I get where you’re coming from, have felt the same before, and would agree that it’s important to pick one’s battles. That said, I have 100% been the person you describe whose opinion on a topic was changed just because one person took the time to disagree and explain why.
In fact, since it’s often a thankless chore to counter a local consensus or hive-mind opinion using evidence or a well-constructed argument, I’ve come to really appreciate when anyone attempts to do so respectfully and in good faith, even if I’m ultimately not convinced.
WRT Kirk, there’s little room for nuanced opinions: one either knows nothing about him or takes his far-right christian nationalist and white-supremacist statements for what they are. Since fewer people will occupy that first category over time, attempts to reach them will see diminishing returns, so I think it suffices to just direct them to a reputable source re: his statements.
I have a similar philosophy, but framed a little differently: never
argue with an idiot, because the best possible outcome is you’ll win an argument against an idiot.
So it’s more kind of “pick your battles”. Or, to widen the application beyond just discussion - always think “why am I doing this? What am I hoping to achieve?”
I get where you’re coming from, have felt the same before, and would agree that it’s important to pick one’s battles. That said, I have 100% been the person you describe whose opinion on a topic was changed just because one person took the time to disagree and explain why.
In fact, since it’s often a thankless chore to counter a local consensus or hive-mind opinion using evidence or a well-constructed argument, I’ve come to really appreciate when anyone attempts to do so respectfully and in good faith, even if I’m ultimately not convinced.
WRT Kirk, there’s little room for nuanced opinions: one either knows nothing about him or takes his far-right christian nationalist and white-supremacist statements for what they are. Since fewer people will occupy that first category over time, attempts to reach them will see diminishing returns, so I think it suffices to just direct them to a reputable source re: his statements.
I have a similar philosophy, but framed a little differently: never argue with an idiot, because the best possible outcome is you’ll win an argument against an idiot.
So it’s more kind of “pick your battles”. Or, to widen the application beyond just discussion - always think “why am I doing this? What am I hoping to achieve?”
not anymore!