Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I don't know if I agree that the best arguments result in agreement between opponents. They don't end in agreement, they begin with cooperation; you might not resolve the argument, or your position might prevail, or even change. As you say, there is no argument to be had in some cases, there is no reason. I'm talking about a methodology, rather than an outcome; you can still disagree. That said, in the case of somet…
Hmmm.... I think that a lot of these "people jumped on me on social media!" anecdotes aren't because people said they preferred Spartacus over Game of Thrones (Spartacus is way way better btw), but because they got involved in one of those debates that is tantamount to a fight. Like abortion, or wealth inequality, or police brutality, or gay rights, or race and IQ.
Re: The relationship between social media use and well-being
#131Exactly... some arguments you can only have with people you know very well... and sometimes not even then. We're only human after all, and the tribalism runs deep. If you try to have a reasonable discussion with someone about certain topics, the whole thing goes nuclear. It takes a lot of work from two people with wildly opposing views for that not to happen.