‘Always remember that to argue, and win, is to break down the reality of the person you are arguing against. It is painful to lose your reality, so be kind, even if you are right.’ Murakami quoted in this interesting post - via @briandavidearphttps://jamesclear.com/why-facts-dont-change-minds …
-
-
What if that reality includes the murder or oppression of innocent people? What if that reality involves holocaust or genocide? Am I going to feel sorry for the monster whose reality I am trying to break down? Even in the case of lesser evil, respectful ok, but kind? Why?
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
I had thought the point was that kindness (understood a certain way) was most likely to be effective in actually changing a person’s mind. So in the case of someone who supports the worst evils, all the more important to be effective.
2 replies 2 retweets 6 likes -
Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought the point was supposed to be that when you *successfully* break down someone else's reality, the loss of that reality is painful. So rather than stuff your success in the loser's face, you should be kind.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Perhaps - so, let's say someone holds a truly evil view. And you successfully dissuade them of it. You're saying, why should I now be kind to this person when I could rather stuff my success in the person's face? What good would that do?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
So let’s say you’re arguing with a genocidal monster, and you successfully convince them that genocide is wrong. That’s only one aspect of their reality. And maybe they’re sad that they’re wrong. Maybe they remain racist and sexist and anti-Semitic etc. Why be kind?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Sure - I mean, if you want to literally come up with cartoon monster examples then maybe we get a different analysis. I thought the post was meant to be a practical guide to common real life cases in a polarized world.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
In order to make progress in ethics, we have to understand the limits of general statements about kindness. There are many people with evil views: homophobes, misogynists, racists, anti-semites, &c. I suggest not putting your head in the sand. Nothing I have said is cartoonish.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'm not sure I understand your view. You believe that there are many genocidal monsters who are also homophobic, misogynistic, racist, and anti-semitic, who could be successfully dissuaded of their belief that genocide is not wrong, while leaving all those other beliefs intact?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp @limerickless and
Then, having been persuaded of the wrongness of this one belief of theirs, somehow in isolation of all those other evil beliefs, the most morally productive next step (in, e.g., getting them to change those other evil views) would be to make sure not to be kind to them?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I think to make progress in ethics we should try to understand the point of what someone is arguing: if someone makes a pragmatic claim about a role for kindness in changing others' reality, to say "But what about genocidal monsters??" feels to me, unproductive.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.