All sorts of complex discussions are had here on a daily basis. This topic is no different.
Using that as an excuse to ignore the actual question which was asked so you can throw yourself the softest of softballs is what is unbelievably lazy.
Using that as an excuse to ignore the actual question which was asked so you can throw yourself the softest of softballs is what is unbelievably lazy.
You'll only learn how they really think when you see election outcomes, or which side they're standing on when it's 'ok' to dissent, and by then it's too late.
As an analogy, if someone comes in and says global warming isn’t happening, the goal isn’t to eviscerate that opinion. That is the outcome of the opinion being wholly inconsistent with the corpus of scientific data collected up to this point.
Bad takes get the respect they deserve. If getting hammered with difficult questions in response is too much to handle, maybe it’s time to reevaluate them. If you aren’t the type to reconsider opinions in the face of difficult questions, you’re sadly correct that an open forum for discourse probably isn’t the right place for you to be.
The stakes are too high at this point. We’re diving headfirst into a climate crisis, the U.S. government is possibly irreversibly on the path to a complete authoritarian takeover, we’re on the verge of allowing the destruction of our remaining natural heritage, and crucial functions of our government are being dismantled without any scrutiny while being egged on by the least well-informed half of the electorate. I am done pulling my punches on those who champion this shit.
I'm not saying any opinions need to be coddled. I'm saying that while you may interpret your interactions as 'eviscerating', I doubt if others interpret it that way.
> the goal isn’t to eviscerate that opinion. That is the outcome
Are you sure that's the outcome?
> If getting hammered with difficult questions in response is too much to handle, maybe it’s time to reevaluate them
Right.