![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sparrI get this a lot. I'm engaged in a heated discussion, perhaps even an argument, on the internet. Not a pointless discussion, but one with real world consequences. The topic might be consent, or safety, or event planning and policies. Something that people have strong opinions about, even when those opinions aren't necessarily well thought out. I'll have a position in this discussion that I'm trying to promote or defend, and someone else will be contradicting, refuting, or attacking that position. At some point, the conversation will shift. One or more people will stop (if they had started) discussing the topic, and start making comments about how I communicate. I will get called counterproductive, disruptive, confrontational, etc.
In a private conversation a while back, I wrote something that I want to publish and expound on here. I hope that the third party that I'm quoting below isn't identifiable from this short excerpt, and I'm including my response verbatim except for the bracketed edits.
> > I'm not convinced you are [positive outcome] in a ratio adequate to justify
how much you cause discomfort. I think the [other] group's alternatives are
better.
> > [...]
> > I'm tired of arguing with you. I don't feel like it's possible to not be arguing with you, as long as you're going to be around. Because you believe you are just.
>
> It is quite possible to not be arguing with me. Here are some example paths to this, although this is not an exhaustive list:
>
> 1) If you agree with the point I'm making, but simply don't want to hear an argument about it, use your/[group]'s superior approach to convince the other participants in the argument. My argument will die when the people I'm arguing with change their behavior. For example, if I am having an argument with people who want to name "consent" as the 11th principle, you could preempt such arguments by independently convincing those people to abandon that cause.
>
> 2) If you don't agree with the point I'm making, tell me that you don't agree, and give me some reasons. This approach might lead to arguing, which you can excuse yourself from. You could even opt to disengage immediately, before hearing my response. But it might also lead to me discovering that I'm wrong about something. Where this approach fails and seems to frustrate you is in the situation I described earlier in this email. You've put two paragraphs of composition into something that makes you feel like you're arguing with me without ever actually even saying you disagree with me, let alone giving any evidence supporting your disagreement. If there's an argument to be had there, it hasn't even started yet (although we are, presently, probably engaged in some sort of argument about your ability to communicate).
These two cases are both different ways out of the "I don't want to argue" hole. The second one is more for people who want to disagree, but don't want to have an argument. The problem is that most of the time, those people's responses go off track. They might not even get around to disagreeing with what I've said, and they usually say other things that stand alone, to which I am likely to respond separately.
The first one is more the subject of this writing. This is the case where you agree with my goals/conclusions, but not with my methods. This breaks down into two separate possibilities, which have both separate and shared responses below.
First, you might think my methods are net-positive, but not the best. You don't think I am doing more harm than good, but you think that I could do less harm or more good with a different approach.
In this case, there are so many possible reasons that I might choose to use my methods. I might think they are better than yours. I might be better at my methods than I am at yours. I might have principle or religious or financial objections to your methods. It's really not relevant WHY I'm choosing my methods. If we agree that my methods are net-good, then I reject your labeling of me as bad for using them.
Second, you might think my methods are net-negative. You think that while my goals are good, my method is doing more harm than the good of the goals. You want me to stop using my methods, regardless of whether the goal is achieved.
In this case, we obviously have some fundamental disagreement, probably about how much harm my methods are doing, although possibly regarding how effectively I am achieving the good/positive goals. That is something I am certainly willing to discuss. However, in my experience, most people who get to this point in this theoretical flowchart aren't interested in having that discussion. They want to keep talking about something earlier in the process, where either we actually agree, or our disagreement isn't relevant to the decisions being made. This is where some of the deepest and most frustrating arguments happen, and the ones that drive the most people away.
Finally, in both cases, and more in line with the (1) point that I quoted above... If you believe you have a better approach to achieving a goal that we both believe is good, you can sidestep any need to convince me otherwise by simply implementing your own approach. Alternately, you could convince someone else to implement it, someone who isn't already committed to a differnet approach. The fact that we are having this conversation tells me that either you aren't able or willing to implement your own solution, which hints at some hidden cost or requirement that you aren't considering in pushing that solution on me, or that your solution doesn't actually achieve the goals in question. If those two things weren't true, you would have already solved the problem, and I'd never have started down the path of trying to solve it myself. This response applies at every level of meta related to most such issues. It applies to actually solving the core problem. It applies to eliminating uncomfortable discussions about the problem. It applies to discussing how to eliminate uncomfortable discussions about the problem.
So, as long as you aren't willing to explain to me how my approach is net-bad, or willing to get yourself or others to implement your better approach, we're just going to continue disagreeing about the appropriateness of me using a maybe-not-optimal approach to achieving positive goals.
In a private conversation a while back, I wrote something that I want to publish and expound on here. I hope that the third party that I'm quoting below isn't identifiable from this short excerpt, and I'm including my response verbatim except for the bracketed edits.
> > I'm not convinced you are [positive outcome] in a ratio adequate to justify
how much you cause discomfort. I think the [other] group's alternatives are
better.
> > [...]
> > I'm tired of arguing with you. I don't feel like it's possible to not be arguing with you, as long as you're going to be around. Because you believe you are just.
>
> It is quite possible to not be arguing with me. Here are some example paths to this, although this is not an exhaustive list:
>
> 1) If you agree with the point I'm making, but simply don't want to hear an argument about it, use your/[group]'s superior approach to convince the other participants in the argument. My argument will die when the people I'm arguing with change their behavior. For example, if I am having an argument with people who want to name "consent" as the 11th principle, you could preempt such arguments by independently convincing those people to abandon that cause.
>
> 2) If you don't agree with the point I'm making, tell me that you don't agree, and give me some reasons. This approach might lead to arguing, which you can excuse yourself from. You could even opt to disengage immediately, before hearing my response. But it might also lead to me discovering that I'm wrong about something. Where this approach fails and seems to frustrate you is in the situation I described earlier in this email. You've put two paragraphs of composition into something that makes you feel like you're arguing with me without ever actually even saying you disagree with me, let alone giving any evidence supporting your disagreement. If there's an argument to be had there, it hasn't even started yet (although we are, presently, probably engaged in some sort of argument about your ability to communicate).
These two cases are both different ways out of the "I don't want to argue" hole. The second one is more for people who want to disagree, but don't want to have an argument. The problem is that most of the time, those people's responses go off track. They might not even get around to disagreeing with what I've said, and they usually say other things that stand alone, to which I am likely to respond separately.
The first one is more the subject of this writing. This is the case where you agree with my goals/conclusions, but not with my methods. This breaks down into two separate possibilities, which have both separate and shared responses below.
First, you might think my methods are net-positive, but not the best. You don't think I am doing more harm than good, but you think that I could do less harm or more good with a different approach.
In this case, there are so many possible reasons that I might choose to use my methods. I might think they are better than yours. I might be better at my methods than I am at yours. I might have principle or religious or financial objections to your methods. It's really not relevant WHY I'm choosing my methods. If we agree that my methods are net-good, then I reject your labeling of me as bad for using them.
Second, you might think my methods are net-negative. You think that while my goals are good, my method is doing more harm than the good of the goals. You want me to stop using my methods, regardless of whether the goal is achieved.
In this case, we obviously have some fundamental disagreement, probably about how much harm my methods are doing, although possibly regarding how effectively I am achieving the good/positive goals. That is something I am certainly willing to discuss. However, in my experience, most people who get to this point in this theoretical flowchart aren't interested in having that discussion. They want to keep talking about something earlier in the process, where either we actually agree, or our disagreement isn't relevant to the decisions being made. This is where some of the deepest and most frustrating arguments happen, and the ones that drive the most people away.
Finally, in both cases, and more in line with the (1) point that I quoted above... If you believe you have a better approach to achieving a goal that we both believe is good, you can sidestep any need to convince me otherwise by simply implementing your own approach. Alternately, you could convince someone else to implement it, someone who isn't already committed to a differnet approach. The fact that we are having this conversation tells me that either you aren't able or willing to implement your own solution, which hints at some hidden cost or requirement that you aren't considering in pushing that solution on me, or that your solution doesn't actually achieve the goals in question. If those two things weren't true, you would have already solved the problem, and I'd never have started down the path of trying to solve it myself. This response applies at every level of meta related to most such issues. It applies to actually solving the core problem. It applies to eliminating uncomfortable discussions about the problem. It applies to discussing how to eliminate uncomfortable discussions about the problem.
So, as long as you aren't willing to explain to me how my approach is net-bad, or willing to get yourself or others to implement your better approach, we're just going to continue disagreeing about the appropriateness of me using a maybe-not-optimal approach to achieving positive goals.