Skip to main content

diaspora - Link to source

Moral Responsibility for Backlash - by Joseph Heath


#society #politics

This is powerful advice. I'll keep this at hand.

A wise man once told me that, in order to win an argument, it wasn’t enough just to have the correct position, you must also give your opponent a face-saving way of accepting that position. If you leave your opponent no option but to say “you were right, I was wrong,” that person will never back down. You need to say things like “I can see what you are thinking, and if the situation was of type x I would agree with you, but I think we’re in more of a type y position…” Policy disputes are roughly the same. It is important to give one’s opponent the option of honorable defeat. In many cases of backlash, however, it seems to me the policies that have been implemented, or the way they have been implemented, have made this impossible.


josephheath.substack.com/p/mor…


Moral Responsibility for Backlash

Is it a thing? Should it be?
Joseph Heath (In Due Course)
#politics #society

Tom Grzybow reshared this.

in reply to Emmanuel Florac

HernanLG
diaspora - Link to source
HernanLG
• •
I couldn't agree more. I'm the godfather trilogy (which is really about power, not the mafia) Vito Corleone never humiliated his rivals.
in reply to Emmanuel Florac

e̴̮̼̋̈́r̵̪̉̋̃̈r̴̥̫̼͖̅̐ơ̸̬̝̭̹̝ 0
diaspora - Link to source
e̴̮̼̋̈́r̵̪̉̋̃̈r̴̥̫̼͖̅̐ơ̸̬̝̭̹̝ 0
• •
I disagree a bit, in communication it goes with a rule of 2 argues and 2 responses to validate your argument. from both in respect of 1 goes and 1 comes. Like in packets SYN, ACK.
Once 1 can not understand or acknowledge his wrong and just say I was wrong and you were right what many can not, smartest side quits the conversation because it's just a waste of time and useless.
It takes an man to make an error, it takes a man and half to acknowledge your own error.
Also, once arguments have no sense also as like this, it has also no sense to even waste a letter to the discussion, as 1 that counter argue the other without argument and the other argues back makes 2 idiots.
in reply to Emmanuel Florac

Tom Grzybow
diaspora - Link to source
Tom Grzybow
• •
"I been double-crossed now
For the very last time and now I’m finally free"
in reply to Emmanuel Florac

HernanLG
diaspora - Link to source
HernanLG
• •
The thing is: what's the goal of the conversation? If it's to "win", then yeah you want to make your point, deconstruct your opponent's, and walk away. But if your goal is to change someone's mind and/or their behaviour, then you need to offer a dignified way out.
in reply to Emmanuel Florac

Emmanuel Florac
diaspora - Link to source
Emmanuel Florac
• •
@HernanLG I'd even say, if you pan to live in a democracy, you need to find some common ground with everyone...
@HernanLG
in reply to Emmanuel Florac

e̴̮̼̋̈́r̵̪̉̋̃̈r̴̥̫̼͖̅̐ơ̸̬̝̭̹̝ 0
diaspora - Link to source
e̴̮̼̋̈́r̵̪̉̋̃̈r̴̥̫̼͖̅̐ơ̸̬̝̭̹̝ 0
• •
Changing someone's mind which I consider manipulation, yes but how you change bad people's mind? Well judging someone's behavior or naming it a classification of acceptance as positive or negative without valid argument is not an option, you can only educate or try to. There again same applies, if one is not ready to see the truth you try to explain him or just refuses on his own grounds of ideology then again it is a waste of time as you can do that until you drop dead from sickness due to explaining and arguing, So best is silence and communication limits to the need. Silence is as well a killer, it sometimes tell's more then speaking.
in reply to Emmanuel Florac

e̴̮̼̋̈́r̵̪̉̋̃̈r̴̥̫̼͖̅̐ơ̸̬̝̭̹̝ 0
diaspora - Link to source
e̴̮̼̋̈́r̵̪̉̋̃̈r̴̥̫̼͖̅̐ơ̸̬̝̭̹̝ 0
• •
Also in many if not all cases if 1 side does not silence it ends bad, so it is a dignified way to say goodbye.
in reply to Emmanuel Florac

HernanLG
diaspora - Link to source
HernanLG
• •
This is a philosophical question, but here it goes anyway: who's actually bad? There's many documented cases of successful deprogramming of people in hate groups, even KKK members. There's definitely bad people in the world, but I would argue it's probably the same percentage as psychopaths (around 1%)
in reply to Emmanuel Florac

e̴̮̼̋̈́r̵̪̉̋̃̈r̴̥̫̼͖̅̐ơ̸̬̝̭̹̝ 0
diaspora - Link to source
e̴̮̼̋̈́r̵̪̉̋̃̈r̴̥̫̼͖̅̐ơ̸̬̝̭̹̝ 0
• •
I agree with you up to bad, as we are the ones that define it "bad" such as racism, we have arguments and proofs. I dunno though bout the &
what dammages much are rogue pods such as these propaging hate
hub.natehiggers.org
in reply to Emmanuel Florac

e̴̮̼̋̈́r̵̪̉̋̃̈r̴̥̫̼͖̅̐ơ̸̬̝̭̹̝ 0
diaspora - Link to source
e̴̮̼̋̈́r̵̪̉̋̃̈r̴̥̫̼͖̅̐ơ̸̬̝̭̹̝ 0
• •
There I troll! Mostly if one comes from such server mingling and propaging hate until they ignore me.
sysad.org/posts/5896381/
So I initially shared the post for the article, read where argue gets as example.

Congo: the Rebel group M23 (?) clash with Congolese army as they br...

Congo: the Rebel group M23 (?) clash with Congolese army as they break into a woman's prison - and then proceed to rape and burn to death all the prisoners. Wakanda at it's finest. #culture #rape-culture #Africa #3rd-world #low-IQ
diaspora* social network
in reply to Emmanuel Florac

Tom Grzybow
diaspora - Link to source
Tom Grzybow
• •
There's an added element: you are not likely to move the mind of an insane person. And we seem to have some of these in power. And no, I'm not speaking pejoratively, as such, but objectively. We have some very questionable behaviors going on - and I do not mean legally questionable either.
⇧