|
I think there are several things going on:
1. people reacting to the way in which an opinion is stated (e.g., "I don't like mushrooms" vs. "mushrooms suck!!!" or "people who eat mushrooms are stupid")
2. people reacting to the reasons behind someone's opinions and trying to persuade them of the illogic/faulty reasoning behind those opinions ("I don't like mushrooms because it's not right for people to eat fungi" or "Mushrooms suck because my brother ate mushrooms once and got sick")
3. people reacting to opinions they don't like and getting borderline pissy about it ("oh yeah? well people who don't like mushrooms are idiots")
IMHO, the first two reactions are valid. It's fine to take on someone's opinion if it's stated poorly or in a way that is insulting or demeaning, based on faulty reasoning, or if you simply want to present an alternative viewpoint for the person to consider.
The third one is throwing sand in the sandbox.
It doesn't do much to elevate the discussion to reply to an immature or poorly-worded statement with an equally immature or poorly-worded statement.
If you feel you're being attacked, look at whether the person is really attacking vs. just challenging. Also, look at whether they might have good reason to attack you. Did the way you said something come off as an attack, a blanket statement, just plain dumb?
Also, you may want to consider why your beliefs are unpopular. Are they simply unconventional? Are they poorly-founded? Do you have information that other people don't that led you to your conclusions? Use the challenge (or, if you're on the other side, the unconventional belief) as an opportunity to re-examine your opinions and either crystallize or alter them.
If you're challenging someone's post, be sure you know what it is you're challenging about it (the wording vs. the sentiment vs. the reasoning) and be clear about that in your own statements.
__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
|