This has some similarities to the coming out process, but the analogy breaks down in a few places. Being gay isn’t a belief as such (queer theory notwithstanding), but coming out does position you within a fairly specific ideological region. My own Gay Talk with my parents had some friction, and the struggle to be understood was definitely a part of that, but I don’t think I ever tried to convince them of anything really. It was more about being honest and getting the ball in their court. It’s less common these days for (anti-gay) people to respond to homosexuality as if it were a wrong opinion, so exposing the gulf is less likely to provoke that kind of argument, hostile or otherwise.
Incidentally, if an underage LGBT person is worried about strong condemnation from their guardians, the usual advice is to lie until they’re no longer in a position of dependence- you don’t gamble with basic access to food and clothes. I’m not sure how much that advice can be generalized.
I think it’s very important to distinguish A. the ‘hostile arguer’ from B. the ‘person with a willingness to make actionable threats and a vested interest in your beliefs’. And when you disentangle the two, I think the epistemic dangers of even having the ‘hostile arguer’ concept ratting around in your head are likely to outweigh the benefits.
There are a lot of reasons to have a debate with someone; winning is among the least important of these. Being understood is there, but so are other things, like the perceptions of an observant third party, and learning from your opponent’s knowledge. You should evaluate any given conversation on a case-by-cases basis. Flagging certain people with a ‘DO NOT DEBATE’ sign, one that only considers a subset of your values, is likely to throw out a lot of babies with the bathwater.
Actual threats against you are a great reason not to talk to somebody, or to lie to them, but that’s a B-problem and not an A-problem.
This has some similarities to the coming out process, but the analogy breaks down in a few places. Being gay isn’t a belief as such (queer theory notwithstanding), but coming out does position you within a fairly specific ideological region. My own Gay Talk with my parents had some friction, and the struggle to be understood was definitely a part of that, but I don’t think I ever tried to convince them of anything really. It was more about being honest and getting the ball in their court. It’s less common these days for (anti-gay) people to respond to homosexuality as if it were a wrong opinion, so exposing the gulf is less likely to provoke that kind of argument, hostile or otherwise.
Incidentally, if an underage LGBT person is worried about strong condemnation from their guardians, the usual advice is to lie until they’re no longer in a position of dependence- you don’t gamble with basic access to food and clothes. I’m not sure how much that advice can be generalized.
I think it’s very important to distinguish A. the ‘hostile arguer’ from B. the ‘person with a willingness to make actionable threats and a vested interest in your beliefs’. And when you disentangle the two, I think the epistemic dangers of even having the ‘hostile arguer’ concept ratting around in your head are likely to outweigh the benefits.
There are a lot of reasons to have a debate with someone; winning is among the least important of these. Being understood is there, but so are other things, like the perceptions of an observant third party, and learning from your opponent’s knowledge. You should evaluate any given conversation on a case-by-cases basis. Flagging certain people with a ‘DO NOT DEBATE’ sign, one that only considers a subset of your values, is likely to throw out a lot of babies with the bathwater.
Actual threats against you are a great reason not to talk to somebody, or to lie to them, but that’s a B-problem and not an A-problem.