I will say this: if your intent was to make people see that playingwithknives had a point, you succeeded magnificently.
I’ll agree with that. So why aren’t you following your own advice?
Communication involves engaging in the conversation in good faith. That involves letting the other person talk, even … especially … when I disagree with them.
Communication involves always entertaining the possibility I might be wrong.
Communication involves being able to imagine and acknowledge that the other person may know and understand me better than I understand them. (Which is not to say either understands the other perfectly.)
Communication involves listening - actually listening and absorbing what is said, not just impatiently counting the seconds until I can talk again. (This is true even if the other party isn’t listening themselves; just because they aren’t doing it doesn’t mean I get a pass on doing it myself.)
Communication involves acknowledging the right of other people to be themselves, without telling them every single time that I’d find them more convincing if they thought, acted, and felt exactly like me.
Communication involves acknowledging that communication may make me uncomfortable, because not everything is about making me feel comfortable.
But here’s something that has fuck-all to do with real communication or sweet reason: saying I am free to diminish or dismiss your arguments, suggestions, or feelings simply because there are more of me than there are of you. Especially when it isn’t actually true (we white males make up a mere 31% of the US population) and what I must really mean is, “My group has more money and power than yours, and we can shut you up if we don’t like what you say. So get in line.”*
The name for that is not communication or reason. It’s thuggery. It’s the sort of thing Karens and Trumps do. And you don’t want to be a Karen or a Trump.
Do you?
*“But its just a cold, hard fact of reality!” I might think. Perhaps; but in a reasonable conversation do we have to automatically accept it? On closer examination it might not turn out to be a fact at all (circa 1985 I would have taken it as a “fact” that no black person would be elected president in my lifetime), or it might not turn out to be relevant to the conversation. If we’re trying to be reasonable, isn’t it better to ask the other person how they would accommodate the alleged fact into their narrative then simply dismiss theirs and substitute my own?