🧵 View Thread
🧵 Thread (7 tweets)
IMO often what makes a disagreement interesting is whether or not the other person has a sense of vision a lot of twitter idiots (from every subculture, tribe, ingroup) have no vision, which makes the disagreements hideously boring unless you're choosing to entertain yourself
all communication is lossy and involves trade-offs a good faith discussion and/or disagreement is sensitive to the fact that the other person has made those trade-offs "ha, your communication is lossy!" is so uninspiring. it's the inverse of inspiring; it's dispiriting
a sort of specific lens to make sense of this is to think in terms of makers and critics. you shouldn't have to be a maker to be a critic, but if you're going to be a critic, you ought to be a constructive one. "vision" here is a sense of possibility https://t.co/ZzgwDPdVqN
more simply: a disagreement is interesting if both parties make an effort to show each other what they each see, and to try and see where the other party is coming from. it's uninteresting if one party is just mindlessly going "boo, no, ew, ick, weak, stupid, bad, fail"
here's another way of looking at it if we have a disagreement, we need to identify our respective assumptions, and talk about our respective experiences. if you're not open to doing that then don't waste people's time by disagreeing with them stupidly https://t.co/QctWih0sPd
"this is twitter lol, who spends that much time and effort" I do! my friends do, too! that's how you *make friends*. that's how you *build relationships*. that's how you *expand your mind*. you learn nothing from stupid disagreements. IMO you're wasting your time *otherwise*
threadblogged https://t.co/NK4OFBBQx3