![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wingedbeastMost of the tips, so far, have been about this. And, a number may yet be. This seems to be the center of an entire solar system of problems.
Among evangelists and apologists, there seems to be a belief that the goal is to maneuver the conversation to a predefined outcome, at which point one can declare victory. Some people even outright declare their own victory.
Context may be forgotten. Definitions may be shifted. Claims may be repeated no matter how often corrected or shown to be in error. And, of course, common Believing wisdom about nonbelievers may be referenced to the exclusion of anything about the specific nonbelievers with whom one converses.
It's as though every conversation is a game between good and evil and the evangelists/apologists have decided to cheat. If that seems like a recipe for the (self-identified side of) good's self-defeat, that's only part of the problem.
You don't just lose the game that way. It's not a game. It's not a war. It's not even a formal debate.
It's a conversation. Yes, there is a difference.
There's no official win in a conversation. There is an exchange of ideas and an exploration thereof. If, during this exchange, the people with whom you converse come to a better understanding of the world, that is good. If you come to a better understanding through their correction, that is good (more on this in the next tip). At no point will the judges review the tape, discuss among themselves, and declare that you are owed my soul.
The conversation needs to be that exchange and exploration of ideas before anything else. Trying to win only loses a chance at the conversation.
Among evangelists and apologists, there seems to be a belief that the goal is to maneuver the conversation to a predefined outcome, at which point one can declare victory. Some people even outright declare their own victory.
Context may be forgotten. Definitions may be shifted. Claims may be repeated no matter how often corrected or shown to be in error. And, of course, common Believing wisdom about nonbelievers may be referenced to the exclusion of anything about the specific nonbelievers with whom one converses.
It's as though every conversation is a game between good and evil and the evangelists/apologists have decided to cheat. If that seems like a recipe for the (self-identified side of) good's self-defeat, that's only part of the problem.
You don't just lose the game that way. It's not a game. It's not a war. It's not even a formal debate.
It's a conversation. Yes, there is a difference.
There's no official win in a conversation. There is an exchange of ideas and an exploration thereof. If, during this exchange, the people with whom you converse come to a better understanding of the world, that is good. If you come to a better understanding through their correction, that is good (more on this in the next tip). At no point will the judges review the tape, discuss among themselves, and declare that you are owed my soul.
The conversation needs to be that exchange and exploration of ideas before anything else. Trying to win only loses a chance at the conversation.
no subject
Date: 2015-05-24 05:37 pm (UTC)You can also add "people who try to game the Hugo awards", right down to the declaring their own victory. They seem incredibly frustrated that there is no organized opposition - there is a fairly unified opposition, but the unity is in "we all find your behavior appalling", not "we all obey our glorious leaders and oppose you because they say so".
It's really fascinating to watch; it's a small-stakes version of the same thing US politics is tainted with. The difference is that it's much easier to fix the rules that got gamed, and people are working on solutions for that now - I'm told it's quite fascinating if you understand the math behind vote-counting algorithms.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-14 10:58 pm (UTC)A story:
One morning, groggy from just waking up, I went to my front porch to enjoy the sun and have a cigarette. A man walked up and said, "Can I ask you a question?" Not fully awake, I said sure. "If you died right now, would you go to heaven?" I suppressed a groan and told him yes. (I do, but not his version; I'm pagan, for reasons that are sufficient for me, but I don't expect them to be sufficient for anyone else.) He, of course, was just getting started on his spiel. I was trapped there for half an hour by his conversation and my good manners.
I think what really offends me about conversion attempts is that, basically, they're sales pitches. Not even good sales pitches, either. They're trying to sell me something, badly, and pretending like it's something I'd never heard of. That's condescending and offensive, and highly unlikely to make me "buy". High-pressure sales tactics for anything are likely to make me walk out, and when it's something as personal as religion, it's just rude and kinda gross. I've done sales. I was pretty good at it. But I hated it, because of all the above reasons. I don't appreciate having that parroted back at me with the expectation that I'm so gullible that I'll fall for these transparent tactics.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-14 11:06 pm (UTC)I'm doubtful that I'll get many, if any evangelists (as opposed to Evangelists, the particular Christian sect) or apologists reading this. But, hey, if someone does try that again with you online, hopefully linking will maybe get them thinking about better ways to converse.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-14 11:10 pm (UTC)I wish I could link people IRL. It'd make life so much easier.