Should we NOT listen to the other side? (Left vs Right)

[Memory]

Warning: This is a topic that uses political terminology, it's important to be familiar with terms like left, right, capitalism, socialism, etc. When reading.

This forum has been fairly left-wing, it's a safe space for queer people and is very anti-capitalist. (Note: LGBTQ+ isn't necessarily a leftist ideology but it's often the only place were it's supported or at least accepted.) While this is good since I am a bit of a Socialist myself, but it seems that whenever I try to take a centered response and make a compromise between another side it causes disagreement in almost all replies I get. While this is expected now that I have said this out loud, but that begs the question! Should we "listen to both sides" when making decision? Is it better to block out a side of the argument entirely and double down on the current one?

[keybladekid6]

course not, confirmation bias sucks and should be avoided by actively listening to all sorts of different political outlooks/ideals around you.

HOWEVER- a lot of our current politics involve things like human rights, genocide, the moral treatment of human beings... etc. if a particular stance calls for violence, will hurt people, or will actively make peoples' lives worse, that would make anyone upset if you were suggesting to "hear that side out" no matter what reason you're doing it for.

this post lacks important context. it's a conversation by conversation judgement that you have to make. are the people you're with even looking for a debate? are they being hurt by the ideologies that they are discussing and that you are requesting them to hear out? etc.

generally, like i said, being a part of many different political conversations and hearing out all kinds of people is a good thing, but playing devils advocate or taking a centrist point of view in certain conversations isn't always the best idea.

[Memory]

I think it's generally a good idea to listen to both sides of an argument before coming to your own conclusion, but there is certainly some nuance to be had too.

If there's an argument that is either masking genuine hatred through dog whistles, or straight up ignorant, then there's no point in listening to that argument in my opinion. It's not an argument made in good faith and will likely end in upset.

However, I think it's important to listen to actual good faith attempts at discussion, even if the view you're arguing with is an opposing one. If not, then I'd have remained an anti SJW and anti feminist. It's only through my genuine attempts to listen and learn to the other side that I've managed to come out of the alt right pipeline and become a leftist myself, which wouldn't have been possible if others hadn't taken the time to listen to my "arguments" and correct me as I go along.

I hope this makes sense. It's probably not as nuanced of a reply as it could be, but I'm hoping my general viewpoint is understood. Listening good. Listening to hate not good or worth time.

[CableCat]

 

I saw some fantastic responses already that brought up important points. I'll raise another!

We SHOULD listen to the other side always and thoroughly, even if we disagree. We should absolutely hear them out. It is never good to just block out the other side.

Because at the extreme, active listening and understanding of motives can help us to recognize when someone is masking hatred, dog-whistling, or advocating for genocide.

Understanding how people jump through illogical hoops and how a person perceives the world around them is so important. It is how we break people out of their social and political bubbles so they see the bigger picture.

It's also important for ourselves that we address how we individually view the world, and how our perceptions influence our own political views. We need to see the walls of our own bubbles.

We cannot just block out or ignore a side entirely because they are making bad faith arguments. As long as enough people believe those bad-faith arguments, it could cause serious issues. Things boil over. We learned this in recent history in the United States.

I believe people should always gather intel when the opportunity presents itself. Blocking out the other side also prevents us from experiencing empathy with another person's perspective, and can eventually lead to dehumanizing others.

[Memory]

this post lacks important context. it's a conversation by conversation judgement that you have to make. are the people you're with even looking for a debate? are they being hurt by the ideologies that they are discussing and that you are requesting them to hear out? etc.

generally, like i said, being a part of many different political conversations and hearing out all kinds of people is a good thing, but playing devils advocate or taking a centrist point of view in certain conversations isn't always the best idea.

Not sure what you meant, I mean, all I did was type stuff into a topic and then pressed "Post" and people just found it and decided to reply. I was primarily talking about the forum in my post, I didn't directly go to people and told them things when they didn't want it.

Back then when I first joined the forum I assumed that it would be best to take a centered stance on everything just to average things out and appear more ideal. But looking back I will admit that wasn't the best mindset to use as I didn't even know what I was doing trying to make compromises between the average anti-NFT joe and the NFT ponzi scheme. But I would like learn when it's best to do that.

[urgellx]

To me, i'd full recommend to open up to the other side. Especially on important subjects. If you
don't listen to the other side you'll just hear the fallacies voiced out by your side of the coin
while avoiding the proper argument that some real, breathing people may have. Not talking to the
other side seems to be a point of contingency for a lot of people, including some that i know personally.
But of course you can't always rely on something like a social media to try to approach someone to
get their full opinion since a lot of people seem particularly aggressive on the internet, but for
most cases where i needed to get the good points of an opinion, it didn't take that much searching
to find.

At least on the internet, accepting opinions that i agree or disagree with seem to follow one rule :
It depends on if some kind of overtly sarcastic approach is used by the other side. If someone has
an opinion that you disagree with, it's probably best to digest it (if it's relatively
comprehensible) to make your own opinion more fleshed-out and get a better understanding of what
people think about a particular subject. But that's of course depending on if the someone in
question isn't annoying to converse with (talking to the opposite party like they're some kind of
talking plant and trying to make a fool out of them for example).

---

I think that thinking of the opposing party like a regular human that would have the same
intelligence, the same opinion as you or at least a neutral opinion is a must to having a sane view
on most debates. Maybe they're "conspiracy theorists", but if you don't have any striking argument to
prove that you're right and they're wrong beyond just a feeling or relying on some unreliable source
like a journal with a clear ideology that goes above reporting well-sourced "facts" (e.g. Le Figaro
  )... you're just as lost as them.

If you don't open to the opposing party you also lose quite a lot of knowledge in my opinion, if you
can't withstand a conversation that may seem pointless with someone that seems to have an almost
objectively incorrect opinion (in your opinion), you probably won't read or listen to thinkers of
the opposing sides. And that would, again, in my opinion, be a great waste. Hearing or reading a
well-articulated opinion that makes a concise case for a political, an artistic, a moral position is
great to know the common strong points that different points of view have, and may sway you more
than just an argument with someone you know. Of course, the link between this paragraph and the ones
 preceding it is that someone can and probably should read the Communist Manifesto if they're more
 conservative, and more conservative material if they're more progressive. To me, it's always a plus.

I'd recommend a video for German and French-speaking readers to explain a lot better what i'm trying
to say, just search "ARTE rancière" and you'll find it. It'll have "Les idées larges" or "Offene
Ideen" in the title.

Have a good day !

[ThunderPerfectWitchcraft]

We shouldn't ban thinking, and dogmas are a hinderance. Any idea, any thought should be judged by objective means, and only be valued by its core content.

I do so, and sometimes I end up having stances that go against the left mainstream - but I would never go along the antihuman, racist, or bigot crap that is coming from those who you refer to as "the other side"; they are people who reject objectivity to pursue hate, even if every scientific fact goes against it. They believe in genetical races, in the lower IQ of blacks or women, they ignore historical facts or the realities of nature to be able to grasp to dogmas that help their own benefit and to maintain the imbalance that allows a minority to exploit the majority of living beings on the cost of destroying our planets fundamental ecosystems. They are the enemy of mankind and live itself, and must - if mankind shall survive - be overcome by any means. If we let them do as they want, or if we let them perform in any way, all of us and all future generations are doomed.

[starbreaker]

If you don't listen to your enemy, you don't know your enemy.

If you don't know your enemy, you cannot count on being able to defeat your enemy.

However, you aren't obligated to listen to every random authoritarian you encounter. The vast majority are just trash mobs, parroting somebody else's secondhand rhetoric. If you're familiar with the 25-point National Socialist program (which I won't link here; find it on your own if you think you can handle it), then you probably know enough about what reactionaries and authoritarians of all stripes want to be able to dismiss individual adherents of such vile doctrines.

Likewise, whenever some rich pig is going on about how we wageslaves aren't breeding in captivity as reliably as we used to, we can summarily dismiss them. They know damn well that capitalism as currently implemented is a Ponzi scheme; they are Moloch's priesthood demanding more child sacrifices because Moloch has a hungry.

[keybladekid6]

Not sure what you meant, I mean, all I did was type stuff into a topic and then pressed "Post" and people just found it and decided to reply. I was primarily talking about the forum in my post, I didn't directly go to people and told them things when they didn't want it.

Back then when I first joined the forum I assumed that it would be best to take a centered stance on everything just to average things out and appear more ideal. But looking back I will admit that wasn't the best mindset to use as I didn't even know what I was doing trying to make compromises between the average anti-NFT joe and the NFT ponzi scheme. But I would like learn when it's best to do that.

ooooh okay. I completely missed your point and didn't know this was just pertaining to the forum, my bad! I was trying to focus on what you said about how people were upset at you taking a more centrist point of view rather than focusing on the entire post. ^^; sorry about that!!

[Bede]

It depends on the subject at hand for me.

When it comes to human rights, I think it's pretty reasonable to block out the opposition. After all, if one side says, "(X group) deserve human rights," and the other side says, "(X group) should be eradicated," then a compromise in between those two statements (like, "(X group) can live, but we'll make it so that people who kill them are punished less") would still look pretty damn bleak for (X group). That's the inherent problem with debates regarding human rights. If you give the other side a platform to speak, they'll spread their hateful propaganda and indoctrinate more people. If you give the other side a platform to debate, they'll ask for a compromise. I'd go as far as to say that if you don't block out those who are calling for stripping others of their human rights, you have already lost. And I think I would even extend this line of thinking to things that are directly endangering human lives, too (namely, the climate crisis and vaccines are what I'm thinking of).

However, when it comes to something like, for example, gun control, I'm more willing to the other side. It's a less dire, immediately-deadly issue. Same goes for things like combating drugs and crime, etc. If the right's ideas on these issues spread, it's much less dangerous, because it's not spreading bigotry. Thus, they're more likely to have valuable things to say that the left may not have considered.

It's all about protecting those that are vulnerable, stopping bigotry from spreading, and preventing direct harm. Listening to both sides, while valuable in certain parts of politics, comes secondary to that. That's my stance.