That's fine. It's good when people like that are denied power. But my essay was about *if your goal is to "win,"* you should instead seek to "win over." So responding, "My goal isn't to do either," isn't an objection so much as an acknowledgement the essay's argument is unrelated to your concerns.
Then your goal should be winning over the crowd. And the characteristics of people who emphasize "winning" as "destroying" are likely to turn off at least as many people as their public destruction of the other side turns on. So even in public debates, you should display the traits of winning over.
If that's the case, then you probably won't "win" an argument with them, either.
Too much political discussion and debate is entirely about "winning" as defeating and destroying. This elevates those who relish defeating and destroying—and who tend not to be admirable people. A shift to "winning over" would make our political exchanges, and our own characters, more humane. 3/3
The difference between "winning" and "winning over" is that "winning" emphasizes defeating interlocutors by "destroying" them and their arguments. "Winning over" persuades people to want to take your side, because the arguments are good, yes, but also because they find them—and you—admirable. 2/3
Happy to chat. Bluesky's saying you can't be messaged, though. Try dropping me a DM and see if that works, or send me an email at aaronpowell@gmail.com
Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed it.
There was another reply from you here about a Buddhism thing I was going to follow up on, but now I'm not seeing it anymore?
Thank you! If you haven't already seen it, you might also enjoy my other show, ReImagining Liberty, where I have a lot of similar sorts of discussions. www.reimaginingliberty.com
The emancipatory and cosmopolitan case for radical social, political, and economic liberalism.
There's an admirable and unencumbered purity to high school campaigning.