This is a political discussion, but the attitude that the two bring to it is what this post is about. Today, we banned another person who had opposing views to the long term members. They weren’t banned for that , they also had some behaviors that violated our rules. This interview is two people who are opposed, but if you didn’t know who they were, you might find it hard to determine who is Left and and who is Right from this hour alone.
At 1hour and 8 minutes, before they do the audience questions, John, the moderator, asks them to comment on the skills they brought to have that open-minded academic discussion. Coleman Hughes answers in an amazing 2 minutes, here’s part of it
Some people are naturally better at this and some people are naturally terrible with this. You should be really honest with yourself about where you are. But, good conversations happen when you go into it seriously comfortable with the idea that you might lose an argument, and that’s okay. You’re not stupid if you lose an argument. It’s not about winning. If you go into it with that attitude, then you can actually hear what another person is saying, and search your mind for what an honest response is. A conversation between two people who are working on that skill almost never goes poorly. I would say, spend less time being mad at others for not talking the right way or listening enough and seriously worry about whether you are listening enough.
It’s kind of a joke to try to win on an anonymous forum where you type your words. You have no social power over anyone here, no physical power unless you know how to track people down, you can’t destroy your opponent in any way. But people believe they can harm others with their words. That can only happen if the person reading them allows it.
