Why and how do you avoid disparaging people’s character and capacities?

[Laika]

Newby. An experienced sadist says "maybe".

Well, "maybe" is the more fun answer.

 

[ChristineM]

NOTE: I edited the thread title and this post to say “disparage people’s character and capacities” instead of “depreciate people.”

If you try to strictly avoid disparaging people’s character and capacities, why and how do you do that? One of my reasons is because it’s part of my spiritual journey. I’ve tried different ways of doing it, which I might post later. For now I’m trying to resist my temptation to post until I can do it with genuinely friendly feelings.

I respond to people the way they demand. Often they dont want their ego massaging, they are quite capable of massaging it themselves.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

NOTE: I edited the thread title and this post to say “disparage people’s character and capacities” instead of “depreciate people.”

If you try to strictly avoid disparaging people’s character and capacities, why and how do you do that? One of my reasons is because it’s part of my spiritual journey. I’ve tried different ways of doing it, which I might post later. For now I’m trying to resist my temptation to post until I can do it with genuinely friendly feelings.

I often don't try to avoid it.

Don't get me wrong: I try to focus my arguments on the arguments, claims and facts of the other person. When I think someone is sincerely mistaken, I try to be charitable and courteous with them.

However, when someone seems to me to be arguing in bad faith, or is being aggressive toward others, I see no need to protect their feelings and I have no problem calling out whar they're doing.

Also, there are tactics used by telemarketers, proselytizers, and others that are based on using the other person's politeness against them. In those cases, I feel fine in doing things that would be rude in other contexts (e.g. interrupting someone to say "sorry - not interested" and hanging up on them).

Related to this are some of the tactics used by creationists to get their material into public school curricula. In order to avoid having to try to show that so-called Intelligent Design is scientifically supported, they used their "teach the controversy" tactic: they argued that ID is one of a range of possibility and that it's a reasonable hypothesis that ought to be discussed in science classes.

This leaves science supporters in an awkward position, since they have two options:

- oppose it, which means having to argue that ID is not a reasonable hypothesis... which implies that the people who believe in it are being unreasonable, or

- don't oppose it, and watch as public school science classrooms are used for religious propaganda.

 

[pearl]

I try to fucus on that and not make it personal.

Fight clean, never hit below the belt.

 

[Heyo]

Fight clean, never hit below the belt.

I always try to, though I'm not above retaliating.

 

[Jim]

Mostly what I’m doing now is learning not to post until I can do it with genuinely friendly feelings towards everyone.

“With malice toward none, with charity for all ...”

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Mostly what I’m doing now is learning not to post until I can do it with genuinely friendly feelings towards everyone.

“With malice toward none, with charity for all ...”

If I did that... I wouldn't be posting until after the 2020 election.