Is it worth fighting losing battles?

[Grumpy Alien]

41 minutes ago, ben8884 said:

I remember going on the big anti war march in Hyde Park before the Iraq war. I knew that the UK was going to go to war regardless but for me it was as much about saying-as we said back then "not in my name." Sometimes the victory comes from making a stand?

That’s how I feel!

[Guest]

Isn't what you are standing up to more important than the battle itself?

 

IE I had a friend that wanted to buy beer during a statutory holiday in my province. 

 

No issue. We drove to the nearest province that did not have such closures to buy beer. 

 

Savvy business owners understand their markets, and knew there would be an influx of clients wanting to buy alcohol so they marked their prices up over the weekend vs dropping them. 

 

My friend was fully irritated at the practice so argued with the clerk. 

(I experienced the same last week in Hong Kong -- many were literally marking up face masks 5 times over knowing there were shortages).

 

They refused to drop their prices to match our province so my friend fought tooth and nail with a growing lineup behind him at the cash. 

 

I told him to drop it as it wasn't worth it (I was embarrassed to be standing next to him and their petty rant). To them the principle wasn't petty. 

 

It wasn't enough. I however, had enough. 

 

I pulled out my wallet, about to bypass him to just get the heated argument over with. I had offered to pay, no longer caring that I was crushing his ego and silencing his cause. 

 

Your husband is being humble not wanting to hurt your feelings.  

I would be the same with my fiancee. A friend? Not so much. 

 

Him finally seeing how irritated I now was, along with the about 20 others, he finally agreed to be "ripped off". 

 

This was over a 3$ (Canadian) price hike. Like get over it, or don't buy. 

 

Some fights really aren't worth your breath. Engaging in them with people around you, especially loved ones, is highly unfair as you're then forcing them to take your side when they clearly just want it to be over. 

 

Correct them, let them know that they are wrong, then move on. 

 

Beyond the initial correction, I side with the saying "it isn't where you put your words, it's where you don't".

[Gatto]

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/02/a-peanut-butter-brand-has-put-its-spoon-into-the-gif-pronunciation-debate/

[Guest]

I think if someone is trying to change you, then that is forever a battle worthy of a fight. 

 

But to correct someone who's sensibilities don't match your own is a waste of breath. 

 

When my employee told me "retarded" was highly disturbing and offensive to them I just stopped using it around them. 

 

It's still part of my vocabulary. 

 

I point similar out to those who feel racism no longer exists as there are social repercussions for their ways of thinking. 

 

And people get shocked when they find out hate groups still exist and are stronger than ever?

 

Put yourself in their shoes. 

 

Being told you're wrong, and here's why. No wiggle room until they accept. 

 

Will you even remotely still be listening?

 

A little sugar helps the medicine go down like they say.

 

I am wise enough to know if am too emphatic I will be quickly tuned out. 

[Jusey1]

It depends on the situation. Sometimes it is an yes, other times it is an no.

[Zerο]

Depends on the battle.  My pragmatism overrides my personal ego 99% of the time but as a rule of thumb I don't do anything that would hurt my ability to sleep at night.

[Gatto]

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2019/nov/27/culture-wars-what-row-over-vegan-nursery-meals-really-about

 

Last year, a chef told Facebook she had spiked a vegan’s pizza, and got death threats. A TV contrarian discovered the Greggs vegan sausage roll and had uncontainable rage. A professional posho quit Waitrose magazine for a joke about killing vegans. A MasterChef winner called a vegan a “dick”. It’s a trigger issue all right, but what is it triggering?

 

Whether the motive is animal welfare or environmentalism – and both are completely sound, by the way; the only way the rest of us can continue eating animal products is by rigorously ignoring how the end up on the plate – the implication is that vegans are improving society by denying themselves gratification. Because they are. This used to be called being “holier than thou” and is now called “virtue signalling” by people who think it’s cool to despise virtue.

 

Underpinning this is a fundamentally political divide: should we try to be the change we want to see in the world, and work collectively towards a brighter future? Or is that all just a pious pipedream, when the reality is that everyone is in it for him or herself? It’s everything: left v right; green v denier; idealist v cynic. At the same time, it’s nothing, because if the vegan can be shown to be a hypocrite or in some other way unlikable (have they sat on a leather seat? Are they shoving their quinoa down your throat?), then their lofty dream will evaporate like … like oat milk.

 

The rift between vegans and meat eaters is always intensely personal; after all, at the conceptual level, it doesn’t exist (what’s it to you, in theory, if another person cares too much about a cow to eat one?). As such, it is very engrossing because all character attacks are. And it is quintessentially 21st-century, because this century sucks.

[AspieAlly613]

On 3/10/2020 at 2:35 PM, Gatto said:

This used to be called being “holier than thou” and is now called “virtue signalling” by people who think it’s cool to despise virtue.

Yeah, that is an interesting change in terminology.

[Alawyn-Aebt]

Really depends on the circumstances of a losing battle. I have a very strong sense of morality and I will make many things into a moral issue. I will be the first to admit that having a moralistic view of the world is sometimes problematic but that is besides the point. Because of my sense of morality I will fight losing battles. But rather than view them as losing battles I see them as battles of influence. I know I am probably not going to change my opponent's mind, but I can change the minds of the bystanders. Is it by definition a losing battle in that there was no way I could change the mind of the opponent or affect immediate change? Absolutely, but if just one bystander comes away from listening to an argument with an understanding of my point of view that counts as some degree of victory for me.

 

There are really minor battles that are definitely not worth fighting over (e.g. my opinion on how one should walk on the sidewalk like traffic moves, everyone to the right (I'm in the USA) and slowest towards the outside, faster walkers in the middle.) because at the end of the day they do not matter. But then others definitely are because even though they may seem minor a failure to understand it might distort one's entire viewpoint.

[Zagadka]

To take a current events example, look at the campaign of Bernie Sanders. He is honestly unlikely to swing more votes his way with the remaining states, but dropping out would betray the entire set of values he's fighting for. The campaign has been successful in moving discussions about things like healthcare and unions to the forefront, and that campaign itself is important in those areas. Biden running without a foil would be a very weak state. This is just one example of where you have to keep fighting as long as you have breath. The anti-institution stance has a very little chance of successfully bringing change, but every year it gets better and pushes the conversation.

[ben8884]

Also, you never know for sure if its a loosing battle until the battle is over?