What you consider to be civil, thoughtful and graceful I might consider barbaric, thoughtless and brutish.
This goes for every statement of yours that entails some sort of objective threshold beyond the argument that those who speaks the loudest are often the ones that are heard the most.
I’m sure we have opposing views on some subjects and I maintain that I might have spent more time reflecting on them than you. Does that mean that you are wrong and I am right? Or perhaps that we reflect on things in different light, inevetably ending up with different conclusions - Both equally valid?
After reflecting on the topic of subjective world views for quite some time, I feel I can confidently hold the latter opinion.
BorisBoreUs@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
If people communicating in a public space are of differing opinions regarding a topic, and all can claim truthfully to have reflected thoughtfully, and understood the complexities of the topic, then disagreements about the topic can still be communicated gracefully to one another. If left unpersuaded, they can agree to disagree and part peacefully. The act of the discourse is valuable even in disagreement, either to re-enforce ones own convictions or to soften a stance when presented with new information.
I’m fairly confident that the OP isn’t referring to discourse and debate but rather comments or posts that unnerved them. I suspect the comments were some shade of anti-social, ignorant, or violent from their perception. I’m speculating on the specifics, as I’m working from the same post you saw.
If you want to talk about objective and subjective thresholds of truth vs. fact and determination of what is considered valid, I’m not sure this is the right place. The OP seemed to be concerned at the prevalence of concerning rhetoric online, at least, that’s what I took from it. A broader philosophical discussion might be better served in it’s own post/comments.
I’m curious about the tone of your reply. My perception is it seemed combative and contrarian, though I can’t be sure that you intended it that way. Your comments seemed to be directed at me specifically rather than at the ideas only. Am I misinterpreting your meaning?