Conversations become ineffective and inflammatory when another’s differing strategy gets misconstrued as a difference in values, at which point it’s easier to demonize the other (eg if you aren’t pro-life you must be anti-life; if you aren’t pro-choice you must be anti-choice)
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @auderdy
the best conversations require a level of charitable non-judgment that is difficult to establish in a practical time frame
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @choosy_mom
Hmm yes good to color and charge things people say as of good will (goodwill a value?) I think even having judgement could be fine in convos, I don’t even think wanting to understand other person is necessary, rather trusting that there is a shared baseline value
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @auderdy
especially w people you don’t know well, it’s difficult and probably inaccurate to assume there are shared baseline values in disagreements, i often feel like i learn more about my opponent’s position from *the way they interpret my challenges* than from their actual argument
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
chad donkey from shrek 2 Retweeted Visakan Veerasamy
somewhat similar to @visakanv on observing micro-reactions, but in an adversarial context
https://twitter.com/visakanv/status/1132524606726713344?s=21 …https://twitter.com/visakanv/status/1132524606726713344 …
chad donkey from shrek 2 added,
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.
