zlacker

>I have many very interesting conversations with people that I do not agree with politically, but I respect their intelligence and point of view, and vice versa.

Likewise. But I wasn't saying that's not possible, I was saying that I'm not convinced many people change their opinions over the course of such conversations. Being civil is important, but the question was whether civil debate among people who know each other in person results in more reasonable opinions, or compromises.

It's obviously better than online conversations. But to what extent? I don't think GP made a sufficiently convincing case.

>>claudi+(OP)
The objective of a conversation is not to change the other’s opinion, it is to understand each other on a deeper level than at the start. If the net result is a shift in opinion on either side (or both) then so be it.

The idea of “right” and “wrong” views is flawed and to set out with the objective of persuading the other to your view is a mistake. Getting them to understand you view, whilst you get to understand theirs, is a better objective. You can’t change the world if you don’t understand it.

It is of course extremely difficult to have this kind of conversation online especially in short form.