Is it important to listen to arguments by people who disagree with you?

obviously it is, but it is also your right to dismiss those arguments if you don't feel they stack up

I think it's also important that when you're listening to people who disagree with you, you listen to the best argument for the other side from its most articulate advocate. It's too easy to find a weak version of the other side to make it easier to dismiss.

Yeah it's important. I think it helps to find common ground. Maybe the argument that is taking place is actually people agreeing w each other but everyone has different definitions for some of the words. Language is fluid.

But yeah saying it's important and doing so while in the moment are two different things, emotion plays a much greater role in communication than we would like to think, I think.

the paradox of this thread is that if someone thinks that it's NOT important to listen to arguments by people who disagree with you, then they won't read or respond directly to any of the posts by everyone else on the thread that thinks that it IS important.

idk. i think responding to arguments you disagree with is different from listening to them.

How many people are going to say they don't think it's important? As in, will anybody?

^ treesh otm. I think part of "listening" is trying the argument on, free of bias, and then testing it to see if it works. There has to be part of you that is willing to be convinced if an argument is persuasive enough. If you're just engaging in a discussion but nothing said could ever change your mind, then you're not really exposing yourself to that argument. nb I understand how difficult this can be, eg 'listening' to Holocaust denial, or scientific racism. Luckily ime those things are so absurd that you can read them safely + w/ an open mind w/out any worry that you'll be converted. And otoh reading something incredibly well argued and evil can produce a kind of horror sensation in yr guts that is unparalleled imo. I've had that feeling w/ some of Kevin McDonald's material (he writes about Judaism as a 'group evolutionary strategy' and is a very bright anti-Semite) - and I think I've even benefited from hearing the arguments in that they gave me something to think about, even though I could never really come around to his pov.

How many people are going to say they don't think it's important? As in, will anybody?

Well the poll results will be anonymous. I can think of a few people around here who I'd be surprised if they didn't feel on some level like suppressing opposing POVs was a valuable + worthwhile pursuit.

tbh the correct way to debate is to question the other position until you know why the other party believes the position and have an understanding of the framework of facts and opinions that led them to that position

some positions are very canned, though, and it doesn't take a full questioning of belief to know where someone is coming from

Important, of course, but you can't read everything, so maybe the next question is how to decide what isn't worth your time. Like, do I really have to listen to arguments for Holocaust denial? Maybe I should, I haven't really done it, but instinctively I feel like it would be a waste.

well obv if it's a pov that you've rehearsed/debated/gone through multiple times before I don't think you need to keep exposing yourself to it. but i do think that if you've only heard it from inarticulate advocates making poor arguments, it might be worthwhile to find the best version of the argument. ppl misunderstand + are poor advocates for ideas/ideologies all the time. xp

it's "important," but i don't blame people whose oppressions i don't share if they can't stomach garbage opinions

ultimately it's not 'important' to do anything

"Like, do I really have to listen to arguments for Holocaust denial?" if for nothing else than to learn why they're wrong. there's a good book by David Guttenplan (and a brand new book on the same topic by Deborah Lipstadt) about the court case w/ David Irving about holocaust denial. Irving sued Lipstadt for libel for calling him "one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial," and the court case hinged on proving that the Holocaust really happened. I mean, it seems silly, but it only benefits society imo to have these arguments fully aired and defeated.

I respect the idea. But I think "it's important to listen to arguments by people who disagree with you" is a principle to which everyone claims to adhere, and which reveals itself to be empty of practical content the moment you ask: what counts as an "argument"?

I think it's also important that when you're listening to people who disagree with you, you listen to the best argument for the other side from its most articulate advocate. It's too easy to find a weak version of the other side to make it easier to dismiss.

― Mordy, Thursday, May 7, 2015 2:30 PM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yep, although sometimes there won't be a logical way to argue against them but simply an aesthetic choice

Let's face it, if I don't want to listen to the Cardiacs after 7 years of Louis, I'm never going to.

also, how can one ever be sure that they're dismissing an idea bc its so obviously bogus that it is not worth their time, and when their biases are forcing them to conclude that the idea is insane? i guess someone who possessed superhuman honesty could be certain of the difference but for most of us i think we lie too often to ourselves about the TRUTH of what we believe that it behooves us to challenge our beliefs as often as possible.

I won't argue with troglodytes who don't believe homosexuality is biological, that Florida will sink, and Bryan Ferry is the Love God.

Like here's a question, Mordy, how much time do you and I spend, or should you and I spend, reading books about why Christianity is the one true religion? Not only do we not believe this, being Jews, I would guess that we also don't really see these documents as "arguments," but as expressions of religious faith. Yet the people who wrote them clearly perceive them as arguments. They are intended to persuade. Empirically speaking, I think it's the case that they have persuaded people!

There's a story about... iirc the Netziv? reading Christian tracts when he was in the bathroom (a place where you can't learn Torah) so that he'd be familiar w/ their arguments and understand their weaknesses and how to counter them. I've personally studied some of the NT and found it completely unconvincing but I'm glad I exposed myself to it (and to Christian theologians like Augustine).

You can read something and take it in wo subscribing to it 100% I guess yeah it depends on if you want an argument (want to be right) vs. want to have a dialogue. I guess if you want to win an argument then listening to the other side is less important than backing up your own evidence, but I still think finding common ground is more important even here, because if you aren't going to convince the other side of anything you may as well be talking to a wall.

on a side note, I think trying to convince yr debate interlocutor is 99% of the time a waste. esp when someone has picked a side in an argument they generally have way too much at stake in terms of personal pride to concede the point. it does happen, but rarely ime. i think it's more important when arguing w/ someone to argue to the crowd - assume there are undecided ppl following the argument who will make up their minds based on the quality of arguments (and, unfortunately, things like style + tone as well) being put forward.

This is important for me, and I've been thinking about it and working on it a lot lately. In the past I always responded really emotionally and defensively to political/philosophical disagreements with people in my life, to the point where discussions would usually turn into fights, and I wanted to change that. I also realised that a lot of my emotional response came from not completely knowing where *I* stood on whatever issue, or else not being able to articulate it well.

I've made a point recently of entering these kinds of discussion with the specific intent of finding common ground and teasing out precisely where the differences lie, and why, rather than just "no you're wrong lalala" fingers-in-ears type of shit. It's sooooo much better.

Of course, I'm talking about differences of opinion between people who are already friends/family, and who are all relatively intelligent and share a similar educational background and basic values. So the 'arguments' I've been dealing with haven't been the crazy nonsense that would be harder to deal with. I can't imagine trying to listen evenly to some Fox News asshole.

Of course, I'm talking about differences of opinion between people who are already friends/family, and who are all relatively intelligent and share a similar educational background and basic values. So the 'arguments' I've been dealing with haven't been the crazy nonsense that would be harder to deal with. I can't imagine trying to listen evenly to some Fox News asshole.

yeah, that's a key distinction. imagine trying to listen to arguments by this guy:

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2011/07/19/1226097/911635-monckton.jpg

one issue i've noticed a lot recently is that some right-wing outlets like Fox News or Breitbart are sometimes the only place covering a particular story. eg I wanted to link someone to a story about the recent TX Geller event shooting that included the winning cartoon but I couldn't find any non-right-wing websites that had it (obv my preference is sharing a more neutral or reputable link)! it's not even a thing where only right-wing websites are putting forward a particular POV but that sometimes they're the only websites covering a particular story. (obv and should go without saying that this phenomenon much more commonly runs in reverse as well where maybe Democracy Now is the only American media outlet covering a particular story.) if you actually want to know everything that is going on you need to read ppl ideologically opposed to you just to get a full picture of the facts.

i guess the popular term for this general phenomenon is epistemic closure

ultimately it's not 'important' to do anything

― Realhiphopshire (sleepingbag)

otm obv

*listens*

is it important to listen to the same arguments over and over and over again?

if you trust yourself to be rigorous about testing your beliefs/arguments then i guess once you've dismissed a particular argument you might feel confident never revisiting it. i don't trust myself to be so impartial.

xpost
oh man, millions of geir posts just flashed through my mind

i guess what i'm saying Mordy is that, putting "important" to one side and addressing the question as i assume you intend it, it still feels case by case to me, with a bunch of caveats

you can learn a ton from reading people way outside your frame of ref. not just political opposites but anything anywhere really. other people's in-jokes, slang, their preoccupations, some shard of their way of being

life is pretty short tho

some right-wing outlets like Fox News or Breitbart are sometimes the only place covering a particular story

if you actually want to know everything that is going on you need to read ppl ideologically opposed to you just to get a full picture of the facts

^ this is true in my experience

(also international coverage, less invested in domestic political partisanship)

otherwise find it too easy to just judge things ad hominem

but goole otm, life is short (too short to watch/ read fox news or breitbart)

wd rather get alternate/ contrary perspectives on news elsewhere

When the only matter at stake in an argument is which position embodies a more correct understanding of the world, I am quite interested in carefully listening to and evaluating a different position from my own. I tend to discriminate between such arguments and the widely disseminated propaganda, designed to steer public opinion, which relies heavily on the rhetorical manipulation of facts to achieve an emotional assent. The daily struggle for political supremacy is rarely waged in terms that require careful listening, unless you are in the business of creating counter-propaganda.

It is truly important to seek out dissenting voices. How else are you going to call out, shame and supress them?

I try not to get that attached in general to certain ideas or things and try and learn from everything. Pretend you are an outside observer of two people having an argument:

A) "This is wrong because of x and y and z. X is so horrible, listen to x1 x2 and x3. Y is bad too because y1 y2 and y3 and don't get me started on z but z0."
B) "What is with all of these complaints about xyzers? They have a victimization complex. They make everything about themselves. They are narrow-minded and see everything a certain way."

To a third party, Argument A is offering more information, more variables, more things to consider. Argument B is offering a critical view of Argument A, which they can do, it's free speech, everyone is entitled to their opinion. However Argument B is hollow, there is no counter-argument here, no additional information offered, just a tearing down of Argument A. Argument A is likely referencing a real world event, Argument B is referencing Argument A. I realize this is a strawman but it looks like a lot of scarecrows I have seen on message boards.

This is why when I see people complain about political correctness or social justice or how other people are too sensitive or their opinions should be different or are wrong it is hard to take seriously. We have freedom of speech, if you devalue the speech of your 'opponent' you devalue your own.

Like, life is precious, every breath is a gift, why would you waste to knocking down someone else when you could add something to the world. Add your own unique viewpoint. One reason it is cool that everyone on Earth is not just like you is because we can all contribute totally difference experiences of the world. You don't have to listen but I think even if you refrain from Language Violence you will still be exposed to the experience of being confronted w a different opinion. Which is a good experience and can make you stronger.

Some people are so full of shit they could descend from the heavens and shit a Cuban cigar onto my lap, tell me the lottery numbers etc and I would still see through them. Some people just click my internal OFF switch as soon they start talking and I am glad this happens.

^^^

very true, life is too short to listen to everybody

I have conservative friends whose arguments I can listen to, but yeah, shit like Breitbart I'm totally hitting the off switch. That's not an argument, it's a diatribe.

havent read any of the posts itt but def voted 'no'

lol

refrain from fuckin what now?

Like, life is precious, every breath is a gift, why would you waste to knocking down someone else when you could add something to the world. Add your own unique viewpoint. One reason it is cool that everyone on Earth is not just like you is because we can all contribute totally difference experiences of the world. You don't have to listen but I think even if you refrain from Language Violence you will still be exposed to the experience of being confronted w a different opinion. Which is a good experience and can make you stronger.

Good points and yeah, what good is it to have values if you don't investigate them and know why you have them? I have always been so non-confrontational, so anti-confrontation, just LOATHE arguments and I realised it's because I was always scared that the other person would just demolish me. When you have that fear you just learn to never speak up.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

one srsly ironic post ITT imo

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

reading something incredibly well argued and evil can produce a kind of horror sensation in yr guts that is unparalleled imo

I think it's also important that when you're listening to people who disagree with you, you listen to the best argument for the other side from its most articulate advocate.

mordy with the truth bomb x2

i'm shocked that choad it is not important got 8 votes

I'm reviving this because I have this problem, where i am inextricably drawn to people who I utterly disagree with politically. I had a friend, who was my best friend for a while in early adolescence, who has, in recent years, turned into a foaming-at-the-mouth, radical right wing lunatic (with pretty clear shades of mental illness). He's not a dumb person; he's not nearly as smart as he thinks he is though; and we had it out on FB (more him having it out with me while I stayed reasonable and calm and he started going nuts) numerous times. But for some reason I can't just let this go. He is not someone I'm ever going to see again in person, most likely; and not someone who I am ever going to convince to think differently about most things; but I can't detach myself from the argument. Partly it's out of concern; I find his utterly unhinged manner disturbing but also fascinating; I'm worried about him as a human being yet also, part of me wants to make him erupt.

I also habitually look at my uncle's fb feed to see what racist bullshit he's posted, even though I actually unfriended him to keep myself from doing this (more to keep myself from going off on him).

Do you think it's more bc you want to expose yourself to arguments that you don't normally encounter (which it doesn't sound like bc you don't really respect his POV as valid) or more like this other thread: hate reading: C/D (which isn't to say there isn't crossover and there are plenty of ppl I hate read who also I use to challenge my thinking.)

maybe it is hate reading.

You could try narrowing your engagement down so you're only challenging him when you think he might be putting himself in danger?

apply the mordy principle akm

I think it's also important that when you're listening to people who disagree with you, you listen to the best argument for the other side from its most articulate advocate. It's too easy to find a weak version of the other side to make it easier to dismiss.

ie ignore, in this case

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-highest-form-of-disagreement/531597/