![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wingedbeastI've heard the following line once, but I've heard the basic idea more times than I care to count.
"I don't want to this to be a conversation, but..."
There are other ways to do this. To respond to things I say with complaints that, they'll later insist, are not about me but are simply universal to... groups that include me. Of course, it's my fault for responding to make what was once a simple statement of position (be it on topic of politics, religion, or other high-emotion topic) and trying to turn it into some kind of divisive argument. And, of course, there is the tried and true method of pushing back against someone who is trying to take away your freedom of speech by bullying you with their disagreement.
From your perspective, when you say something like that or engage in such a tactic, it seems like you're being quite reasonable. After all, you don't want to get into this huge debate. You don't want to have to deal with disagreements that will only raise tensions and blood-pressure.
The problem is that those tensions and that blood-pressure are raised anyway. Your refusal to have the conversation only makes you more comfortable.
Maybe that's what you want, a world where only you get to speak your mind and everybody else has to just stew in the fact that they can't respond. If that's the case, you don't want to convince the unconvinced. This series is premised on the notion that you do.
In a world where you do want to convince the unconvinced, you have to acknowledge something about every statement you make. They're all the beginning of a conversation.
That's true if you're chatting among work-buddies. That's true if you're in an online forum. That's true if you're delivering a lecture in a college or on a speaking tour. That's true if you're pumping up the already faithful in a conference.
You make a statement and other people hear you. Other people have the opportunity to respond.
It is true that not all of the responses will be in good faith. You will have to make a judgment call. But, you speak and they have the opportunity to respond.
They respond by disagreeing with you in that work-buddy chat. They respond by issuing a comment in the internet forum. They respond by asking you questions during Q&A or by writing op ed articles or by doing news pieces on you and what you said. They respond, because this is a conversation.
That means that you have a task in front of you, before you even start. You have to be ready for the conversation. You have to be ready for this to be a give and take with people disagreeing and even wherein you might be shown to be wrong. But, that's for next tip.
"I don't want to this to be a conversation, but..."
There are other ways to do this. To respond to things I say with complaints that, they'll later insist, are not about me but are simply universal to... groups that include me. Of course, it's my fault for responding to make what was once a simple statement of position (be it on topic of politics, religion, or other high-emotion topic) and trying to turn it into some kind of divisive argument. And, of course, there is the tried and true method of pushing back against someone who is trying to take away your freedom of speech by bullying you with their disagreement.
From your perspective, when you say something like that or engage in such a tactic, it seems like you're being quite reasonable. After all, you don't want to get into this huge debate. You don't want to have to deal with disagreements that will only raise tensions and blood-pressure.
The problem is that those tensions and that blood-pressure are raised anyway. Your refusal to have the conversation only makes you more comfortable.
Maybe that's what you want, a world where only you get to speak your mind and everybody else has to just stew in the fact that they can't respond. If that's the case, you don't want to convince the unconvinced. This series is premised on the notion that you do.
In a world where you do want to convince the unconvinced, you have to acknowledge something about every statement you make. They're all the beginning of a conversation.
That's true if you're chatting among work-buddies. That's true if you're in an online forum. That's true if you're delivering a lecture in a college or on a speaking tour. That's true if you're pumping up the already faithful in a conference.
You make a statement and other people hear you. Other people have the opportunity to respond.
It is true that not all of the responses will be in good faith. You will have to make a judgment call. But, you speak and they have the opportunity to respond.
They respond by disagreeing with you in that work-buddy chat. They respond by issuing a comment in the internet forum. They respond by asking you questions during Q&A or by writing op ed articles or by doing news pieces on you and what you said. They respond, because this is a conversation.
That means that you have a task in front of you, before you even start. You have to be ready for the conversation. You have to be ready for this to be a give and take with people disagreeing and even wherein you might be shown to be wrong. But, that's for next tip.
