I don't think it does. Not when the agreement people are seeking is pandering, or agreeing not to win. Take you for example. I could easily get you to agree with me by pandering to what you are saying by repeating them Debating bad, conversing good
Replies
Are you sure about that? Do you even know what my politics are?
aug 15, 2025, 6:34 am • 0 0 • view
Why would need to know your particular politics? We aren't debating. Are we?
aug 15, 2025, 8:30 am • 0 0 • view
You said you could easily get me to agree with you by pandering to what I am saying. That makes zero sense. If you're pandering to me, that means you're echoing my position, which means *you* are agreeing with *me*, not the other way around. It's rather silly.
aug 15, 2025, 8:45 am • 0 0 • view
There's a distinction between could and would… and did. But I'm not so I didn't. Yes you restated what pandering means. That means you do agree with me. Just like I said originally. Now think pandering is silly. I am very agreed with.
aug 15, 2025, 12:09 pm • 0 0 • view
Unless you are just debating me. ( On whether I am agreeing with you or you with me ) Odd since that was your goal and now it's unwanted as obstacle to debate? Which means even you , choose debate over discussion. Maybe it's harder than you thought.
aug 15, 2025, 12:13 pm • 1 0 • view
But I'm conversing with you right now. Yet you dismissed everything I said on a different topic. You didn't seek common ground. So why would that work on less reasonable people. purity politics where the goal is to have the right obscure indie communism and hate all the others?
aug 15, 2025, 5:40 am • 0 0 • view
Which topic did I "dismiss everything you said" about?
aug 15, 2025, 6:35 am • 0 0 • view
bsky.app/profile/redr...
aug 15, 2025, 8:29 am • 0 0 • view