The other thing I've found is that in those cases, the toxicity of their reaction will (at least slightly) move the opinions of at least some people watching the conversation.

So I tend to cut bait and move on at the point where it starts to upset me rather than the point at which the conversation itself is obviously futile.

However my tolerance before I start to actually be upset is relatively high - most people would be significantly better served by bailing out earlier and I've seen too many people burning out of having such conversations entirely because of not doing that and I miss their perspective so would prefer they set boundaries that work for them.

(in case you can't tell, I like being covering fire and it very definitely earns me more friends I am glad to have than enemies I would have preferred not to have)

Just walk away. Unless you are in politics or sales you aren’t forced to convince stupid people of anything. Don’t cast pearls before swine.

The only reason I don't walk away instantly is that very occasionally someone does engage in good faith and it's an opportunity for me and maybe them to learn something, and that makes the rest (for the most part) worthwhile.

The collective consciousness of a society only changes through open dialogue. Leaving it up to the politicians is a good way for such dialogue to be inherently political.

There are plenty of issues of basic human decency that can only be changed by talking to the people around you. Stopping entirely can only entrench people in their beliefs and validates the narrative that there are “sides”, and that the other side doesn’t listen.

Referring to an entire group of people as swine is case in point.

Politicians have their place, but so too the common conversation on the street.

When swine have the ability to vote, everyone is in politics regardless if they want to be or not. Just ignoring them has major consequences.

Nah, fuck this "everything is politics" attitude. Politics is everywhere because you make it everywhere. It's a big part of the reason why discourse is as fucked up as it is. Every discussion/encounter has to be won/lost based on your ideology.

Viewing everything as win-loss is bad, but politics does inform or creep into the majority of things.

Especially if you aren't part of the majority.

This is why companies need a HR hiring process that filters out candidates who haven't yet developed the level of maturity needed to listen to contrary perspectives without taking such conversations emotionally.

Such unfiltered workplaces inevitably become toxic.

> This is why companies need a HR hiring process that filters out candidates who haven't yet developed the level of maturity needed to listen to contrary perspectives without taking such conversations emotionally.

The problem is that listening is a lot less flashy and glamorous than violent self-promotion. As long as the people who are in positions of power have got there by violent self-promotion, they will, from intentional or unintentional self-interest, bias the hiring process towards people like them.

How would you evaluate this in a fair, consistent way?

I understand what you're saying, but it's ironic considering that espousing anything but leftist viewpoints in most tech companies today will instantly brand you as a hostile.

Those (most) companies do not filter out immature people who are incapable of hearing contrary opinions.

It's a very common problem, particularly in tech, which has a very young employee base.

What viewpoints are you trying to share that aren't acceptable in most tech companies?

Hiring candidates on race/sex and not ability is racist and harmful to building a better society.