If you want to dismiss me by trying to imply my opinion is driven by a want of something other than accuracy with reality, I can find other people to spend my time with.
Once we're talking about dismissing someone, we've long left the realm of good-faith discussion, which was assumed in the situation you're responding to.
Because that kind of information is used with a common rhetorical tactic called ad hominem.
> Once we're talking about dismissing someone, we've long left the realm of good-faith discussion, which was assumed in the situation you're responding to.
Assuming good faith is necessary and good for any kind of productive debate but it's not necessarily or need be accompanied by the trust necessary to answer personal questions. That kind of trust is developed over time with many people. Perhaps you are more trusting by default, all power to you, but it's naive to assume everyone ought to react the same way you do.
The only thing I am trusting here is that vanderZwan is trying to accurately report their experiences. I trust, since they say it is done in good-faith discussions, that they are sensitive to the risk of this being perceived as being ad hominem and that in-person they ask the question in an appropriate way.
To be clear, I never said that I would respond well to the question. My point is that it is a large leap to go from what vanderZwan said to that this is for the purpose of dismissing someone.
Also to be clear, I think it's valid for P5fRxh5kUvp2th to think that this sort of question is well outside of what is ever respectful to ask. I just happen to think it's wrong to assume that disrespect is vanderZwan's intent.
No one had to ask the hindu why they got upset when the athiest came by and stood next to the statue of buddha chomping on a mcdonalds beef biscuit.
The athiest didn't think about it, those two had a conversation afterwards, and they still get along just fine to this day (some 10 years later).
This is NOT about beliefs being objective or not. That group of friends has lasted over the years due to a fundamental respect of each other as PEOPLE.
Someone who asks that particular question lacks such respect and as such are not going to be given any headspace by me.
If you want a claim on my time, then you shall do so under my requirements.
No native speaker is going to be surprised I ended the conversation after a question like that.
Anyway, how you communicate with people close to you is up to you, and I'm still not sure why it upsets you so much how I claim to have healthy discussions with mine.
But for the record: my partner and I essentially saved our relationship during the pandemic despite being on complete opposite "sides" of the topics of covid, vaccines and lockdowns, by communicating this way.
Because truthfully, neither she nor I actually have enough expertise to really assert that the vaccine is safe or not in the long-term, whether or not lockdowns work, and so on. We just have to trust the people we consider authoritative on these matters. And for perfectly understandable personal reasons we trust different sources here and prioritize different issues.
So instead of trying to convince each other of a viewpoint we could not in good faith defend as something we knew with certainty, we decided to ask ourselves why we feel so strongly about these issues. Why these beliefs that we do not have strong evidence for were so important, and to be honest with each other about those beliefs.
And being willing to trust each other, open up like that and do that kind of self-reflection together works. Neither of us has changed our minds regarding covid, nor tried to change the other's mind, but we're more grateful to each other for taking the time to understand and respect each others views than that the differences upset us, because it shows we believe the other person is worth that effort. Which is more than most people who disagree as strongly about this topic as she and I do can say.
If you still believe this is being disrespectful, that's fine. Outside of this meta-discussion about discussions we're having right now I have no interest in "claiming your time" and I'll still have a healthy and loving relationship with my partner regardless of what you think.
I heard a story once of an asian woman in a business meeting who started talking about erections. She was trying to say election. If a clearly native speaker had said it, the reaction would have been vastly different.
That question has all sorts of implications, not the least of which is being an accusation that the other person is disagreeing in bad faith, as well as an extreme level of condescension.
You don't speak to your coworkers the way you speak to your partner.
However, when I ask this it is not to dismiss someone, it's because if I understand why something is important to them I am better at arguing in good faith without accidentally being dismissive of what matters to them. Which helps with reaching a consensus, or a respectful point of agreeing to disagree.
Also, it's an important question people should be asking themselves but rarely do.
In a non-verbal exchange this choice of an explicit pause followed by the use of the phrase "interesting interpretation" could also be misconstrued as an underhanded compliment/sarcasm further undermining your alleged intention.
Maybe, but it's totally unnecessary if you want to foster open and good faith discussions as you claim.
Being patient in a textual medium means just saying what you mean instead of adding unnecessary pauses and reactions to their response. Regardless of how it was intended to come across it is regularly a sarcastic/dismissive response and not one that assumes good faith or openness which the GP purported to promote.
> Instead of policing his tone, you should reconsider yours. It sounds like you’re upset for an unclear reason.
You're imputing an emotional state on me and dismissing what I'm saying based on that, which is ironically the very thing that the original response was about and exactly why many people vehemently don't answer personal questions like the GP asks. Nor is this policing, the GP can do as they wish, it is critical feedback though about fostering good faith and openness. If that collapses at the first challenge then the GP isn't actually committed to it and ought not act like it.