Question: are you willing to listen to opinions you disagree with?

[brooklynite]

"Polls are fake."

"Corporate Media is biasing reporting to help Trump."

"Political experts like Axelrod and Carville have an agenda."

"MSNBC hosts are bringing on Republicans to interview."

In the past week or so, there have been a plethora of complaints about news or opinions that go counter to a "pro-Democratic" perspective and criticism of people (myself included) who choose to share them.

One of the facets of the MAGA fans on the right is that they choose to hide themselves in a bubble of "news" and opinion that only reinforces their existing biases. My question is: are people here effectively doing the same thing?

I go out of my way to listen to perspectives that aren't pro-Democratic, because I want as much information as possible to make rational decision about how to best use my resources to get Democrats elected, and tp better understand what our opponents are thinking and doing.

Question to the people here: are you willing to listen to points of view you don't like to hear?

[Celerity]

1. absolutely

[WarGamer]

2. I am... I always learn something from those I disagree with.

Some people would rather pull an "Ostrich" and live their life in a bubble rather than face reality.

[marble falls]

3. Listen critically to all sides. Read the news and some history.

[Elessar Zappa]

4. Depends.

I’ll listen to facts. I won’t listen to maga opinions on issues because I find them immoral, repugnant, racist, homophobic, and misogynistic, not to mention disconnected from facts and reality. As far as polls go, I check out the methodology of the poll when deciding whether to take it seriously or not,

[SharonAnn]

10. Exactly! I will listen to facts, but not MAGA propaganda and opinions unless I can answer back with facts.

[Chi67]

14. Exactly

Alternative points of view are always welcome. But facts are facts, and once someone starts to deny facts, that's when I lose patience.

[treestar]

24. Yes, either/or when it comes to polls is not needed

It appears we must believe all polls and most certainly any poll that would make us nervous. We aren't allowed to try to spin them like the Republicans would. Anyone who reacts to polls a full year or more before an election can be considered to be overreacting. Plus they should have some suggestions.

[tinrobot]

53. And yet, the people who do listen to those opinions also vote.

Ignore them at your peril.

Not saying you need to agree with the opinions. But maybe a few of those opinions are driven by some deeper concerns or fears that we can address. You'll never know if you shut them out.

[Elessar Zappa]

56. Sure, some people might have '"deeper" concerns.

But in my experience most magas are motivated by pure hatred, whether it’s for immigrants, black people, transgender people, etc. I will not treat those ideas with any respect.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

57. +1 nt

[Stuart G]

5. YES!......I TOTALLY AGREE WITH ....marble falls ...ON THIS.....(post number 3)

[Windicator]

6. Opinions, sure. Lies about known facts, Hell no.

I don't tolerate lies. Big problem of today is the corporate news readers who do tolerate the GOP's ongoing cascade of lies, and so rarely call them out on factual bullshit.

[Jilly_in_VA]

7. I am, if they're presented in a rational manner

One of my best friends, when I was in college at UW-Madison, was a guy who was an old-fashioned conservative. We had some pretty spirited debates. OTOH, I also knew Tommy Thompson (later the governor, who was a jerk then and still is. (I liked his brother Eddie, though) And then there was Dick Cheney. You couldn't talk to him because he was always right.

[Kaleva]

8. I'm too busy correcting DUers who are wrong

It's practically a full time job.

[Prairie Gates]

22. Do what you love

[Ocelot II]

9. Of course. Gotta know what the opposition is up to.

And there's always the off-chance I could be wrong about something. There are some sources I won't bother with, like Fox, Breitbart, etc., because they're so predictable and never have anything new to say. But I'll read George Will (because at least he's literate in his usual wrongness) and other writers and sources who don't always toe the progressive party line as long as their discussions are rational and fact-based. I'm kind of a fan of nuance, and I oppose jerking knees no matter which direction they jerk toward.

[haele]

11. Yes, otherwise, you're stuck in an information silo.

And you won't be dealing with the actual situation and all the issues that feed it.
One ignores the single minded at their peril. They're the "folks" who hype themselves up and do the stupid and destructive actions out of some false sense of fear or entitlement.
Though not ignoring them brings on heartburn and depression, it's important to include them in any social equations when figuring out ways forward. One has to address them, or they drag the undecideds and pre-occupied into their single minded goals.

Haele

[Polybius]

12. Me, always

Usually I can understand the opposing view too, just disagree with it.

[Earth-shine]

13. Yes. For example, I will watch the Republican debates, while many at DU speak about how

they would rather have their eye gouged out.

This is war. We must learn about our opponents.

[treestar]

20. This is about those on our side

who are not our opponents, but disagree with us on strategy within the Democratic party.

[Earth-shine]

23. Says you.

[gordianot]

15. I draw the line with Donald Trump and MAGA supporters apologists.

They are a waste of time and are very easy to detect.

[Nanjeanne]

16. I enjoy thoughtful discussion & different points of view. Not interested in discussions that consist of sound bites .

taken from twitter.

[treestar]

17. of course, we hear tons of them

and the responses you state are legitimate opinions, which apparently some people don't want to hear because they disagree with them.

Polls now are too soon and can't predict there is even a problem let alone a sure loss. Apparently some can't listen to that opinion.

[Fiendish Thingy]

18. Of course, however polls aren't being reported as "opinions"

Because polls claim to be accurate representations of the sentiment of the electorate, they should be subject to intense scrutiny and criticism to verify whether that assertion is valid and reliable, and if it has any predictive value.

I don’t watch much TV news because I find that often, the “opinions” expressed by pundits are actually just a narrative they are hoping to craft to shape the opinions of the electorate.

I am fine with listening to the opinions and perspectives of others who I disagree with, in print or online, although I’m not sure how much it helps strategically, other than perhaps as a measure of how effective Dem’s messaging is vs. MAGA brainwashing.

[Freethinker65]

19. Yep. I am married to a conservative (non Trump voter).

[Captain Stern]

21. I am.....with a caveat

If someone has a different opinion than mine, I'd also like to hear the facts that led them to their opinion. If they give me enough evidence that supports their opinion, and counters mine, I like to think that I always change my opinion. I probably don't always, but I try my best to be objective.

If someone is giving me an opinion that I've already heard before, and that I know there are no real facts to support, then I'd rather not waste my time listening to it. An extreme, but apt, example would be flat eartherism.

[Mad_Machine76]

25. I know I've disagreed with you on occasion

Maybe some of it is more of a reaction to something negative that I didn't want to hear but I hope that I have been respectful about voicing disagreement. I suppose that some disagreement is based on not wanting to end up being too panicked about things beyond my control but are vital to my well-being and existence. But I know that sometimes you and other people have valid points and reality checks that we need to listen to. I can't listen to anything on the MAGA/right wing side because their information is often wrong and often defamatory.

[dchill]

26. If I didn't, how would I know...

...how angry to be?

[Caliman73]

27. Points of view, yes. Unashamed lies and propaganda, no.

The problem with right wing, "information" is that people who go out onto the media to push the narrative are doing so in bad faith. The media does not question people properly to get at the core of what they are trying to say.

Right wingers still hide behind the idea of "too much spending" when they are really trying to say that the money the government does spend should disproportionately go to protect the businesses and assets of the wealthiest people and the poor, working class, and middle classes should get little to nothing.

Right wingers talk about "grooming" and degeneracy when talking about LGBTQ people as if they pose a threat to the safety of children and the fabric of society, when the only threat they pose is the traditional patriarchy and indoctrination of children into only one way of seeing the family and healthy relationships.

It isn't the opinions that bother me, it is that Conservatives are dishonest about what they really want to promote. They are unable and unwilling to discuss their real agenda so they lie to gin up fear and resentment and they go largely unchallenged by the media on their narrative.

I am willing to hear points of view that I disagree with. I am unwilling to listen to obvious lies.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

28. Yes.

[TygrBright]

29. The first time, sure. The second time, okay. The third time, maybe. After that, sorry but no. n/t

[DBoon]

30. I will consider alternate interpretations of factual data

I will put in earplugs before I will listen to the right wing rants from the guy in the cubicle next to mine

[Happy Hoosier]

31. Yes, but be willing to call bullshit when appropriate NT

[Aristus]

32. As long as they are intelligent, informed, and expressed in good faith.

If some fuckwit insists the Earth is flat because he heard it on a podcast called Right-Wing Ronnie's Rambo Rage Riot, I'm not even going to give him the time of day. I don't waste my brain cells on planarians dressed in human clothing.

[kimbutgar]

33. Absolutely

But it would be hard to stay silent completely when the words coming out of their mouths are provable lies.

[moniss]

51. Yes I know

and propaganda is so rampant now. By the way that bug you have crawling around bit me and my arm is swelled up and red. Do you have an antidote?

[kimbutgar]

52. Sorry for your boo boo !

💋😘

[DFW]

34. I had better be. It's mostly what I hear!

“You had better listen up, you dumb old DFW! What I am about to tell you came straight from God to (Trump/Bernie—take yer pick) to me, so there is no other truth!”

I get mostly differing opinions. With great effort and stamina, I still manage to form my own, every now and then, despite how (apparently) wrong they are.

[stopdiggin]

35. Sometimes. (and that is most honest answer you're likely to get)

And, being further honest - probably not as often, or as completely and thoroughly, as I should. But then, very, very few people actually do. Confirmation bias is a real thing. And all I can say is that I try to be aware, and thus put something of a curb on it.

And - since the 'last few weeks' was presented ... I do feel like a lot of the barrage of "the polls", "the young people", "public opinion slips" - that we have seen here recently - come with a certain amount of 'agenda'. And - it's really not that hard to figure out what that agenda is - and, in large part, it is one in which I disagree with. So - listening? Meh. Maybe about half an ear?

[MOMFUDSKI]

36. Sure.

Then I stay away from that source if what is stated is baloney.

[MiHale]

37. Yes ...it's a learning thing...

I’m not opposed to learning new stuff or different perspectives, that’s one reason I’m a Democrat.

[dpibel]

38. So "listen" and "agree" are synonyms?

Other than the one about polls, your representative quotations are reactions to listening to opinions one disagrees with, aren't they?

If someone posts an opinion, what do you deem to be the proper response?

"Well! That is an interesting opinion, for sure!"

You seem to be precluding the possibility that a reader might read the helpful post opining that, e.g., Democrats Are In Disarray, and think it appropriate to say, "Consider the source."

I'm not entirely sure that's how all this works.

[RainWalker]

39. Yes but within reason of course

I don't believe in giving people who are racist any of my time but outside of hateful points of view and opinions, most certainly so.

[AnotherMother4Peace]

40. trump is currently spewing forth opinions like shit on the wall in court. Judge Engoron is dealing w/the stench.

No, trump's not pleading the 5th like before, but he's sure throwing shit against the wall w/his opinions. I think he figures this is just as good.

[lastlib]

41. Only if they are rationally based.

I don't listen to polemics or sophistry. Hannity is the poster-craphead for the latter, F*cker Carlson was/is right behind him.

[ForgedCrank]

42. I do,

but my experience here in posting has been the exact opposite of the responses I see so far.
I have to refrain from trying to engage with what I consider common sense and reason most times because I know what will happen. It nearly cost me my account once already.

[Emile]

43. I have zero time to listen to right wing lies!

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

44. Only if they have cogent reasoning that aligns with reality

Otherwise, I have better things to do.

[Marthe48]

45. Not if they are untrue arguments

I blocked 2 people on fb today. I posted on a page called Ohio Families Decide. I posted Vote Yes on Issue 1. Somebody named Karen (really) posted that Issue 1 will kill babies. I said I'm voting yes for the women I know and love. A guy replied and said I was willing to kill babies to save women. After obnoxious comments, and seeing he hates women unless he can rule them, I blocked him. Blocked Karen, too. Had they stuck with facts instead of being judgemental and using personal attacks, I might not have blocked them.

[peggysue2]

46. Listening to different perspectives is one thing

Agreeing with those counter perspectives is something else. That said, I'm not willing to listen to outright lies, distortions and/or MAGA hate speech. We've all heard enough of that.

[captain queeg]

47. To a degree. I will admit that if I think someone is deluded after awhile I turn them off

If their opinion (in my estimation) strays too far from what I believe to be true I tune them out. I try my best to keep an open mind but there are a few things that I consider pretty black and white. With the current level of polarization in the US I try to stay clear of political discussions. That includes people I don’t know very well and those who’ve made it clear to me they are magas. I’ve found those who have decided to continue to support trump are immune to reason.

[dwnsouth]

48. Bubble by Design

Well, the opening statement and first bullet point about DU defines it as a bubble by design.

Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:

-Interacting with friendly, like-minded people;

[moniss]

49. I am willing to listen to opinions that are different than my own

as long as they demonstrate knowledge of the facts pertaining to a subject and not just selectively using a few past or current facts to support an opinion while ignoring all others. It comes from being trained to be analytical. It would be similar to asking me to listen to someone critique Newton and Calculus when they can only describe basic math. I'm not saying I'm "smarter" than someone else I am saying people need to be well informed and the more complex a situation is, like the Middle East, the more informed you need to be when formulating an opinion on any aspect of that situation. It is analytical in approach in order to not act or react out of simply an emotional response. Reasoning and rational decisions and action are best taken from a standpoint of being well informed and resisting the urge to have your analysis include or ignore things based on emotions.

I stopped responding to many things in conversations sometimes because it was clear to me that it was unproductive for myself or the person I had been responding to. When a person is making an emotional argument with a person who is analytical it usually becomes just a frustration for both. The emotion is not very useful to an analytical approach and the analysis and facts lend little for the person reacting emotionally. I learned this the hard way in relationships.

So it doesn't mean I don't hear the emotional arguments, don't understand where it's coming from etc. But my participating in a back and forth with someone reacting mostly emotionally doesn't do anything for either of us and just generates heat more than anything. On the other hand if I see a post that seems to be analytical, more or less, I may engage in discussion about background/historical info/facts etc. and I am happy to report that I feel that most of the large number of people on DU are very enjoyable to exchange views and information with on a wide variety of subjects. I learn and become better informed on multiple subjects every day.

[ProfessorGAC]

50. Define "Disagree"

If disagreement with a nonsensical opinion is included, then no, not completely willing.
I think your premise & analogs are flawed, in that sheltering one's self from points of view not rooted in fact or anathema to my own philosophy does not constitute "hiding in a bubble".
Also, the tone of your question seems condescending.

[LiberalFighter]

54. Axelrod and Carville may not have an agenda...

but their perspective is based on when they ran campaigns.

Are they considering who is being polled when it is easier to block calls on cell phones?

Are they considering the impact of Covid-19?

Are they considering the impact of Roe v Wade being overturned?

Are they seriously ignoring the charges against Trump?

Are they seriously ignoring the convictions of nearly 1,000 insurrectionists and how they likely won't be able to vote or think it is not worth it?

[DJ Porkchop]

55. My father is a Reagan Republican

His two favorite sayings are:

"If I have said anything to offend you, I'm sure you'll get over it before I start to care." and
"I would love to agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong."

Do you see how both start with comforting words, and then devolve into a knife in the heart?
These are my reminders to listen to (and care for) what others say, and not become my father.

Knowing this about him, I do not discuss politics with him, as he is indifferent and remorseless.
This is intellectual dishonesty, and I don't tolerate it.

As for Dems, I will always discuss programs and platforms, and encourage them to push harder Left.