The art of persuasion

I think the "rule" of no politics or religion being discussed at table came about because so few people could discuss these subjects without resorting to shouting, quarrelling or even fighting - none of which is good for the digestion!

As I posted before I had some very interesting discussions with someone I met on holiday whose views were totally opposite to mine - these included religion and politics and yes we did discuss them over dinner. The difference was that we both acted like adults and listened to each others views explaining why we each disagreed, or on some occasions agreed. Isn't that what discussion should be all about - not resorting to insults which smacks of a child throwing its toys out of the pram in a tantrum! (No I am not directing that comment to anyone - it is just my opinion)

There used to be middle class rues such as 'no politics or religion at the table' which could be usefully reinstated.

Well that would have meant our table would have been silent from my childhood . Rules, how some people like to impose rules on others.

I believe my parents - my father in particular - and then I hope I did - taught me and my brother and then our children to actually understand when it was acceptable to talk about anything, not just politics and religion but that means teaching people how to listen and think not just how to obey rules. However, I really don't have any say (nor would I want to) in how you run your home - I just don't think anyone should be telling others how to run theirs

As a 'rule' it seems to have little to do with a forum on which debate, including about politics and religion, is encouraged.

I don't think anyone is being asked to emote all over the place

I don't think that was what I said Elegran rather that this is what the people who don't like logical argument are often doing. You seem to have read it backwards

I don't mind trying to see a point of view, in fact I love to learn more, but on line people often don't offer anything other than an emotion - no logic or knowledge is offered and if you ask an attempt is made to just shout you down; just a lot of 'I feel this therefore you must accept it'.

Presenting a little logic or knowledge goes a long way but then you must be prepared for others to challenge this but this seems to say (yet again) that we may not challenge in this way. That - as in my example of safe space - is what seems to be happening more and more. Even on here we have had a request for 'special' threads.

Perhaps the first step is for people to understand why they feel emotionally that they are right and to try and explain that rather than expecting everyone else to bow to the snowflakes in our midst.

Our new instant communication and knowledge systems bring so much more to our notice. For anyone who thinks all this is new then you've missed a lot in the past. It has always been like that in politics but unless you went to political meetings you never heard about it or a local hack managed to get it into the national papers.

In actual fact, what is behind a lot of the abuse and adversarial exchanges is that someone IS reacting by emoting all over the place, and apportioning blame and opprobrium according to their own hobby horses.

Some could take you use of 'liberal parenting' as judgemental Lilyflower, I was a 'liberal' parent as our my children now - I'd even say that my parents were although no such labels applied in the 50s. My sisters and I were raised to be well mannered and thoughtful people, as were our children, and I see the same in our wonderful grandchildren, great nieces and nephews.
Sensitivity to the world around us, empathy and a generosity of spirit is what I celebrate in them all.

I don't think anyone is being asked to emote all over the place - in my opinion that is a very bad way of approaching any problem. It obscures the issues involved in a blinding rush of suffocating and paralysing intoxication by the hormones released.

However, discussion and debate are NOT furthered by throwing shit and derision over those who don't agree. Mentally shifting a point of view to see the argument from where the other person is standing, and see what their emotional approach is as well as their logical one, then pointing out the similarities as well as the differences, can clarify the places where a bit of closer inspection might possibly result it a shift by them too.

I think being sarcastic comes across very harshly as you can't see the face of the person saying it. I always make my point and never refer to anyone and then get a barrage often and go offline. It's hurtful.

I have thought about the OP since it appeared as I have absolutely no wish to be unkind. I think this works well in face to face encounters and certainly, as the video described, in the workplace where such differences of opinion really should not be aired, but I am not at all sure it works on the internet.

We are being asked to use 'emotional correctness' instead of logic not instead of political correctness. Political correctness is almost always unhelpful but those who emote instead of thinking things through just because they believe they are right are no doubt people you just would not discuss the subject of that emotion with in real life; you would avoid it.

Those who just emote are like small children throwing their toys out of the pram. They do not believe in knowledge, experts or anything outside the sphere of their own emotion - often referred to as an opinion although it is not an informed opinion - you could discuss that - but more a pattern of behaviour. When all else fails they start calling the person not the point in question - again rather puerile. I have every confidence that such people are not JUST childish but we don't get to see that on a discussion on here.

We are now seeing this in the current 18 - 25 year olds who are insisting on safe spaces where others may not speak least they be offended. The do not discuss they exclude and, although I am happy to be pleasant and to try to understand their point of view they so often don't have one - just a reaction.

My view doesn't solve anything but I don't believe that expressed in the OP does either, except to have a pleasant working place and I think that happens anyway.

What an excellent topic, Elegran. Thank you. I think much of the problem lies with the written word in that it comes over so literally whereas in company it is 'softened' with a wry smile or a gesture like a wink or a shrug. I seriously enjoy GN but I simply disappear, albeit frustratedly, when the vitriol starts. I try again the following day, of course. Simply no space for aggression in my life. No sirree...... I am seriously impressed by the knowledge and depth of experiences shared here from time to time. So, if some of us could just 'keep a lid on it', many of us could indulge and enjoy from beginning to end. Certainly disagree but inform and convince to the extent of potential conversion. Happy days and many thanks to all rational contributors.

Why is it an insult to be a Kipper? (I'm missing the point)

Rules, not rues. Sorry.

Elegran, I completely agree wth you. Abuse and name calling are imperilling both public and private life. Perhaps the absence of a deliberate attempt to teach the young manners at home and in school is to blame (yet another casualty of liberal parenting). Certainly the anonymity conferred on those online seems to bring out the very worst in some and there is 'drift' once the inner 'nasty' is released.

There used to be middle class rues such as 'no politics or religion at the table' which could be usefully reinstated.

Certainly I regard it as totally beyond the pale to label others, as I have heard frequently done recently, as a 'racist, bigot, Kipper, Tory, deplorable or populist' in order to shut down a debate. Better to keep one's own opinions to oneself and practise the tolerance one is urging on others.

I wish it wasn't only fantasy Ana.

I agree about Theresa May, Tricia. I wonder whether it's inevitable that a female PM does that?

It would be interesting to see how someone like Yvette Cooper would adapt to the role...but of course, that's pure fantasy!

Elegran - I hardly dare say this ( too sexist?) but that's the way men argue. And a few women. Attack the person not the issue.
My husband had three very loud brothers, no sisters. His Dad was very strident too. His poor Mum was outnumbered and died an early death.
My family was mostly female, and my poor Dad was outnumbered. But he outwitted us all intellectually, so held his own.
I found female tactics useful when in my first proper job I was the only woman with 9 men. They were always surprised when I came up with a good idea.
But how do you introduce this into online, or Parliamentary discussions? I think Theresa May has adopted the male style of argument, like Thatcher.

Wish I'd thought of that in the meeting Elegran. Too late now by several years!

Whenever I hear that, I am reminded of an exchange in The Importance of being Earnest

"Cecily: Do you suggest, Miss Fairfax, that I entrapped Ernest into an engagement? How dare you? This is no time for wearing the shallow mask of manners. When I see a spade I call it a spade.
Gwendolen: [Satirically.] I am glad to say that I have never seen a spade. It is obvious that our social spheres have been widely different."

Thanks for this Elegran. I do try to avoid making confrontational comments, though I didn't succeed on the vegan discussion yesterday, with the result I had a word with myself.
We do seem to be living in an age where so called "straight talking", as demonstrated by Mr Trump is seen as more acceptable than avoiding confrontation. That old phrase "I call a spade a spade" was used a lot when I was growing up. My father always said it was an excuse to call something a bloody shovel, i.e. to be rude rather than express yourself clearly but politely. Simple good manners do make life more pleasant.

Wit, not with!

I suppose what is really needed is a finely-judged level of with which makes even the receiver of it laugh but see the point and learn from it. I can imagine Sally Kohn being quite good at that - wonder whether she gives lessons? Not to those who won't listen, I fear.

Please don't misunderstand me - I was not for one moment suggesting you had called someone stupid. My apologies if you took it that way. When I said "you" I was speaking generally not specifically. I have at times resorted to what I hoped was amusing sarcasm myself!

I don't think I've ever publicly called anyone on these forums 'stupid'. Though I'll admit to heavy sarcasm when deeply frustrated.

MaizieD I am sure you have sufficient command of language to make it clear you disagree with someone without, say, calling them stupid - that would, I think, be an insult.

sunseeker

I really do try, but what constitutes 'insults and abuse' is, in itself, a debatable notion.