I wonder---is the ability to "disagree without being disagreeable" evaporating? nt

[Atticus]

[Hugin]

1. It died with taking food to a neighbor's barn raising.

Or was that only in fiction?

[Takket]

2. Absolutely not you blockhead!!!

Lol I’m just kidding!!!

Seriously though, yeah it is. People just take it as a personal attack on themselves and their beliefs if you disagree with them any more. Actual facts? Completely irrelevant!

[HAB911]

3. Rational people can take only so much bullshit

yes, gone.

[FreepFryer]

4. Yes, weaponized by agitprop. But civil debate was never a high point of US culture (Nt)

[skypilot]

5. Mostly online, I think.

I have spoken to some Trump supporters and expressed my contempt for him, while they expressed support, and things didn't get nasty.

[Shermann]

6. MTG would probably agree

...except she thinks "evaporating" means vaping an E-cigarette.

[harumph]

7. Whenever I'm around republicans and they're talking shit

I typically remain silent. They're unteachable anyway.
I'm moving on without them.

[Girard442]

8. Disagreeing without being disagreeable depends on several preconditions:

1. People have to presume the person on the opposite side of the issue is rational and basically a person of good will and is not driven by nefarious unstated motives.

2. There has to be a shared base of agreed-upon facts.

3. People may disagree on the meaning of facts and observations, but outright mendacity is a deal-killer.

4. People have to have some shared common notion of what a discussion actually is. F'rinstance, if I shout you down, that's not a discussion.

Yeah, it's dead.

[Mad_Machine76]

14. +1

THIS

[treestar]

23. +1

People who use fallacies and spin are not debating in good faith.

[KentuckyWoman]

9. No.

There are 350 plus Million in America. If 1% are bullies and agitators, grabbing headlines daily, then it will certainly seem overwhelming.

Americans love flashy shiney things. If it bleeds, yells, buffoons, shocks, or blows up, it gets all sorts of attention. Meanwhile 99% of us are going on with life trying to work together.

[Tomconroy]

10. My wife, who is a Quaker pacifist, is adored

By the editors of the National Review. So I would say it survives a bit.

[dawg]

11. We can agreeably disagree about the ideal tax rate on capital gains.

We can't agreeably disagree about whether or not we retain our democracy or go with something more autocratic instead.

That becomes a most disagreeable conversation. (At least on my part.)

[marie999]

12. I am never disagreeable, I just don't talk to idiots including some members of my family.

[Treefrog]

13. Oh dear, ye old kettle calling ye old pot names.

[Atticus]

15. I would have bet my best taw that you'd show up with nothing of substance---just another

drive-by slash.

If nothing else, you are consistent

[Treefrog]

16. I don't know what a "taw" is, but I invite everyone to read that thread that seems to have you so

bruised.

You insulted three posters who did nothing but disagree with your op. Two of your insults involved post count or length of membership. Come on now. I always think that’s a bit pathetic since we all begin with zero posts and zero time.

The other insults involved something to do with Rush Limbaugh, with whom I obviously have less familiarity with than you. So I can’t really speak to that.

Since you insulted those folks, perhaps you can answer your own question posed in this op? Why not ignore? Why not respond with something other than an insult?

[Atticus]

19. See? nt

[Treefrog]

20. Yes, I see very clearly.

Maybe best to step away from the puter for awhile. It’s nice outside!

[LanternWaste]

21. Ten bucks says you fail to see the irony in your having said that.

[Treefrog]

25. My follower!

[Sympthsical]

17. In person, sure. On the Internet, less likely.

On the Internet, too many people discover their inner asshole and no longer have it straight-jacketed by social norms.

The problem is, you only need a small cup of poison to render a well unusable. If a small group of people decide they're going to make it unpleasant for everyone else, it will be unpleasant. On any forum with hundreds or thousands of people, a dozen or so with nothing but time on their hands can do a lot of damage. You can enter a discussion, go to work or school or just do errands and hobbies, come back, and the original civil discussion has turned into a smoking ruin in your absence.

Then you start wondering why you bothered to participate at all. So regular people drift away while only the poop-flingers remain in a game of dodgepoop.

It's why I mostly lurk in places like Reddit. There is no purpose in spending the time or effort to research and/or respond. If it's in one of the main forums, it will become a shitshow, guaranteed. Happens here, but how it happens here is fairly known and avoidable. It's not exactly sneaky and subtle. Throw bomb, fan flames, toss up the Bat Signal.

On the larger scale, like politics in general, the Internet is still a problem. People are allowed to exist in bubbles of their own making and choosing. Only the ideas they agree with, the Narratives that reinforce how they think the world works or demand the world work, are allowed to be entertained and acknowledged. If your entire social circle is agreeing with you, what impetus do you have to change and grow? People calcify, grow inward, and empathy towards differences withers from disuse. Suddenly everyone who isn't in the bubble with you becomes the Other (who is, of course, always unspeakably stupid and evil).

It isn't psychologically healthy. But this is where we are now with social media, and the problem is only getting worse.

I spend a decent amount of time reading things I disagree with and try to understand them. Why? Because if I don't, I will disappear up my own asshole. I don't want to be that person.

[RANDYWILDMAN]

18. You can't present FACTS to people in the matrix

I wonder why ? Oh yeah, I grew up before people has a whole propaganda network to tell then they are never wrong no matter how whaco the theory.

People on our side are tired of presenting sensible information to people on the other side and having them just blow it off, they know better.

[NurseJackie]

22. Maybe. Maybe not. It all depends on whom is being asked.

(Or is it "who" instead?)

[Sympthsical]

26. Easy way to remember

Who or whom functions the same as he/him or she/her.

Substitute one of those to figure it.

"He is being asked" would be correct. "Him is being asked" isn't.

So it'd be "who" in this case.

There's a bit more to it. "Who" is when it's a subject. "Whom" is when it's an object. "Who did this?" vs "To whom was this done?"

That sort of thing. But he/him will get you there 95% of the time.

[Happy Hoosier]

24. It depends on what we are disagreeing about.

Tax rates? Spending priorities? Sure.

Basic human rights? Voting rights and democracy? Not so much.

[msfiddlestix]

27. I always loathed that meme.. it sounded lame (to me) when I first heard it said.

even if it came from someone I voted for, if permitted to openly say that much.