![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I get really frustrated when I start a conversation with someone and we are mostly in agreement from the outset, but somehow I end up arguing by defending a more polarizing position mainly because the other person either didn't see or refused to acknowledge that we were mostly in agreement from the beginning.
Like, when I started out a book review with "polyamory isn't ALL about sex, but we are talking about sexual-romantic relationships so let's talk about the parts that *are* about sex" and the first two comments were from one person pissed off that I would dare suggest that sex has anything at all to do with poly relationships and another who is pissed off at the suggestion that romantic relationships have nothing to do with sex.
So I ended up simultaneously having to defend the idea that of course sex is an important part to most people's experience of romantic relationships AND of course sex isn't the single defining element that makes romantic relationships different from other kinds of relationships. I didn't necessarily disagree with either point, but instead of talking about nuance, we got bogged down here.
Or the time I said that I was unequivocally opposed to the for-profit prison system, but that I thought prisoners *should* be given *some kind of* pathway for learning trades that they could use to become contributing members of society when their time is served or for earning income to pay for the debts that their crimes have created.
Somehow I ended up arguing with someone about the *current* prison system when I was never in favor of it to begin with, but because work opportunities for prisoners and the current legalized slavery are conflated, my opponent got bogged down in minutia instead of the actual issues when he completely overlooked my caveat that *it should be done ethically and with an eye towards reform, responsibility, and reparations* instead of punitively or for the personal gain of corporate owners.
Or the time I ended up arguing in circles with a friend of my mother's about why I don't have any medical insurance when I agreed that all the reasons *for* medical insurance were a good idea and all the suggestions for earning or saving money were a good idea *if one had access to them*, all because she ignored the part where I started my half of the conversation by saying that I was working for a union who was putting money away for me in some kind of emergency fund (which, btw, I can't access now that I'm not working for them anymore even though I put in that money from my own labor, but that's another rant and a point I didn't know at the time).
Look, I already agree with you, how the fuck did we end up yelling at each other on opposite sides of the debate?
#RhetoricalQuestion #RulesLawyersDoThisOften #SoDoPeopleWhoPedanticallyMissThePoint
Like, when I started out a book review with "polyamory isn't ALL about sex, but we are talking about sexual-romantic relationships so let's talk about the parts that *are* about sex" and the first two comments were from one person pissed off that I would dare suggest that sex has anything at all to do with poly relationships and another who is pissed off at the suggestion that romantic relationships have nothing to do with sex.
So I ended up simultaneously having to defend the idea that of course sex is an important part to most people's experience of romantic relationships AND of course sex isn't the single defining element that makes romantic relationships different from other kinds of relationships. I didn't necessarily disagree with either point, but instead of talking about nuance, we got bogged down here.
Or the time I said that I was unequivocally opposed to the for-profit prison system, but that I thought prisoners *should* be given *some kind of* pathway for learning trades that they could use to become contributing members of society when their time is served or for earning income to pay for the debts that their crimes have created.
Somehow I ended up arguing with someone about the *current* prison system when I was never in favor of it to begin with, but because work opportunities for prisoners and the current legalized slavery are conflated, my opponent got bogged down in minutia instead of the actual issues when he completely overlooked my caveat that *it should be done ethically and with an eye towards reform, responsibility, and reparations* instead of punitively or for the personal gain of corporate owners.
Or the time I ended up arguing in circles with a friend of my mother's about why I don't have any medical insurance when I agreed that all the reasons *for* medical insurance were a good idea and all the suggestions for earning or saving money were a good idea *if one had access to them*, all because she ignored the part where I started my half of the conversation by saying that I was working for a union who was putting money away for me in some kind of emergency fund (which, btw, I can't access now that I'm not working for them anymore even though I put in that money from my own labor, but that's another rant and a point I didn't know at the time).
Look, I already agree with you, how the fuck did we end up yelling at each other on opposite sides of the debate?
#RhetoricalQuestion #RulesLawyersDoThisOften #SoDoPeopleWhoPedanticallyMissThePoint
