Listen to People You Find Reasonable
To genuinely understand an opposing viewpoint, seek out and engage with the most reasonable, good-faith representatives of that view, rather than relying on caricatures or the worst examples.
THE IDEA
LISTEN TO PEOPLE YOU FIND REASONABLE
When you picture a debate on Reddit between a bunch of feminists and a bunch of antifeminists, what descriptors come to mind? “Frustrating”? “Terrible”? “Dumpster fire,” perhaps?
As a rule, that would be accurate. But for several years, r/FeMRADebates was a shining exception to the rule.4 It was created in 2014 as a space for feminists and men’s rights activists (MRAs) to discuss questions that divide them.* What made r/FeMRADebates unique was the care the moderators took in setting norms of conduct from the beginning: Don’t insult other members or use epithets like feminazi or neckbeard. Don’t generalize. Disagree with specific people or specific views, rather than talking about what “feminists” believe as if they’re a monolith.
Thanks to these rules, and the positive influence of the forum’s founding members, r/FeMRADebates managed to avoid the “dumpster fire” problem to an unusual degree. How often do you see comments like this in a typical online debate?
I glanced over your article and yes, actually, I am in the wrong here.5
I don’t fault people for ‘not getting it’ anymore. I think they have a reasonable position.6
I don’t always agree with [another commenter] . . . but if anyone was ever to convince me to be a feminist, it would be her for sure.7
Both feminists and MRAs who came to the subreddit with a dismal view of the other side frequently changed their minds over time. One member named Rashid told me that he used to be skeptical of the feminist claim that female rape victims are often blamed and their rape trivialized. After talking to a number of the feminists on r/FeMRADebates, he’s concluded that it happens a lot more often than he realized.
Rashid had considered himself an “antifeminist” when he first joined the subreddit, but he has since dropped that label. What changed his mind? Talking with feminists who were arguing in good faith, he told me. “I used to spend a lot of time being exposed to the worst ‘takes’ from the feminist side that were being shared by other antifeminists to showcase how ridiculous feminists were,” Rashid said. As a result, he had been under the impression that the worst examples of feminism were far more common than they actually were.
On the other side of the aisle, one of the group’s feminist founders began to see some flaws in concepts from feminist theory, such as “patriarchy.” She also came to care much more about some problems MRAs emphasize, like the sexual assault of men. In a heartfelt message to some of her frequent debate partners, she wrote: “You’ve seen me change my stance on more issues than I can count . . . You’ve made me much more accepting of the MRM [men’s rights movement] in general, and made me realize the importance of many men’s issues.”8
When to use it
During online political debates, seek out and engage with thoughtful, good-faith commenters from the other side rather than trolls or extremists.
When researching a contentious topic, read books or articles by respected intellectuals from opposing camps, not just summary critiques.
In workplace disagreements, make an effort to understand the most competent colleague who holds the opposite view, and explore why they see things differently.
When forming opinions on social issues, intentionally expose yourself to the best arguments from all sides to avoid the 'worst examples' bias.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Changing minds on r/FeMRADebates
A user named Rashid initially identified as an 'antifeminist' and was skeptical of the feminist claim that female rape victims are often blamed. After engaging with reasonable feminist debaters, he concluded that it happens more often than he realized and dropped his antifeminist label.
A feminist founder’s shift on men’s issues
One of the feminist founders of r/FeMRADebates began to see flaws in concepts like 'patriarchy' and grew more concerned about men’s issues, such as sexual assault of men. She acknowledged changing her stance on many issues due to interactions with reasonable MRAs.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Think of a group or ideology you strongly disagree with. Who are the most reasonable, well-informed representatives of that group? How can you engage with their arguments?
When you evaluate an opposing viewpoint, do you tend to consider the strongest version or the weakest? How might focusing on the strongest version change your understanding?
Recall a time you changed your mind on a controversial issue. Did that change come from engaging with respectful, reasonable opponents or from something else?
Often confused with
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- The Scout Mindset (Julia Galef)