On agreeing to disagree

Post Reply New Topic

I don't hate anyone. I get angry sometimes at people who believe we shouldn't exist, but I don't hate.

And some say that I lack the “agreeing to disagree” “social skill”... but just “agreeing to disagree” with people who are harming others, or about to harm others, is not a social skill; it's the opposite.

CGG -It helps to remember this: As individuals, we are responsible for what we say. We are not responsible for how others choose to understand what we say, nor the way they choose to respond to them.

Your activist energy and orientation recalls my much younger self to me .

Here is a link that could be part of a basic reading file for all activists who will become leaders in the future:

http://communityandconsensus.blogspot.c ... -to-z.html

"Agreeing to disagree" is indeed the opposite of a social skill, it's social dysfunction as only NT folks can do. It's a logical fallacy, and it's a way for both parties in said disagreement to walk away on a false moral high ground. Not only does it serve no valid purpose, it only breeds contempt, ill will, and weakens empathy by cementing in ones own mind a competing perspective. It's toxic, dangerous, and is nearly as harmful as "I'm entitled to my own opinion" which is actually starting to cause deaths.

Think I've over exaggerating? Before you do, consider this. Anti-vaxxers exist, and somehow have flourished in an environment that allows people to refuse to vaccinate children. This in turn weakens "herd immunity" to the point where we are experiencing outbreaks of disease vectors that have started to flourish after having been erradicated. Measles in one of the recent outbreaks in California claimed the life of an innocent woman just last year. Why? Because anti-vaxxers are "entitled to their own opinion."

As someone else posted, people have forgotten/ignored/disregarded responsibilty and it's only going to get worse.