time lost. Obviously if it's a new topic (for the debaters at least) then both parties can at the very least conclude having learnt, if nothing else, the others point of view but I don't believe this applies to vexed topics as was the premise of OP's question.
PS I'm pretty sure I did not represent both sides of the abortion debate correctly and I'm sorry if someone feels offended due to that but I just wanted to point it out as an example as it is a very common debate which a lot of people can relate with so I thought it would be an appropriate example of the frustration such a debate brings.
I think you represented both sides very fairly, especially since you said this...
...instead of this...
The latter are incredibly common strawmen, and both sides tend to do it.
Frankly this debate is so emotionally charged you can't say anything without offending someone. Even the nomenclature used, pro-life, implies that the other side is somehow Pro-death. It portrays them as Fight Club Helena Bonham Carter-esque "I wanna have your abortion" types. Both sides also frequently and actively derail the conversation to prove their point with pro-life implying that women have abortions for fun (not as if it's a very emotional decision and is taken out of sheer necessity and frequently leads to health complications for the woman) and Pro-choice saying that its okay discard the fetuses because no one cares for them agter they're born (when the other side considers them human and to them they're justifying murder for convenience). It's a shit show any way one looks at it and leaves one drained. I honestly think basic logic and argumentative skills should be taught from middle school so people can learn to argue like proper humans rather than shit slinging competition any reasonable debate about sensitive topics devolves into.
I've talked about this in an argument on this very website, but it is indeed true. Some of the fundamental philosophy around ethics/debate pit two main theories: consequentialism ('greatest good for the greatest number of people') and deontology ('act in a way that your actions could be concieved as a universal law').
Both perspectives can lead to fundamental ethical decisions, but someone who thinks as a consequentalist might, that the death penalty benefits society as a whole, would find it hard to get the ear of a deontologist that believes that all life should fundamentally be protected.
One other relevant aspect to these logical arguments in ethics is that, part of the trick is laying them out as a series of premises and conclusions. If, at any point in the chain, a premise is found to be incorrect or biased, then the conclusions, and therefore the crux of the arguments can therefore be thrown out. That's not always the way people think in real life, but that's generally the accepted criteria in ethical debates/arguments.
I feel like my reply also came off as a ramble as well. But what I was trying to say was, from my academic, ethical teachings, you're correct.
Thank you for giving a bit more of a structure and meaning to what I was trying to say by explaining it through a framework. Just a minor correction though. Consequentialism, as I've understood it, means that only the end result matter and the intentions of doer are irrelevant as long as the end result is good/bad the action itself was good/bad. What you've described - greatest good for the greatest number of people - is utilitarianism which is a consequentialist ethical theory but doesn't completely define consequentualism itself. Of course my ethics is a bit rusty but that's how I remember it anyway.
Yeah, you're entirely right there-- my bad!
Isn't that known as the fallacy fallacy? Just because a premise is wrong doesn't mean the conclusion is automatically wrong as well.
Hmm I can obviously recognize that something like that exists, but that's also not what I was taught. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I agree with what you said.
I wonder what's the minimum amount of "energy" required to change a core value. Can it ever be done in conversation? Does it require a notable life experience? Is it impossible after some critical period?
I guess that’s a question psychologists/someone doing cognitive research can answer. Talking (I think) only changes views on something one doesn’t feel very strongly about or doubts themselves but adopts due to social conditioning. Like experiences can change people but I guess that requires some empathy too. It’s an important question though as we as a people are faced with more and more opposing views due to globalisation and it is leading to a lot of social tensions and conflicts.
It's a bit depressing to try to convince people that global warming is, by far, the biggest issue we are facing and that a lot more energy should be spent fighting it. Most people either don't realize how bad it is, don't care or don't think they can make a meaningful difference. Also doesn't help that most people don't realize that recycling a few things and feeling good about it isn't going to solve the problem.
I really don't love how we're staring the Great Filter in its face, and something like half the US thinks it won't affect them or is an outright hoax.
I highly recommend reading Merchants of Doubt by Erik M. Conway and Naomi Oreskes. It explores some of the roots of the general public's resistance to accepting climate change as an issue in the U.S. Further, it explores a manipulation of the relationships and roles science, technology, and society play upon each other by delving into the manipulation of inherent faults of these components and their relationships to achieve certain agendas. I thought it read some pretty interesting and messed up stuff such as how issues like climate change have been twisted into a debate of opinion or non-issue rather than a fact.
Communicating Uncertainty by, I think, Dunwoody is also good
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll check it out.
Talking about discrimination and just general attitudes towards minorities generally leaves me feeling upset. I know that if I fail to convince them, they will just continue contributing to discrimination and keeping society hostile to certain groups. Ultimately being convinced requires their willing participation too, and it's very often they aren't putting that forward in a conversation, so I ultimately have to realize that a large number of folks are going to keep society hostile without their being much way of stopping them, which doesn't leave me feel being very satisfied with conversation.
I sometimes have the same feelings on the opposite end, ie it's upsetting to know if I don't convince someone of something, they're going to continue thinking they know, at best, my ignorance and/or stupidity is going to inevitably contribute to the woes of the world, and at worst, I'm actually for being discriminatory and hostile towards certain groups, and am just using wordy arguments they can't reason me out of to mask that fact and cement my hate.
Have there ever been situations where you changed your mind?
More times than I can remember, but I'd estimate at least 2/3 changes have been moving away from the sort 'good' 'defense against bad thing' views (as defined by @lesalecop as I perceive it) that I initially had.
That was actually going to be part of my follow up question to you; whether it was easier to stay open minded because of how you were approached, or whether you changed how you approached those conversations with other people and subsequently changed your mind as a result.
That's a very interesting issue that I think probably warrants its own thread, but tldr, kinda.
It used to be that if I someone was being very adversarial, self-righteous, disparaging, etc., (I mean, blatantly, vocally, not in the internal way I think @lesalecop might be talking about as I think that's universal for all of us on important subjects), I'd tend not to engage. Not that I wouldn't be open to the possibility that they're right, but that I generally wouldn't bother to spend time going through a conversation because I rarely found that such people had anything worthwhile to add, and if they did... well, there are enough people in the world that I'd be sure I'd eventually hear the same thing from someone less undesirable.
After gradually realizing I'm probably missing out on some worthwhile information by doing that (and that I sometimes did the same dumb stuff myself), I've just grown to, as best I can, not care so much, maybe filter it out, just focus on the ideas expressed about the actual subject of discussion. It may make me dislike the one presenting the ideas on a personal level, but I don't think it does/should impact my openness.
And I'd add that someone being grossly insulting, vulgar, arrogant, sarcastic, etc., can actually motivate me to engage in and appreciate arguments more at times. It all depends on how artful and well-intentioned such tactics are.
I'm very interested in how tone and style and such of arguments affects people differently, how it might vary across whatever categories of people, but I was never able to find much decent research on the subject.
What about you? How would you answer your question?
This is a really good point. I rarely have to justify part of my identity, and I'm lucky for that.
Yeah, those are the sorts of topics that exhaust me the most, too. (Abortion is one that came up here on tildes a while back, and the stress of it made me physically ill. Chronic illnesses exacerbated by stress are fun, haha.)
I'd say similarly arguing against allegations of ill intent, or mind-reading, is really draining (and almost impossible). If someone calls you a troll, you can't defend against that easily without just being perceived as an even more slippery troll than originally assumed. If someone calls you a racist, then everything you do to argue against that is just evidence of being a racist. I mean, I've heard people mocked as racists for saying "I am not a racist, my best friend is black" - it may be entirely true that they are not racist in the least, but because the model of reality, the movie the accuser is watching presumes the person is a racist, then arguing just proves they're a slimy racist, or a crypto racist.
This is a bit of a tangent, but I really want crypto-racist to become a widespread term now.
Your wish is hereby granted!
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&q=cryptoracist
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cryptoracist
heh, i guess in fairness i haven't heard it used in that specific way. I've heard of "cryptofascists" being used as a pejorative for people who are assumed to be fascist, but being covert about it.
Oh I came here to say “arguing for my right to live/exist” too. Fight the good fight, comrade!
I had a little window into this frustration yesterday when I was told that a transwoman friend of mine encountered a radical feminist lesbian in the pride parade holding a placard that essentially said transwomen are a threat to womankind and shouldn't be accepted in the community. I mean, where do you even start this argument?
Many of the points from the post How to Have a Civil Conversation help as I find so much of the frustration doesn't come from what's being said, but how it's being said. You can't make other people apply these principles, but if you try yourself consistently, it seems that generally, at worst, exhausting conversations end instead of becoming a massive thread of mostly useless comments, and at best, people tone down or eliminate the undesirable parts of a talk.
Of course, what's said can be very frustrating too.
I very much agree with what Ohh says here and I'll try to add a couple of probably grossly simplified examples.
People go back and forth with essays about gun stats, the efficacy of control, etc., but I think often this is all just dressing to their real disagreement about whether or not it's justifiable to limit one person from doing something not necessarily harmful because it has a potential for harm that another person may abuse.
Universal healthcare arguments will bring up x and y and z, but many times it's just about whether the fact that, today, some people are going to suffer and die otherwise, justifies forcibly taking a chunk of labor from some other people.
I'm not sure what this means about how worthwhile or worthless conversations like this are.
Anyway, I've been arguing about shit both online and off since I was a preteen and I've been getting less frustrated with opposition as time goes on for a lot of reasons (not taking things personally as often, remembering that the conversation I'm having just isn't that important, etc.), but the main thing has been just a general shift of my goals going from external to more internal.
What I mean is, there was a time when every contentious conversation I got in was with the purpose of changing minds, getting validation from others, finding like-minded people to make our words actions, etc.
Now it's more just passing the time a bit by making whatever argument as best I can, with the best case being that someone responds with new information, or old information in a new context. Primarily for my own benefit, in bettering my thinking. Anything beyond that can be good or bad, but it's just not very important either way.
The gender pay gap exists, and is an issue. There are lots of reports, salary surveys and such supporting documents that clearly show a trend of discrimination. Even when pay is normalized for hours, benefits, time off, extended leave, level of responsibilities, women as a whole still make less. And the most dangerous profession, according to insurance, is nursing, a known female dominated industry.
That doesn't really address what OP is asking. I think this thread is more about discussing your experiences debating the subject, not the subject itself.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough.
I find it exhausting to defend the existence of the gender pay gap. I feel it's a valid concern in our supposedly free and equal society, so there is a responsibility in pursing this. Even with the amount of evidence I see for it, I find it often quickly dismissed. I don't think there's a particularly good way to discuss it, especially if the other party is not accepting of research and evidence.
It's frustrating to argue for something when it seems like there's a ton of evidence on your side but people disagree with you regardless.
For sure. I often remind myself that people fight with emotion, not logic. And unfortunately anything worth arguing seems to always be leaning on the emotional side.
Especially when the other person brings up the fact that women are paid less in part because they are more likely to be in jobs that pay less, and use that to blow off the idea that discrimination may exist. Even when women are in higher paying jobs, they get paid less. And there is a reason (hint hint discrimination) as to why women end up in fields that pay less.
I think it's important to be aware if this is actually the case, or if whoever is just asserting it as an explanation without making a statement on discrimination one way or the other.
That is to say, this:
Versus this:
Yeah, definitely true. I have heard it both ways at least once.
This is surprising to me. Almost all of the professions I've seen on the lists of the most dangerous jobs (in terms of fatalities and injuries) are highly male-dominated (e.g. loggers, fishers, roofers, truckers, pilots, construction workers).
What metric are you using where nursing comes out on top?
I think people most often think of mortality when they look for the most dangerous jobs, and not necessarily weighing injuries. The metric I am using is based off of WCB (workers comp).
So you might be more likely to die working for an oil rig, but to be injuried and abused working as a nurse.
To answer your final question, the best way to talk to people with different viewpoints than you is to never put them on the defensive. There are some obvious implications of this - don't ever say their viewpoint is dumb or wrong. There are some less obvious implications of this - don't ever start the conversation or reply by provide evidence counter to their viewpoint and don't ever reply pointing out why their evidence is wrong, illogical, irrational, or otherwise flawed. There are even some difficult to grasp implications of this - don't directly question their viewpoint - only ask questions allowing them to elaborate; only indirectly question evidence by asking them hypotheticals (e.g. if someone hates all blacks, ask them how they would feel if they found out their best friend was secretly black).
The long and short of it falls into a few easy rules:
The tough part is adhering to all of the rules. Especially number 4. It's surprisingly easy for someone to think that you are attacking them (or get the implication that you are), even when it is not your intention.
I like this. But going through this, do you ever reach a moment when you make your point? This reads more as a listening a guide than a debating guide, I think.
Have you ever come to a realization in the middle of a conversation with someone? I think it's fairly rare for that to happen. You usually change minds by opening them up, and then letting them form their own opinion. This could come days, weeks, months, or even years in the future, especially if it's a core belief.
Umm, I think I have, honestly. Relatively often, in fact. You haven't? Of course, it's usually a "cerebral realization" which isn't as strong as a personal... "epiphany", those are certainly deeper. But I do think it happens. Mostly among friends (so you're right it requires trust), but it even happened to me a few times over the internet with strangers. Maybe I try too hard to not get on the defensive.
I'm trying to remember some instances, and I think they weren't core beliefs, but they were sustained by those heavily.
I agree it's usually more useful to have an "mind opening stance" than a "view changer stance", though.
Smaller things, yeah. I meant more core beliefs. But even then, you may be more open to it than most. Most people are pretty defensive even about things that aren't really core beliefs.
Not political/social, but defending evolution is exhausting. For me, it's a scientific theory. For a creationist, it's the devil's work. With such assumptions, it's almost impossible to have a meaningful conversation without getting derailed into an argument from morality.
I studied Biology in undergrad and I would say 10-20% of my classmates didn't acknowledge evolution. It blew my mind that these people were exposed to four years of biology and ignored one of the most fundamental principles.
As someone who was raised as a Christian fundamentalist (but who no longer holds those views), I was never taught that evolution was evil, per se. Just that it was bad science.
You might have been speaking hyperbolically, though.
What scenarios are you in where you need to defend evolution?
Or college campuses, cus that’s a great use of time and resources and pocket bibles
This is a weird one, I'm a christian and of course Evolution is a thing! I remember being hella interested in the Galapagos islands during high school because it was all so cool :)
Most Christian sects don't have a problem with anything science has to say, contrary to what the more militant atheists like to explain.
Yeah! Hah, though, I do remember being a bit of a... "if evolution was real there'd be half human monkeys" kid, but later on I learned that wasn't how it worked
In light of the recent news regarding the Boy Scouts -> Scouts, I was really upset to hear the news. I have nothing against girls getting similar outdoors experience as the boys, however there are existing programs (Venture scouts, for example) where - at the general Scouts age eligibility - offer co-ed experiences. Granted the BSA is the largest program under the "Scouts" umbrella, I don't see why the Girl Scouts remain girl-only, they offer two other coed programs, and now the boys-only program is now coed.
Now, after reading about how the leadership will be handling the coed experience (boys-only charter, mix charter, girls-only charter) I'm looking forward to see how the implementation performs. That being said, I'm an Eagle Scout and I thoroughly enjoyed my time in Scouts. I don't think I would have had the same bountiful experience if my charter was coed. Like I said, I have nothing against allowing the girls the same opportunity, however the GSA only still exists as - what is essentially - a corporate entity for cookies...
It's exhausting to talk about without having someone jump down your throat accusing you of bigotry, although I typically lean left politically. All in all I would feel much differently if the GSA was liquidated or merged into existing coed programs instead of being the "girls choice" whereas now young boys do not get that same choice, though we'll have to see how it plays out.
P.S. Sorry if I offend anyone as that wasn't my intent. I grew up in Scouts and it has helped shape me into the person I am today, so I care very deeply about its future.
I'm for the change but I'd point out that it's motivations are mixed and seem to have less to do with being progressive and more to do with recouping the revenue was lost when the Mormon church pulled out of the BSA, taking about 1/3 of dues with them.
Also, the BSA is 100% male-led at the highest levels. Not sure what that says to girls who are joining.
I have a young daughter and have been investigating GSA and I think the cookie cartel is an unfair characterization, at least for the younger ages, as they seem to offer most of the same activities as cub scouts. As of now she's signed up for cub scouts, but that may change when here brother ages out and it's no longer a matter of convenience (taking two kids to the same activity at the same time).
I agree, and I'd like to point out I'm not completely against the change; I'm concerned about how this will affect the experience. In terms of Cub Scouts, I have no issue with coed as at that point in their lifetimes they're not thinking about romantic involvement and just want to have fun - I'm all for that. It's the adolescent years and the actual Scout's experience that I'm concerned about.
I feel this change was done for two reasons:
That being said, I don't feel as if GSA has done a good job at providing a similar experience to young women, which is kind of the entire point of the program at its topmost level. GSA should've been revamped (big time), however I feel it only still exists because of the $$$$$ from cookies.
Do you think Scouts would be better off just being for boys?
Thing about GSA is it basically, more than being a cookie cartel, conditions girls to be good wives and enforces archaic and repressive gender roles. They learn domestic skills and sell baked good while Scouts build character, self-reliance, survival skills, real-world skills etc. No reason to keep that exclusive of girls.
At the same time, I empathize with your slowness to accommodate changes to a beloved institutions even when you believe with an understand the change.
Yes and no.
I'm an advocate for equality as Scouts and my upbringing have taught me to see all humans as equal, regardless of their gender, race, physique, etc. I think that same ideology should be taught to the girls as well, so I don't have a problem in that aspect. GSA needs to be better, I 100%, wholeheartedly agree, and I believe it is completely unfair as to how much obtaining the Eagle Scout rank benefits men where there is no equally-effective opportunity for women.
Also, I've caught a lot of flak for my social view, however I know many of my scouting peers feel the same. I think the implementation could have been better planned and executed in regards to providing the same opportunities to all. Otherwise I feel it'll become another "Young Life" (coed bible camp iirc) experience, which I've heard some stories about. Generally the most flak I catch is from those that have never experienced Scouting, never went through Scouting, and really can't understand where I'm coming from. It's hard to explain my reasoning if someone has not also completed the program.
It's not something I'm "slow" to accommodate, but I am worried about potential undesirable side-effects of the merge and how that'll effect the overall experience for what Scouting stands for. I'm excited to see how this works out - hopefully for the better - however I'd be lying if I said I wasn't concerned for the future.
I gotta it's hard it imagine why it not being gendered would be an issue. Is it a cultural thing? Is there some sort of secret male bonding component?
Is there something about women that you think is uncompatable with scouting?
From the perspective of someone who knows a bunch of Eagle Scouts and knows the program through them the just doesn't seem like any reason a girl should not have the same opportunity - or what you mean by side effects?
I'll copy and paste a few lines from my responses to other users.
People were kicked out of Scouts for stuff like this. Done. Nothing else about it.
That kind of speaks for itself and should answer part of your questions.
Other than that I've seen plenty of the girl venture scouts that could out-perform boy scouts, no doubt. I don't think it's a matter of incompatibility. When I went through Scouts I just assumed the Girls had the same opportunities, and it wasn't until much later I found out that wasn't the truth. Then you see what they're really around for with this announcement (hint: cookies).
I don't think toaster is trying to say he doesn't want girls to have the same experience that boys can get, but is worried that the experience will change in unforeseen ways when girls are introduced, quite possibly at the expense of the experience that boys currently get.
Boys behave differently when around girls. For example they take more risks when girls are around (specific study I'm thinking of there was done to examine risks that skateboarding males took when there were pretty females around). Girls behave differently around boys. The specific ways boys/girls change their behavior isn't the point, but THAT they change their behavior is.
Adding girls to a boys only group changes the group's dynamics. There will certainly be good side effects and bad side effects that are introduced. Until I read these comments I didn't know that girls were being added to boy scouts - but I can see where making any large shift in an organization that many hold dear, especially that may alter its core being, would be worrisome to those that cherish it.
I personally don't think that women are incompatible with scouting, but I would think scouting will certainly be different because women are a part of it. I can't imagine that adding hormone-y adolescent girls to the hormone-y adolescent boys won't change a camping trip.
When I worked at our local summer camp we had issues with boys and the girls in medical (generally venture scouts) running off together. While that might not seem like an issue at first, I can't imagine what this would be like with coed camps, although I haven't seen anything saying there will be all-boys/all-girls/coed camps. When my brother worked at the same camp a few years later the leaders sat all the boys down and lectured them about not engaging in any sort of romance with their female counterparts, but that does not always work when you're telling that to a bunch of hormone-enraged young men.
It's something I'm looking forward to seeing pan out, but just from the surface I think BSA could've done better at making GSA an equal program in terms of activities and trips, although it only seems to be sticking around because of the cookies. This brings it into light that maybe BSA is not operating with the best interest for growing young adults, and instead operating as a business - which, by definition, it is.
The rhetoric that it'll be good to show equality at a young age by providing the exact same opportunities to the girls as the boys have is great and all, but then keeping a historically-sub par program for the sake of business interests is what really bothers me.
It sounds super "good ole boy" of me to say that, however you have to remember these are adolescent young adults and I feel providing coed camps will produce an unintended, undesired experience (imo). This merge is not providing a "balance" to the system as now you have several coed programs and one girls-only program. I feel it is tipping the scale in favor of business interests.
Venture Scouts starts 3 years later than Boy Scouts does. In my experience kids became a lot less engaged with the troop around junior to senior year of high school, so the age range of Venture Scouts is a bit awkward for forming large groups. Iirc, the plan is to have separate troops for girls, not co-ed troops. Our troop's backpacking trips sometimes ended up co-ed, as some troop leaders' daughters would come, I think nominally as part of a closely associating Venture Crew.
Ultimately I don't think this is going to change scouting that much. They might end up more progressive as an organization because the mormons dropped out though.
They will have separate troops for boys and girls, but they do have the "Linked troop", which is separate groups but under one charter; source. Technically not "coed" but essentially coed under the same charter.
We also had a ton of trips with the local Venture Crew - and I agree a lot of interest dips when approaching the "age-out" threshold. It'll be interesting to see how Scouting plays out.
TL;DR Ultimately, to the OP, I have found that when dealing with any of the below, it is essential to start with founding principles and have as narrow a goal as possible.
Whenever I bring up something I believe which is challenging to my conversational counterpart, I always start with a little of what I believe and follow it up with a lot of why I believe it. All this in service of proving a small point. Rather than talk for 45 minutes summarizing the Communist Manifesto to a business major at a bar, for example, I will bite off a small chunk like explaining how monetizing commodities leads to pointless and destructive speculative bubble, or something.
Yeah, as a quasi-radical leftist I have a bunch.
First and foremost is my belief in social libertarianism AKA left anarchism. I think the state is a coercive and violent institution that exists to maintain the existing oppressive power relations in society based on the false assumption that without them people would descend into chaos. The state does not predicate and sustain civil society. Rather the reverse is true. Mutual aid, civility, free association; all these things are traits I believe are natural to human nature as social mammals. This is surprisingly difficult to impress on my fellow USA Americans who seem by-and-large to be socialized for misanthropy.
Piggybacking of that are my beliefs in the inherent evil and failure of capitalism. People here fucking love capitalism. Am already exhausted.
It's also exhausting for me to defend by belief that hierarchy is unnecessary for effective functioning of society based on my zeal for project organization and delegation. People don't need bosses to work. Someone needs to organize project but they don't need to be the only hand on the wheel. Maybe I just come off as a bossy prick.
Last, is my conviction that women, LGBTQ persons, and people of color are rightly a protected class in America. This daily an issue for me since my workplace is entirely white cis-het-menfolk who have clearly never hd their biases and prejudices meaningfully confronted even one time in their whole lives. This is exhausting because I just don't always have the capacity to confront them since am asian-ish cis-het-man also.
Not exhausting. I just had to except things work a certain way here. Governor primary is a couple weeks away. (I am voting early on the 22 because I have a work trip.) Whoever wins the Rep primary will be our next Governor. That's just how it works. Drew Edmondson will win Dem primary amd he would make a hell of a governor. But we'll probably never know. He has my vote, but OK votes red just to vite red at this point. I was so disappointed in my state when it voted Romney when they knew he didn't have our best interest at heart.
The thing I find most exhausting about complex and dynamic discussions is when someone fixates on one word or phrase I use, and then makes blanket assumptions about my stance. This is whether they believe me to hold opposite values or the same ones they do.
I don't enter conversations to cheer for "my side" or convert the "other side." So when I am earnestly asking or exploring ideas and get tackled for perceived offside fouls, I get exasperated.
This is often how I feel discussing serious issues as well, and it is exhausting. To add a little, I also dislike how exceptions or ridiculously grey outliers are applied. For example, I find you cannot discuss the concept of consent, even on a general high level, without some convoluted drunken scenario tossed in.
Slightly fluff maybe...I find the number one exhausting thing about discussing any serious topic can be really well described in The Oatmeal: Believe.
I think we've all seen it in action, and I find, it's time to stop when you notice it happening.
It's a common phrase these days but you need to start by giving the other person the benefit of the doubt and assume they're making the best, strongest version of their argument. Try to go into every discussion this way. Remember that if you didn't talk about this topic chances are you could have started your entire interaction on a topic you agree upon and suddenly would have a much different view.
This isn't a guarantee into a good discussion but I think starts you off in the right place. My second step is a bit of a personal decision but try to decide if you're debating a point/topic or having a discussion. If it's the former, keep the discussion on topic, try your hardest not to bleed or associate it with politics as a whole and you can try to have a civil debate. That sadly however I think is an artform and discussion type that is dying today as we all naturally want to take it into a broad based discussion.
If we're doing the latter then you need to not challenge every point someone brings up. You're discussing to reach an interesting point. Now you want to try to understand the meanings and motivations behind someone's views. Are they against legalization of marijuana for its own sake or because they have a broad based view that it's associated with bad people. Now you want to discuss that association. Free yourself from the desire to win the discussion and change your goal to finding the root disagreement(s).
Once there discussions can be great and often end up in a place of moral or ethical disagreements along with a recognition that the associations that bleed out are exaggerated. You may not change anyone's mind but you find reason and logic to their opinion and that is valuable in its own right.
If you find whoever you're talking to can't stick to a logic form of discussion or only wants to argue pedantic points - don't bother.
The belief that diversity is a positive thing is surprisingly controversial.
Sure, and I get why you might be exhausted trying to talk about diversity. The idea that we are stronger when we're better able to adapt to the views and backgrounds of a large variety of people probably isn't that controversial, though. It might also be worth remembering that for some people "diversity" can be a dog whistle to exclude them from a conversation. They hear someone talk about diversity to mean they aren't valued members of a place.
It's that cultural warzone ("my people are excluded and shouldn't be; your people aren't") that we'd be better off sidestepping. It's probably better for everyone to just say "let's try to not exclude each other based on one aspect of who we each are."
Unfortunately this is just one of those areas where each side has learned to speak in exclusionary language that both offends the other side and rallies their own. That leaves us poor folk in who don't easily fall into either camp wondering what the fuck just happened.
You would think! But just a gentle suggestion to be affirmatively inclusive instead of passively inclusive might have been the most controversial post in Tildes history. And this extends far beyond Tildes, to Reddit and the rest of the web and the real world too. Being woke kind of sucks, but there's no going back.
These people are so enveloped in white privilege that they can't even see it, like a fish in water. Those kind of assumptions should be challenged, not coddled. For most of Western history, a whole spectrum of voices have been pushed out but we live in a moment where their volume is too high to keep ignoring. We should embrace it and encourage others to as well.
I really, really want to respond to this, but instead I'll urge everyone on both sides to remember that the thread was locked because, for now, @Deimos doesn't want that discussion to continue.
Maybe someday again, but not for now.
It should be more about this being a horribly inappropriate context than anything involving me. The thread is specifically about views that are exhausting to defend, you shouldn't be trying to make someone defend their example.
Oh boy. Being a Brazilian I basically by default have a very mixed heritage. (Most Brazilians do)
I once mentioned that I'm part South-American indigenous, part black, part European Caucasian on Reddit and the response was probably the worst I've ever been insulted without having done anything bad.
With this one I think it's clear that tribalist nostalgia is an inherent part of the human experience and one that will take a long time to remove completely - but the rise of a pro-diversity millenial generation gives me hope.
Anarchism is exhausting because:
Essentially, everyone gets bogged down in the utopian-ism, the no-state and no-rulers/no-bosses part without considering the positive principles and ideas and opportunities; they get bogged down by the hypotheticals, and this happens between anarchists too (the question "how would you make a space program happen under Anarchism" for example...well shit, we can hardly make our current space programs function and they would essentially function in the same way: a group of people are interested in this non-violent, non-rights-infringing endeavour and need to find resources to work on this project and of course they need knowledge.)
And there's also the word and the representation: the notorious circle-A and the word "anarchy" used to suggest disorder and chaos. Exhausting and counter-productive to argue against! So I've been going with anarchist/socialist or an leftist libertarian or free-market anarchist. Some kind of qualifier and liberals and conservatives never have to worry about that shit, no notorious circle-L or circle-C to suggest chaos and disorder!
At the end of the day, for me, anarchism boils down to this and this makes it much less exhausting and much more aspirational:
I think people confuse "far left" (and some versions of "far right") with "not moderate" annoyingly often. To me, to moderate your view and to be a moderate revolves around the recognition that you could potentially be wrong in your convictions. In other words, moderation has nothing to say about what those convictions actually are, only how you hold them.
I'm wondering if anybody knows whether there have been organized experiments to test different societal models. I know sometimes governments will test some measures (ie. UBI) in some cities, but those are just small changes. There's also things like Sealand, or communities of different kind (like Christiania, which I think is similar to what you defend?) or even Osho's Rajneeshpuram. But I think it'd be interesting to have a few of those and take measurements on them. I'm sure the results wouldn't be exact by any means, but a lot of information could be extracted from studying them seriously.
I think the best way to explain this is mentioning that the role of "managing" (which is often what bosses are supposed to do, even if they don't do so) is not gone. It's just equal to the people doing more hands-on work. Most co-ops have people in the management role, after all. But they're not hierarchically superior, they can be voted out, they receive the same share as all others, and they have to work for what's best for the whole group if they want to continue to be a part of that group. Management is a skill and a field of knowledge, but somehow capitalism made people believe that it's much more valuable than every other field and skill.
That's a good way of explaining it. This is actually why I've taken project management courses (and recently did the CAPM exam); project management doesn't disappear under anarchism or in co-ops.
I'd like to believe I usually remain pretty calm in ideological discussions, but I have a particular family member who just gets me so wound up that we always end up screaming at each other. We can scarcely debate the smallest, most insignificant issues without ending up with hurt feelings on both sides.
I know a guy on a minecraft server I play on like this. I think he delights in creating drama and making people angry. I've been warned about him before and dismissed it as people just angry that he had different opinions than them - until he directed his sights at me. I called him a troll and I got chastised by other community members who were oblivious to his BS. My blood is starting to boil just thinking about it, lol.
I wouldn't even assume your Minecraft guy, or my family member, are trolling, necessarily. Sometimes people just have incompatible rhetorical styles.
It is pretty infuriating though. I ended up blocking him on the discord for the mc server because i couldn't stand even seeing what he would write. I don't know of anyone else who has had that sort of effect on me.
He very well could have been trolling, of course! Just thought it would be important to keep it open to either possibility.
There are two topics that I don't actively defend on social media (reddit) but everytime I say something about them, I am downvoted and argued to oblivion:
1 - Marijuana is not good for you.
2 - Not everything about the Republican mentality is bad.
Reddit and other online forums are so populated by potheads that they can't possibly see how marijuana could be bad for you. Ignoring the apathy it creates during use, you're still ingesting mind and body altering substances into your bloodstream. This would be akin to people claiming that alcohol is not bad for you.
I'm not even going to try defending Republican ideals. There are some bad ones, obviously, that limit human freedom and the progression of the human species. However, there are good ideals too like small federal government and low flat-rate taxes.
I've generally said that Weed is fine, but only if you're above age 25, because it will stunt your brain's growth, and then there's the obvious stuff like "don't drive while high" and so on. am I missing some stuff?
There's cannabis-induced psychosis which affects >1% of frequent users. And surprisingly, there haven't been many clinical studies on marijuana (due to its legal standing). There's a chance that marijuana could be doing something dangerous. For instance, the active ingredients act on the endocannabinoid system in the brain which is important for memory--maybe it could cause some long-term damage. To say anything with certainty would be extremely speculative, and there's a decent amount of epidemiological data to suggest that marijuana cant be that dangerous.
I think a reasonable perspective is that we don't know the full story, and it would be worthwhile to learn more. It is largely a well-tolerated drug. I think more interesting are possible other clinical benefits from marijuana like pain relief.
Oh boy... Yeah, it seems to have some dangers, but I wonder, is it better or worse than Alcohol?
I think it might have some dangers. I wasn't try to make it out to be dangerous--I was just trying to work through some of the scientific thought on the issue. I personally believe the current evidence suggests that alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana.
Yeah, it sure will mess you up...
I generally don't discuss politics with people but the few times I did it does get a bit exhausting. The problem I have with discussing it is people have trouble discussing it objectively. They get overly emotional which just leads to shouting matches and name calling. The moment that happens I stop the conversation and move on.
I've found that a lot of people who are passionate about their stances don't take too kindly to an "I don't care". Especially regarding social issues. If ever I am inferred to be a straight white male, saying "I don't care" when it comes to social issues really seems to piss people off, online or otherwise.
I find political discourse in general incredibly dehumanising and exhausting. I'm reasonably right wing but I don't think that's the reason per se, it's just the large amounts of reduction-ism that goes on in political discourse. I don't think anything is black or white and so I tend become disillusioned with both sides of the debate. That coupled with the hatred that so often accompanies political discussions these days and I'm becoming more and more apolitical and individualistic.
I was about to say something similar, but from the left. I get exhausted by people who fall into the worst behaviors that the media structures surrounding us encourage. It feels like we've reached an inflection point where people share media to rally their side against another, whom they have necessarily strawmaned to rally their side.
But then I remember something that Alexander Hamilton wrote in the first Federalist paper. There's a beautiful little passage that usually works to ease this anxiety (I'll emphasize the parts I think matter most, and prune a small bit because it's wholly unrelated):
Thanks for sharing this, it's a well written and nice passage :-)
I'm a liberal in the Midwest. It would be very exhausting to defend my beliefs, so I choose to avoid the subject of politics at all costs.
I care a lot less than I used to both about what I say and about explaining myself afterward, because as individually intelligent as somebody may be, we all have different ways of looking at the world and processing ideas, which are principally formed through our individual experiences, and I don't think there's much I can do to convince any given person of what I perceive to be the validity of my beliefs and way of looking at the world. I believe, for instance (and these are controversial asertions, but bear with me), that all cops are bastards and that the state is evil and that capitalism is inherently oppressive and exploitative, but how can I expect to make this—this set of conclusions which I have reached after years of research and personal study and dialogue, both with myself and countless others—all understood through simple and fleeting discussion with somebody who has not gone through the very specific journey of personal development which led me to those conclusions and to the intersecting and interrelated understandings which justify them? It's too much.
It's not that when I say "ACAB and pfft I don't need to explain myself to you" I don't understand very well what I mean by that myself, that I don't have an explanation to provide that makes sense to me. The problem is in making that explanation understandable to anyone else. Concepts like that, I think, are best understood as being difficult to isolate for themselves, instead connecting and intersecting with related ideas and one's general worldview—all of which constitutes the sum of a long train of personal experiences and development. My view of cops is informed by my view of the state and of violence and of natural rights and of capitalism and so on. And of course I'm incapable of relaying all of that at once, my entire worldview, to you or to anybody else simply through a moment's dialogue. So, this being the case, what good is an explanation? I can state my opinion, and it can be taken as it will, but I can't make you understand intrinsically my position and why I believe it. Therefrom comes my pessimism as to the efficacy of debate.
For instance, if you were to ask me why I believe—or rather, why it is true, for I believe it is—that all cops are bastards, I could bring up any of a variety of reasons. They are tools of the state. They exist to protect property. They maintain systemic racism and other mediums of oppression.
Each of these facts is well and good, but they stand for themselves no more than the original statement, that all cops are bastards. They require further explanation themselves. How are cops tools of the state and, for that matter, why is that a bad thing? What is the state? How do cops serve to protect property, and why is that bad? How do police maintain systemic oppression? How do state, property, and oppression correlate, and where do police fit in between them all?
You see the problem. The final conclusion, that all cops are bastards, rests on countless smaller conclusions, all of which interconnect and intersect like a web. The more you break it down, the more answers are begged and the more constituent conclusions must be made to be understood. It is impossible to understand the rationale behind why all cops are bastards without understanding on at least a basic level a plethora of further conclusions upon which the simple adage rests.
The reason I and others have come to agree at all with the conclusion that all cops are bastards is that we've gone through personal journeys of understanding regarding all the various conclusions which lead up to it. Without these intersecting understandings and the guidance of our personal experiences, we couldn't and wouldn't have arrived at the resultant final conclusion.
Where in the past I went wrong was in believing that others can be made to understand these conclusions without undergoing similar journeys of self-information and analysis themselves. I used to think that I could prove to everybody that I do have some justification, some reason for believing, everything I say. And I would waste hours debating and trying to make the lens through which I see the world understood. But for some time now I have come to recognize that as an exercise in futility, as evidenced by how few out of how many discussions actually resulted in somebody changing their mind or understanding some small part of my perspective.
That was probably an overlong explanation of the same things other people have been saying, but it about summarizes my perspective on debate and its general futility.