Is it still possible to share dissonant opinions without becoming enemies?

[Sibyl Vane]

I feel like we live in a time where dissonant opinions are taken as personal attacks, and we have difficulties having respectful discussions with someone who diverges from us. Often we disregard someone else's arguments before even hearing them and are so stubborn in our convictions that we don't stop to analyze whether what the other is saying might be true or the best approach to take. We have difficulties realizing our knowledge is limited, that we don't hold all the answers in the world, and there's the possibility we are wrong. We don't acknowledge that there's a reason for others to think the way they do and that just because someone thinks differently from us doesn't automatically signify they are wrong. We don't see that there are probably convergent points or some aspects in a contrarian argument that make sense, and we need to reflect more and perhaps change some of our own thoughts. We circle ourselves in bubbles and only listen to opinions that support what we already believe to be true while hating and excluding the ones who differ. Currently, reigns the prevailing idea that: either you are with me (and agree with everything I say) or you are against me (automatically becoming my enemy).

 

[chyme]

To be fair, I think for the most part this has always been a problem. You see more people on the internet than you would otherwise, so it's more apparent. This in addition to aspect of anonymity online, people don't need to worry so much on censoring themselves like they would in a face to face conversation. It's still upsetting to see, nonetheless.

 

[degournay]

Check out an org called FAIR (fair for all dot org). They have a video and audio resource library about these issues. Look under Resources.

 

[Sibyl Vane]

To be fair, I think for the most part this has always been a problem. You see more people on the internet than you would otherwise, so it's more apparent. This in addition to aspect of anonymity online, people don't need to worry so much on censoring themselves like they would in a face to face conversation. It's still upsetting to see, nonetheless.

The internet definitely amplifies discussions and tends to create or blow out of proportions certain situations, creating in us a false perception of how the majority of society thinks or reacts about a subject. But unfortunately, I been seen similar things happening in the offline world, especially when we are talking about political matters. There's a lot of hate and division.

 

[BetweenRadioStations]

Polarization is good for business and with our attention spans shrinking I wouldn't be surprised if people more easily get triggered by one another, however, I do feel like these issues have always been present. Its just currently these issues have been amplified.

 

[Grav]

Polarization of topics has always been present but now it's sport and a way of life to be argumentative. For the last 30 years or so I've been watching the slow drumbeat of "with us or against us" mentality creep into US culture, and here we are. Everything is a personal attack now. With so few offline interactions the only place to meet people is on the web where companies thrive off people combating each other. Social groups that used to be a good tempering pot are going away. Neighbors don't even talk to each other, they all go on sites/apps to bitch about stuff. Once you talk to someone casually the "they're the enemy" filter gets broken down. I doubt it will ever get better as each generation becomes a junkie for online living, hell how many people go to the grocery store where there's at least some base interaction if even with just a cashier? It's good for the media and politicians to push it since all the fighting and bs keeps any real solutions from being discussed in a normal adult way (abortion, gun rights, end-of-life, climate, etc). Going against the recognized form of interaction is starting to be looked upon as some kind of luddite movement.

Nope, not interest to see what society turns out to be.

 

[Sibyl Vane]

It's good for the media and politicians to push it since all the fighting and bs keeps any real solutions from being discussed in a normal adult way (abortion, gun rights, end-of-life, climate, etc).

I've seen way too many times politicians creating "smoke curtains" to inflame their followers in order to deviate the population's attention from the real issues and the incompetence of their governments. It's a pre-calculated move to instaurate the chaos and leave the state in a condition of constant conflict. And the media (when not connived with it) always falls into the trap. It's also a great tactic to masquerade incriminating events.

 

[synthcadia]

we can be friends and share opposing opinions. it just requires both people to look past the opinions.

 

[aGoodDayToDie]

Fuck politicians who think they should dictate what we can do with our bodies. I refuse to budge. They're god damned assholes, I hope they suffer

 

[ObscureSunshine]

Yes.
Appreciate where you have commonality & respect the contrast of your differences.
I know it is over simplified, however I am in a weird place of wanting to connect yet being tired.

Also, I overshared on another thread and was accused of being fake, so I am a bit tender at the moment.

I am adjusting to sharing.
I am used to being a lookie louise.

 

[sserafim]

I'm not sure, people tend to identify strongly with their opinions and see them as extensions of themselves. I'm sure that political disagreements have caused falling outs between friends...I think that it's hard for people to separate a person from what they believe in, an attack on your opinion is viewed as a personal attack