| |
Luke Setzer wrote:
... She nagged me about these issues when I clearly had no desire to hear nagging -- regardless of her "rightness" in assessing the core issues. Had she simply approached the subject in a caring way rather than an incessantly nagging way, I would have more warmly received her ideas.
I fully agree that if one's objective is to constructively persuade, then incessant, uninvited repetition, nagging, is a poor strategy.
Debates often entail repetition, and often that repetition is invited, warranted by the circumstances. In our discussion of copyrights, for example, the issue of risk was raised several times, by several people. It does not constitute "nagging" to meet each of those objections with a response; it represents patience and ordinary discourse. To call that "nagging" is to turn a virtue into a vice.
The same for the "trying to be right" charge. In debate, the proponent is sometimes confronted with several opponents, and must defend that position from several perspectives, often with some repetition.
There ARE those who nag, and those who insist upon having the last word. We are fully justified in choosing not to initiate or continue discussion with such people. Whether it is constructive to openly accuse another of those defects, even if they are true, is doubtful in the extreme.
What is NOT in doubt is the virtue of slinging the "nagging" and "just wanting to be right" charges in a discussion as a substitute for argument; there is NO virtue in this at all. This is arrogant and can have absolutely NO constructive effect. An ad hominem is an ad hominem.
The following passage has caused some consternation:
The better forums such as those here at SOLO send well-grounded moderators on "search and destroy" missions for damage control of such louts. Rest assured that SOLO will not become a "witch hunt" organization. Lindsay asked me to make that clear.
I'm pleased to hear that. The question has been asked and answered.
... Since self-assertiveness remains an essential pillar of self-esteem, a person can experience more pride by standing up against malefactors than by yielding to their demands even if they eventually prove "right." This assertiveness conveys a basic message: I value myself enough to demand that you treat me with the respect owed to any decent human being.
I'm puzzled by what you might mean by "yield to their demands."
Truth is where we find it. Self-esteem allows us to acknowledge that truth and act upon it, whatever the motive or manner of the other person. This does not necessarily entail any acquiescence or submission.
Sometimes, defiance/rejection even though we know the other person is correct can actually signal a LACK of self-esteem.
In any event, acknowledging truth and maintaining self-respect are not mutually exclusive.
Nathan Hawking
|
|
