How Do You Deal with People Your Disagree With?

VaughanJB

VaughanJB

Scrappy VIP
So, I see a trend in discourse, fueled in large part by Social Media. While opposing opinions have always been fuel for hate and violence, when it comes to friends and neighbors, I think people are more likely to look beyond disagreements on an issue. Online, it seems all bets are off.

There are many big divides, but the largest these days seems to be politically based. SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS OVER POLICY ARE, I BELIEVE, BANNED HERE, SO LET'S NOT GO THERE.

I've found that discourse over the political divide now quickly leads to insults, dismissal, and then to "I don't want to discuss this with someone as deluded as you". Which is a shame, because in an age where misinformation is rife, where critical thinking is at a low, where facts are dismissed as lies, and education is known primarily as "propaganda", discussing issues is more needed than ever. This is especially true due to the propensity of the creation of Echo Chambers.

So my question is simply - how do you deal with people you disagree with?

Me? I honestly think dialog is the answer, but that requires two people working together - a listener at times, and a speaker. That we have to spend time outside those echo chambers, or be controlled by it (the essence of indoctrination). I try to deal with it by having a dialog, and at the worst, simply accept that we don't all have the same experiences, priorities, beliefs, and intention.

You?
 

"There are many big divides, but the largest these days seems to be politically based."

Politics has always been a major divide. These days there are a lot more public ways for people to debate about it, and dozens or even thousands of people can get in on it. But that only makes it noisier, imo.

Anyhow, when it's clear to me that my neighbor and I, for example, disagree on an issue that's meaningful to me, and that nothing I say will change that, I'll still be a good neighbor, I'll just stop talking about it with them.

For me, it's not at all difficult to just avoid a "touchy subject", whatever it is.

My oldest son's wife and I have radically different political opinions, but I love her dearly, and she loves me. We have so much to talk about that can keep our relationship strong, why would either of us even bring up politics?
 
Tish said:
You will always find keyboard heroes, I usually just say the same as say IRL I guess we will have to agree to disagree, if they continue I ignore or block them.
Click to expand...

It's not so much about keyboard heroes, and is more about reading a comment that you know is patently false, but when you point it out, it's dismissed instantly because of a belief based on being a member of an echo chamber. So you want to point them to the truth, but they're not open to it.

Then of course, there are the issues where there is no right and wrong, just opinions.
 
I've learned that no matter how valid (or even proven) a point is, it's not going to change anyone's mind by debating it. People displaying an eristic personality usually have me deciding that it's not even worth sharing my feelings. Let them think what they want. (Even if they're glaringly wrong. )
 
Last edited:
Murrmurr said:
Politics has always been a major divide. These days there are a lot more public ways for people to debate about it, and dozens or even thousands of people can get in on it. But that only makes it noisier, imo.
Click to expand...

I agree, it's always been a divide. However, I feel that these days, a lot of the divide is based on lies, untruths, and the twisting of facts. If someone says we should make all wallpaper white, and another says it should all be gray - that's a difference of opinion. But today, when it comes to politics, I see a whole lot of repeating of narrative created by echo chambers that has little to no foundation in reality. That's what bothers me the most. Vote for A, or vote for B, but at least vote based on facts and figures, and not invented narrative.

That's the issue where I'm curious where people draw the line, and how they deal with it.
 
VaughanJB said:
However, I feel that these days, a lot of the divide is based on lies, untruths, and the twisting of facts.
Click to expand...
But therein lies the problem, Vaughn... who determines what the lies and twisted facts are? Unless I was in the room and SAW someone inhale who says they didn't, there's no way to know. 50-50... half will swear the guy or lady didn't inhale (and say they have proof) and the other half will swear they saw it. No one's ever going to know because with the "way of the Internet," things get spread and I don't think people even care if it's factual or not.

Edited to add: And once most people "dig heels in" to something they think is true, they'll still argue if it's shown to be false because no one likes losing.
 
Last edited:
VaughanJB said:
If someone says we should make all wallpaper white, and another says it should all be gray - that's a difference of opinion.
Click to expand...
I worry about differences of opinion that begin that way but then demands start coming that "Your wallpaper must be gray too." Worse yet, the grayist insists he is "championing diversity" but if you look inside it turns out his walls are actually white anyway. His only gray is a public persona and his agenda is murky, probably trying to hog all the white wallpaper.
 
VaughanJB said:
I agree, it's always been a divide. However, I feel that these days, a lot of the divide is based on lies, untruths, and the twisting of facts. If someone says we should make all wallpaper white, and another says it should all be gray - that's a difference of opinion. But today, when it comes to politics, I see a whole lot of repeating of narrative created by echo chambers that has little to no foundation in reality. That's what bothers me the most. Vote for A, or vote for B, but at least vote based on facts and figures, and not invented narrative.

That's the issue where I'm curious where people draw the line, and how they deal with it.
Click to expand...
I already mentioned how I deal with it, but you and I are still in disagreement about how pervasive the divide is.

I distinctly remember my grandpa, a dairy farmer, arguing politics with our neighboring farmers. Accusations of misinformation (called "rumors" back then) and echoing the latest narratives (aka; "hog-wash") were thrown around (along with some very politically incorrect jargon) just as much then as now.

But it was just Gramps and the neighbors, or Gramps and the hoof guy, or Gramps and the ranch-hands or the guys who picked up the cow's milk. That's the only difference these days.

But on second thought, a significant difference between then and now is that Gramps still spoke to his neighbors, still got along with the ranch-hands, the hoof and milk guys returned every month....no one was butt-hurt about their differences. Or even the politically incorrect jargon that got slung around.

So maybe the biggest difference is that everyone handled their differences better back then. No one took it personally. No one felt unsafe or victimized or like it was the end of the world if someone disagreed with them. I suppose, back then, the issues were considered important, but the arguments were considered petty.
 
Murrmurr said:
So maybe the biggest difference is that everyone handled their differences better back then. No one took it personally. No one felt unsafe or victimized or like it was the end of the world if someone disagreed with them. I suppose, back then, the issues were considered important, but the arguments were considered petty.
Click to expand...

Love this.

Social Media has indeed opened things up, and made the spreading of rumors far faster and more prevalent. Also, from the safety of echo chambers, I think people are less likely to take on new information. I'm certainly not saying a divide hasn't existed. But the mechanisms have changed. The speed has changed.

I'm also surprised that for all the improvements in education, more people appear able to actually take on information. This isn't about whether disagreements take place, that's been there since the dawn of time. But the vehemence, the vitriol, the holding on to belief when the facts are against them, strikes me as worse today.

For some things, like politics, the "cost" for a mistake is slight, or even zero thought of in global, or even local terms. For others, it's global and has the potential to affect us all. There are both small, and large things. Then there is the - "I disagree with you", and the "I disagree, and now hate you" thing.
 
CallMeKate said:
But therein lies the problem, Vaughn... who determines what the lies and twisted facts are? Unless I was in the room and SAW someone inhale who says they didn't, there's no way to know. 50-50... half will swear the guy or lady didn't inhale (and say they have proof) and the other half will swear they saw it. No one's ever going to know because with the "way of the Internet," things get spread and I don't think people even care if it's factual or not.

Edited to add: And once most people "dig heels in" to something they think is true, they'll still argue if it's shown to be false because no one likes losing.
Click to expand...

That asks a larger question. Whether someone inhaled or not, ultimately, is not relevant to my life. Being right, or wrong, has no cost. Other times, it does.

If we were to question every little thing we didn't personally experience, we'd still be living in caves. The people I'm referencing would believe any hearsay about Said A, but none about Side B.
 
I try to take discussions, no matter how heated, as a learning opportunity. Perhaps I can garner some information that makes me take a break and rethink things. You know, I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken 😬😬. These days, I find, at least on line, a tendency for participants to go with an ad hominem approach. I universally accept that as the person recognizing that they're not succeeding in their attempt to make their point and forfeiting their credibility. We saw this earlier today in the discussion about the Israeli/Hamas conflict. One of the posters stopped adding information and began to personally denigrate other posters. That pretty much signals that you're out of solid information.
 
Last edited:
By surpressing emotions sort of like Spock, thinking logically. A key reason as a technical peon I was so successful over decades working within corporate office and lab environments with myriad others.
 
Murrmurr said:
I already mentioned how I deal with it, but you and I are still in disagreement about how pervasive the divide is.

I distinctly remember my grandpa, a dairy farmer, arguing politics with our neighboring farmers. Accusations of misinformation (called "rumors" back then) and echoing the latest narratives (aka; "hog-wash") were thrown around (along with some very politically incorrect jargon) just as much then as now.

But it was just Gramps and the neighbors, or Gramps and the hoof guy, or Gramps and the ranch-hands or the guys who picked up the cow's milk. That's the only difference these days.

But on second thought, a significant difference between then and now is that Gramps still spoke to his neighbors, still got along with the ranch-hands, the hoof and milk guys returned every month....no one was butt-hurt about their differences. Or even the politically incorrect jargon that got slung around.

So maybe the biggest difference is that everyone handled their differences better back then. No one took it personally. No one felt unsafe or victimized or like it was the end of the world if someone disagreed with them. I suppose, back then, the issues were considered important, but the arguments were considered petty.
Click to expand...
“Back then” was before compromise became a dirty word.
 
Murrmurr said:
So maybe the biggest difference is that everyone handled their differences better back then. No one took it personally. No one felt unsafe or victimized or like it was the end of the world if someone disagreed with them. I suppose, back then, the issues were considered important, but the arguments were considered petty.
Click to expand...
⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️ Yes, this. (y) These days say something someone doesn't like and they're "offended" (I'm talking about the "little things", not things that ARE offensive.) Give your honest personal opinion that doesn't agree with theirs and you're a narcissist (newest pathetic overused online buzz word.) What can ya do but roll your eyes? Bet Gramps would have rolled his, too! 🙄
 
Pepper said:
Yes, I've noticed it's over-usage.
Click to expand...
Or maybe narcissism has become an actual epidemic. Maybe it's something we ate.

I'm serious. Like maybe a chemical food additive effects people's brain chemistry...because why wouldn't it?...and that's why there are more narcissists and psychos and all kinds of personality disorders.

Maybe we're not over-using the word narcissist; maybe we're making a proper diagnosis. 🤪
 
I've always tried to be polite and respectful even in disagreement with another. It's nothing to hate them for. If they decide to hate me that's another story. I'm not much of a blocker but did put someone on ignore here, my very first, and I still see him in threads and SF explains this is so and so whom you are ignoring.

I think that is so funny I've forgotten what we disagreed about.

laughing drew.jpg
 

Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top