My usual method when confronted with a situation where a speaker appears to be stupid, crazy, or evil is to assume I misunderstood what they said. Usually by the time I understand what the opposite party is saying, I no longer have any problematic affective judgment.
I usually find that I do understand what they are saying and it belongs in one of the neglected categories of ‘bullshit’ or “”.
Those don’t usually give me much trouble—I find that the nonsense people propose is usually self-consistent in an interesting way, much like speculative fiction. On reflection, what really gives me trouble is viewpoints I understand and disagree with all within five seconds, like [insert politics here].
Presumably “things that people say that aren’t really actionable beliefs”; though this reply feels awkward in a discussion about misunderstanding, I’m pretty sure that was the intended phrase.
I usually find that I do understand what they are saying and it belongs in one of the neglected categories of ‘bullshit’ or “”.
This sounds interesting, but I can’t parse it.
That’s because you are using an English parser while my words were not valid English.
Those don’t usually give me much trouble—I find that the nonsense people propose is usually self-consistent in an interesting way, much like speculative fiction. On reflection, what really gives me trouble is viewpoints I understand and disagree with all within five seconds, like [insert politics here].
My experience is opposite. On one hand you’ll have people who do job that require a sort of met
“things that people say that” what? The grammar gets a little odd toward the latter half of that.
Presumably “things that people say that aren’t really actionable beliefs”; though this reply feels awkward in a discussion about misunderstanding, I’m pretty sure that was the intended phrase.
Fixed.
Thanks!