While this post is talking about the internet, in general it is important to talk about “politics” with people (what is “political” ?).
If you don’t talk to people about why racism, sexism, transphobia or something else is bad, they will bring that conversation to people who don’t have the choice to ignore the conversation. They will harm and harass minorities.
I agree that the internet might not be the best place to change people’s minds, but it is important to name and argue against bigotry when encountered.
You should of course still be mindful of your own mental health <3
Agree. But if you’re not going to argue in good faith, if you’re not going to discuss with an open mind, if you’re going to add toxicity…then best to stay silent. Shouting your opinion at other people (no matter how ignorant their opinion is) is never going to change their mind.
Most of the time when I get into an argument with someone on Lemmy (formerly Reddit) it was for the people who may read it more than the other person. The best outcome in those cases is civil disengagement, not changing their mind. But the goal is to reveal some faulty logic and dismiss some disinformation for random strangers.
Yes, I’m serious. Depends on if you want to actually change minds, or if you want to try to take a punitive approach to try to shout down narrow minded people (which doesn’t really achieve anything).
I think what you mean with “open mind” is not what I think of. To me that would include (the possibility of) accepting their way as “correct”, so to accept their concept of reality. Like in a debate about how much wine is good (if) and when it starts to be bad. But objectively wrong things are not something I need to be open about. I can discuss it with someone without dismissing their view etc. but I would never be open minded about it.
in general it is important to talk about “politics” with people
Absolutely. People used to talk about this stuff in pubs and on the streets all the time. People used to literally go out and stand on streetcorners and harass everyone passing by with their opinions (soapboxing). Political structure and governance were common public discourse, with strangers, in public settings. The Federalist Papers were widely distributed and read because there was an interested audience, and they weren’t the only example of political publishing for public consumption at the time, just one of the best-known examples.
While this post is talking about the internet, in general it is important to talk about “politics” with people (what is “political” ?).
If you don’t talk to people about why racism, sexism, transphobia or something else is bad, they will bring that conversation to people who don’t have the choice to ignore the conversation. They will harm and harass minorities.
I agree that the internet might not be the best place to change people’s minds, but it is important to name and argue against bigotry when encountered.
You should of course still be mindful of your own mental health <3
Agree. But if you’re not going to argue in good faith, if you’re not going to discuss with an open mind, if you’re going to add toxicity…then best to stay silent. Shouting your opinion at other people (no matter how ignorant their opinion is) is never going to change their mind.
I can see where you come from, but as a gay man, I would go crazy if I had to enter every homophobic encounter with an open mind.
Also, entering an argument might not change the other persons mind, but it might change the mind of bystanders
Most of the time when I get into an argument with someone on Lemmy (formerly Reddit) it was for the people who may read it more than the other person. The best outcome in those cases is civil disengagement, not changing their mind. But the goal is to reveal some faulty logic and dismiss some disinformation for random strangers.
Open mind to racists, homophobes, …? Are you serious?
Yes, I’m serious. Depends on if you want to actually change minds, or if you want to try to take a punitive approach to try to shout down narrow minded people (which doesn’t really achieve anything).
If a black man can convert high ranking KKK members through conversation alone, then it certainly is possible. Daryl Davis was directly responsible for between forty and sixty, and indirectly over two hundred people leaving the Klan. Or if you want to hear detail about the process then there’s a podcast episode about this as well.
I think what you mean with “open mind” is not what I think of. To me that would include (the possibility of) accepting their way as “correct”, so to accept their concept of reality. Like in a debate about how much wine is good (if) and when it starts to be bad. But objectively wrong things are not something I need to be open about. I can discuss it with someone without dismissing their view etc. but I would never be open minded about it.
Anything that relates to the polity
Absolutely. People used to talk about this stuff in pubs and on the streets all the time. People used to literally go out and stand on streetcorners and harass everyone passing by with their opinions (soapboxing). Political structure and governance were common public discourse, with strangers, in public settings. The Federalist Papers were widely distributed and read because there was an interested audience, and they weren’t the only example of political publishing for public consumption at the time, just one of the best-known examples.