SomehowGeekyPolyglot wrote:Well, one of several possible reasons could be that at times, people make mental connections like "you "attack" my point of view=you attack myself personally"... This is what some think, even if things in reality of course aren't that simple...
Yeah, that's pretty dangerous. Because in order to avoid that reaction, people stop saying what they think, and things start going in a bad direction.
I think it's high time people start listening to each other and giving the other side's arguments a chance and consideration. It's mostly people that are not used to debating a lot who have this kind of reaction - the ones who do realise at some point, after the knife fight, that it doesn't make much sense to disagree about anything but rather to listen, understand and agree as much as you can. Indeed the only way to make your point come through in an argument is by agreeing with the other side's arguments and then finding a way to let them know that your solution makes more sense also in their context.
Like in this context I could try to say that in a globalised world and a constant flow of words between coexisting languages, when striving to get a certain command of as many of them as we can (which we're here on this forum for, I guess?), it would make more sense to keep the original language's roots in order not to add extra confusion to the mix for the brain and for the eye, and to also keep the receiving language pure and authentic by keeping a distinct spelling for words with foreign origin. I don't see what's wrong with my argument and why it should be invalidated, even if the person doing that would still prefer to write sås
rather than sauce
Because they first disagree, then listen. And if they take it as a personal attack, then this conversation can never do anything good. And now we're talking about the features of some language, that we don't even have the power to change. Imagine if we were MPs talking politics?