![[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: 2015-07-14 11:10 pm (UTC)I wish I could link people IRL. It'd make life so much easier.