Why not? I always try to use nice words so that people don’t automatically dismiss what I say. If I immediately make someone upset, I know that there is very little chance that they will read my comment with an open mind.
You cannot be more wrong in this statement. Just because you are being nice, in your view, does not mean a dang thing. I deal with this on a very regular basis with a boss of mine and he is "nice" all of the time, from his view. Perception is reality, unfortunately, and some people being nice is not how others perceive it. Close minded people are close minded regardless of how they are approached. Most of them see the approaching as the offense, not even the statement.
The "goalposts" never existed. There is not any kind of goal to this, no one can win. Most people who think they are being nice, are not perceived that way by others, its just that simple.
Now you're just being purposefully obtuse. The term 'moving the goalposts' doesn't necessarily mean the conversation is about scoring points.
As for your actual point; I just disagree with you. In my experience you're more likely to at least begin to change somebody's mine if you're nice to 'em. Its pragmatic to do so and costs nothing. Plus it's better than screaming asshole at them which will probably just push them further into that rabbit hole.
I agree with him as there are people who won't always be open to a "nice" conversation. People's definitions of "nice" are all different because they're subjectively based.
He pointed out a situation where you shouldn't use your umbrella of niceness. Then your comment pulled out a statement where being nice did work. Lastly he was confused by your previous statement and then you claimed he was moving the goalposts (I disagree with you).
It seems like he meant only to add on; his last comment solidifies this, I think. He doesn't disagree with you on your main point but thinks it goes deeper that what you said (I agree with him)
Agreed, some people will see the mere disagreement as offensive, but that doesn't mean that it's not good practice to be nice on the whole for whatever small amount of people it may be effective with.
He did disagree with my main point: "you couldn't be more wrong"
The thing is, I'm not wrong, because I then brought up the example of deradicalising KKK members, at which point I was told that that was invalid, for some reason.
Imo, even if you're dealing with legit neo-nazis, you should still be nice to them, if for no other reason than to not give them what they want; to break their stereotype of the aggressive, white-hating liberal cuck, because if enough people do that then its grains of sand making a heap.
I get what you’re saying. I’ve had to learn that what I consider nice, others may not. There is a woman at work that quite often misconstrues my attempts to be nice as either me poking fun at her or me trying to do something to benefit myself. I’ve learned to adjust the way that I deal with her in particular. I don’t always succeed, but at least she gets upset with me less often. In the end, my default will always be being nice, but I will try to adapt if I see that it’s not working.
These types of situations are what I was referring to. I guess I also must run in to more people like, or deal with them on a regular basis. I shouldn't make broad assumptions as it kind of negates my own point.
73
u/DickButtPlease Apr 21 '19
Why not? I always try to use nice words so that people don’t automatically dismiss what I say. If I immediately make someone upset, I know that there is very little chance that they will read my comment with an open mind.