Re:Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died
by chipotle_coyote on Saturday September 19, 2020 @02:15AM
(#24525556)
> If merely hearing an opinion threatens your model, that’s probably a warning sign indicating that your own ideas are fragile and unsustainable, and they need to be exposed to ideas that challenge them.
This doesn't strike me as a universal truth. It's good as a general principle to test your ideas against ones that challenge them and make sure they're as robust as possible -- but if that "challenging idea" is "your group has no right to exist," then it's not reasonable to argue "if merely hearing that you have no right to exist threatens your model, that's a warning sign that your own ideas are fragile and unsustainable," is it?
Re:Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died
by __blockcipher__ on Saturday September 19, 2020 @04:08PM
(#24530037)
So, my own philosophy is 100% listen to them, I don’t believe in closing off my mind due to fear of “emotional harm” etc.
My point was more like, if person X really does feel that way, then sure they can retract themselves from discussion. But they should do so knowing it’s their own failing/weakness and not blame it on the other person being “toxic”.
I think that might be the most important time to listen to them. If merely hearing an opinion threatens your model, that’s probably a warning sign indicating that your own ideas are fragile and unsustainable, and they need to be exposed to ideas that challenge them. Engage with painful ideas, break your own models down and reformulate them into something more robust. I think the unwillingness to do this is what leads to the problems you mention.
I’m reminded of “The Coddling of the American Mind”