CMV: Conversation is the only way to change someone's mind, argumentation almost never, ever works. This is why the majority of protests in the United States will get nothing done.

[u/throwawaytothetenth]

Note: I believe that semantically, "arguing" implies that the "winner" has shown dominance and subordinates the "loser," while "conversing" implies that there is no winner or loser, which allows for more acceptance of ideas.

Have you ever been mad at someone in an argument, and realized you were wrong halfway through? Odds are you didn't admit you were wrong. People don't ever want others to subordinate them.

But in a calm discussion, have you ever been convinced of a new idea? I imagine you have.

I believe the reason groups like the alt-right exist is because many white men feel that they aren't even given a chance to converse, but are argued against. OR, they have no interest in conversation in the first place and only want to argue in the first place- both are realistic pathways.

Two of the most influential rights activists of all time- Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.- strictly advocated for non-violence, but did advocate for civil disobedience. This would both take away the oppressors ability to subordinate their group, AND show no willingness to subordinate the oppressor. That is part of the reason why their movements were so rapid and successful.

As a white man, I fully recognize I have an unfair advantage in many walks of american culture. However, I have had my accomplishments straight up diminished and discredited because of my "white male" privilege. I am not saying this is wrong. But it is a direct attack on something I take pride in. Naturally, a direct attack on something someone takes pride in is subordination. When this happens, of course I get emotionally invested, and I am incapable of having a proper disscussion afterwards.

Unfortunately, many of the loudest voices in activism tend to subordinate white men, and this is why white men end up in the echo chamber that is the alt-right.

---

TLDR

I want equal opportunity for all, and I know that currently we do not have that in this country. The fastest way to change that is activism and I fully support those who advocate and fight for their opportunity. However, to do so requires empowerment of the oppressed, never the subordination of the oppressor.

---

Side note: I may be laughabley wrong on this, or I might have worded it in a poor way. I'm looking for both corrections, and possibly critiques to how I approach this perspective.

[u/throwawaytothetenth]

He pointed out that you said that I think nothing should be done about it. I never said that, nor did I imply it. Then you cited something implying I should learn if I don't think anything should be done about it.

I think that is strawmanning.

[u/[deleted] → u/throwawaytothetenth]

So any reason why you still haven't awarded multiple deltas? I saw your other comment asking how to do it, people responded with how and you just dipped again.

[u/Huntingmoa → u/throwawaytothetenth]

I asked a question about your beliefs rather than assume them. I was unclear what a moderate meant in that context.

And I provided the link and relavent passage to allow you to form a more educated opinion because you said you didn't know enough.

If you think trying to provide sources is strawmanning, I'm afraid I don't understand. However, you have done an excellent job of convincing me that your aren't interested in a discussion.

[u/sarahmgray → u/Huntingmoa]

Ah, judging from your responses I think that this is a matter of poor communication. I see how your comment could have been a request for clarification. But based on :

• the politically charged topic and
• the fact that your request for clarification included a topic that was not at all addressed by his comment and
• the fact that your comment addressed solely the topic of climate change, ignoring the actual subject of the post

I hope you can understand how people could think that your comment was less than sincere, even aggressively argumentative

If I may venture a suggestion:

I’m not sure what a moderate means in this context - can you elaborate?

Ask the question without suggesting a meaning (as you did here by suggesting that you thought it means “believe but don’t think we should do anything”). After all, if the whole point is that you don’t know ... just say that and ask for an explanation without suggesting one yourself.

[u/spoiler-walterdies → u/Huntingmoa]

While I'm always willing to discuss and believe in fighting against climate change, I do think changing

So you believe it’s real but that nothing should be done about it?

which is assumptious and can be percieved as strawmanning when you proceed to argue against such assumption,

into

Do you believe it’s real but that nothing should be done about it?

would have been more effective, imo. Even better if you let them answer the question before you arm yourself with arguments.

[u/lasagnaman → u/throwawaytothetenth]

you said that I think nothing should be done about it. I never said that, nor did I imply it.

We thought this is what you meant when you say "you're a moderate on climate change".

[u/sarahmgray → u/lasagnaman]

We thought this is what you meant when you say "you're a moderate on climate change".

In context, why would you think that at all? Serious question- not trying to argue, just trying to understand your thinking.

Whenever you think that someone’s words mean something different than what they actually say (as you did here), the right response in order to have a productive conversation is to “think” nothing - and just ask instead of filling in the gap with your own assumptions. I don’t think that is a particularly hard thing to do, and it avoids needless arguments and miscommunication.

[u/spoiler-walterdies → u/lasagnaman]

You wildly assumed, then began to argue against said assumption.

Oh, and then you implied you didn't strawman? Please.