Read the article at https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200930-how-to-politely-and-productively-disagree
and present your opinions/experiences.
English Conversation Course for Part-Time Students
Read the article at https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200930-how-to-politely-and-productively-disagree
and present your opinions/experiences.
Generally, I hate talking about politics as for me this is very frustrating, especially in my country. Also, people may have different points of view and that’s why I avoid talking about it with others except for my wife. Of course, I always try to keep up to date with this shit but I’m pretty sure that during voting we only have to choose less evil and you have to fight for your life, future, pension, and family security by yourself. As for the polite and productive way of disagreement, I think that everyone has to develop it in a particular way because each situation needs a different style of disagreement. In my opinion, good arguments should be enough to defend and strengthen your polite disagreement.
ReplyDeleteSame here! let's leave talking about politics to politicians💩 😉
DeleteBut sometimes we do need to speak... And vote of course! That's our part of this discussion
I think that this article is interesting, but omits an important phenomenon - debates on the Internet, on social forums. Of course, people can be kind to each other, express themselves in a polite way, or even use psychological ways of communication. However, will these methods work for 5,20 or even 100 readers? For several days, on Polish websites and forums have been posts and comments on the new anti-abortion decision. I've noticed that a lot of people don't use any rational arguments. There's also a lack of culture and respect for other people. Why? I think it is easier for people to write something unpleasant or simply insolent when they only see the avatar - not the person standing in front of them who has more knowledge or experience in a given topic. It's also easier to don't read than don't listen.
ReplyDeleteyes i totally agree with you. Pouring shit on the internet is a completely separate piece of cake. There, the debate has a completely different dimension, every idiot can speak. Unfortunately, people who comment on Facebook, for example TVN24 posts, are usually people who have no idea about the topic and often represent a low level. What can be seen, for example, from spelling mistakes. Usually in these places the most hate is poured out and truly Dantean scenes take place. Horrible.
DeleteI don't like to talk about politics either. I don't know anything about it. And finally: I don't like to speak up on things that I have no idea about. This article did not inspire me, but it touched on an interesting fact for me - being nicer. The way in which the debates are conducted recently is reprehensible. And politicians who use language full of hate are just pathetic. I agree with the conclusion of the article - if we start to think about what we are talking about and how we say it - if we start to pay attention to whether our words do not hurt somebody... Maybe one day the world will change for the better :)
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, discussions or debates that produce several approaches and can bee seen in different ways should only happen live. We could avoid 90% of shit talk. Personally, I sincerely hate facebook kind debates. There are moments I would like to chime in, but after a short reflection I find it simply useless. Whatever I write, it does not matter whether I am right or not, whether you like it or you hate it, there will always be someone to insult me, my family, my brain, even my profile picture. Sometimes it is funny to read this type of comments of answers, but it is actually simply sad. It is sad to see all those people having nothing relevant or wise to say use their final and 100% effective attack - humiliation.
ReplyDeleteIt seems, that to a large extent all this disputes are due to the higher and higher knowledge of society. Now days we have a wide access to technology (smartphones, TV, radio ect.) and thanks to that our awareness is still growing. It seems, that we live in a democratic world, but this is not fully respected by everyone. Only in theory we can express our opinion and opposition, but will we not be condemned for this? The situation is similar in our country, where is the large part of supporters of certain assumptions, but also a large part is against these findings. The division of society into two different camps certainly encourages conflict. I would like to say something to be normal, but how, when people jump at each other's throats?
ReplyDeleteI must admit that the topic of the article is quite complicated. On my own example, I can say that I use two approaches to conducting a discussion. One is for online discussions, the other is for face-to-face discussions. I don't find my statements generally rude or impolite. I feel more anonymous on the internet, usually I am able to strongly defend my opinion and support it with facts. I don't like getting into verbal arguments (though sometimes it's inevitable) that won't get me anywhere anyway. On the other hand, in the real world, I'm more open to suggestions from others. I have an opinion, but I like to listen to the opinions of others more because I know who I am actually talking to. On the internet it's super easy to speak badly of someone, but in a real situation I would just feel stupid. However, based on my experience with both types of discussions and the author's suggestion, I can easily admit that the vast majority of people could be a bit nicer.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, people engage their emotions too much in any verbal (especially online) discussions, which makes it easy to overcome the barriers of discussion and enter to argument. Especially on the Internet, there is too much hate to another person who has a different opinion on the topic than the other commenter. I agree what about the strategy Swedish writer and data analyst John Nerst said - we should analyze less what people say and let them explain exactly what they want to told. I think the big problem in today's world is that people know better what other people meant without letting them explain it. I think that if everyone would be less excited and has less hate, especially online, world will be better.
ReplyDeleteIt is usually hard to find common language with people who have different opinions, I've met a lot of people and after telling them my point on something, they jumped on me with counterarguments even if I just said one thing and didn't mean to continue the topic. It is rare to find someone who does not want to argue over things. If i saw someone making a big thing about it, my way out of it was just to stop talking and not caring because to be honest I don't really care about politics or the COVID-19 problems. It is worth knowing those ways mentioned in the article and every one of them is interesting. But in the end it is all about people mentality, we should be more open to hear about other people opinions and stop arguing over things.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm kind of a man that after every controversial discussion puts the sentence "that's only my personal opinion". This technique is very helpful when You don't want to see the conversation ending up as a quarrel. The article provides a lot of information about healthy discussions which I think was known for a long time. Politics is not my piece of pie, at least in my country because we need so many changes that I'm not even able to count. After all, techniques from the article would make political debates more concrete and fruitful. In the end, I would like to add that it's only my opinion ;)
ReplyDeleteTo be honest I hate talking about politic debates, disagreement, arguing - generally speaking in private life I reached a point where I try not to get into argument at first place. After many years of trying to "disagree in polite way", "using logical arguments", "being nice and open-minded" I came up to a conclusion that if someone doesn't want to find common language and solve the problem togheter, they won't listen to anything and using any of presented techinques won't help either. On the other hand I agree that people should be nicer to each other, especially on the Internet and at least try to think from other perspective.
ReplyDeleteI like to think about myself as a open minded person, so usually i don't get caught in heated debates. But when I do, I like to ask a lot of follow up questions to understand point of view my interlocutor, and then I like to confront that point with my views. If she/he can defend im willing to accept it :) If not and I know that will be like banging head in a wall i just say "Ok" and I probably change a subject.
ReplyDeleteThis article deals with a very complex and interesting topic. I have the impression that nowadays people often take part in discussions not to exchange opinions and discuss the topic but to create a quarrel and introduce chaos. In colloquial language this is called shitstorm and it's goal is not to discuss something or convince the other party to change their decision, but to show that our opinion is the only right one and the other party is worse than us. The main place where such discussions take place is the Internet, thanks to the fact that we are anonymous to some extent, we are not afraid to behave poorly and uncultured. In face-to-face discussions, people try to retain a little bit of personal culture, though in comparison to recent presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, my theory seems to be completely wrong.
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with the points raised in this article. Today’s debates are often driven by one’s emotions and the feeling of self-righteousness. I guess it’s worthy to step back in an overheated debate and wonder if the topic area hasn’t changed its’ main path or direction, because if so, then it’s likely that the whole disagreement lost its’ point and purpose. I find those two techniques of “Paradoxical thinking” and “Motivational interviewing” highly fascinating. Questioning own assumptions may be a brilliant way of confronting own beliefs and reconsidering possible change of convictions. It is also obvious for me, that evidence-based arguments are the key factor contributing to mutual consent. Recently in any conversation I have whether it’s a disagreement or not, I am deeply trying to carefully listen to the points and matters the other person is saying, not only expressing my own opinions. As a matter of fact, it’s working and making all the conversations more profound. Despite the disagreement, we must always remember to respect the other interlocutor and simply to be kind!
ReplyDeleteThis article raises a very important issue nowadays. From my observation people tend to argue more and easier even if the subject isn't personal or offending to any side. It is very easy to provoke someone or a group of people with an oposite belief and people treat every dispute very seriously. There are many sensitive subjects about which people have strong opinions and if they are contradictive, both sides need to prove their right so it's often easy to derive from debate to an argument. I guess it is s partialy caused by lack of respect to others especially to people with different opinions and beliefs. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that lots of discussions take place in social media where people can say anything without consecences and they loose the reality of the situation aswell someone on the other end.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIt is easy to say that it is enough to be nicer so that the exchange of dissenting opinions does not turn into an unpleasant argument. Often, emotions prevail in the face of different opinions. The article shows very interesting techniques how to try to make the exchange run smoothly and productively. It often happens that the views expressed by people are not supported by facts, but only by overheard slogans.