Yet I have also always believed (perhaps naively) that he was sincere. — Xtrix
So, a few axioms of discourse — Xtrix
It would be absurd to discuss a problem of geometry if your interlocutor has beforehand rejected Euclid's axioms, or problems of algebra if arithmetic has been rejected. The same can be said of political or economic problems as well, and indeed for nearly any intellectual conversation worth having. — Xtrix
The liberal idea that we're all in this together tra-la-la happy-happy hold-hands simply does not hold. When some corporation is poisoning your water supply for profit, the idea that one must hold equal in discourse what is unequal in reality is to side with said poisoners. — StreetlightX
Division and incivility is a public good. — StreetlightX
#1 is sisyphean. Just look at philosophy for heavens sake, we can't even agree on what consciousness or matter are, simpler notions than politics by far. — Manuel
Yours an invitation to civil discourse, but hypocrisy is not interested, and these days doesn't even bother to disguise itself. The question becomes, when will they be subject to real punishment and under what circumstances. Because imo, many have long since earned it. . — tim wood
You may never have to deal with Euclid's axioms, but economics and politics will deal with you whether you like it or not. — StreetlightX
When some corporation is poisoning your water supply for profit, the idea that one must hold equal in discourse what is unequal in reality is to side with said poisoners. — StreetlightX
The division and discord we see here, with the Trump presidency the most recent example, has been building for decades. — T Clark
The division and discord we see here, with the Trump presidency the most recent example, has been building for decades. It was engineered implemented by the Republican Party to advance their particular agenda. — T Clark
The division and discord you have in the US is between one set of working class plebs pitched against another set of working class plebs. What you don't have is a righteous division between those with power and those without. The fact that you under the absurd impression that this works along party lines - blaming 'Republicans', as though democrats are note complicit and in fact part of the same machine - makes you exactly one of the said working class plebs. — StreetlightX
When it comes to the population interested in politics, I do believe it's almost entirely hopeless. There's no longer anything rational about it, and no one is acting on good faith. There's no consistency, no principles -- it's pure tribalism. — Xtrix
I don't agree. I think the values of most Americans are pretty mainstream. Discord has been intentionally engineered to keep people with common needs and goals separated. — T Clark
I don't think that's true. There seems to me as much consensus about things in politics as there is about anything -- it's just deliberately been targeted for confusion and propaganda. But when the buzz words are removed -- "socialism," "communism," "capitalism," "free markets," "liberal," etc. -- it's a much different picture.
A major caveat: this isn't always true. Some people are simply too far gone to even bother with. — Xtrix
We live with technology, and its basis in science and mathematics -- and don't have to understand it. Likewise we live with the decisions of those in power, both in government and in business; the basis for those decisions come from political and economic paradigms -- whether we understand them or not. The idea of the efficiency of free markets is as much taken for granted as Euclid's postulates in many minds. — Xtrix
freedom of the market, privatization, entrepreneurialism of the self, individual liberty, and all the rest of it, should be the ruling ideas of a new social order. — Xtrix
I think there exists a hidden consensus about these questions. — Xtrix
And just to be clear, I'm all for bad faith arguments, tactically employed. I want to win in reality, not 'be the most rational'. — StreetlightX
It is not the same when it comes to political and economic structure. These cannot be analogized, not by any sensible stretch of the imagination. Again, power and positionality. Who is speaking? To what end? — StreetlightX
Had Friedman's ideas not provided the ideological cover for what would have, in all probability, be done with or without them, they would have used another set of ideas. The idealist approach to understanding neoliberalism is totally misguided. — StreetlightX
And just to be clear, I'm all for bad faith arguments, tactically employed. I want to win in reality, not 'be the most rational'. The enemy ought to be exasperated. — StreetlightX
But it's extremely difficult to begin a conversation without these buzzwords coming up very quickly. — Manuel
Why? — Ennui Elucidator
Can you provide a few examples of conversations that would have been improved by this process? Additionally, please provide some indication of how improvement is being assessed - from who’s perspective, by what criteria, etc. — Ennui Elucidator
1. Establish agreement not only about basic definitions (which is important), but also about basic beliefs.
This is an essential place to start any discussion, as mentioned above, because it saves a lot of time, effort, and confusion. I can't count how many times an argument eventually loops back to these questions somehow.
2. Make sure to understand the other person's position.
This is best demonstrated by stating what you believe to be their argument, and by them confirming your accuracy. No straw men, no caricatures, and hopefully far less later misunderstanding.
3. Build on commonality.
Once basic beliefs and definitions are agreed upon, and positions accurately understood, then go on to problems and proposed solutions.
How much time and energy would be spared if these simple propositions were adopted? — Xtrix
My experience in mediating disputes between parties has taught me one thing. People only benefit from mediation and consensus building if they both agree to participate fully as honest interlocutors. And it's often when you arrive at the question of values that you start to hit the rocks. — Tom Storm
We can argue that both the loggers and the conservationists want the same thing for their children. A viable future. But at this point it can go south very quickly. — Tom Storm
I think the the tools you describe are useful and can work if people come together in good faith. — Tom Storm
Often in a negotiation (shuttle diplomacy style), you can get two parties to agree on what to do for profoundly different reasons. — Ennui Elucidator
1. Establish agreement not only about basic definitions (which is important), but also about basic beliefs.
This is an essential place to start any discussion, as mentioned above, because it saves a lot of time, effort, and confusion. I can't count how many times an argument eventually loops back to these questions somehow.
2. Make sure to understand the other person's position.
This is best demonstrated by stating what you believe to be their argument, and by them confirming your accuracy. No straw men, no caricatures, and hopefully far less later misunderstanding.
3. Build on commonality.
Once basic beliefs and definitions are agreed upon, and positions accurately understood, then go on to problems and proposed solutions.
How much time and energy would be spared if these simple propositions were adopted? — Xtrix
I think the the tools you describe are useful and can work if people come together in good faith. — Tom Storm
So how can someone who is generally bright, well-meaning and sincere be so wrong and pave the way for so many issues? This is a silly question -- because nearly every evil person not only justifies their actions to others, but believes it all themselves. So the real question is: why do otherwise normal people make choices that go against their goals? — Xtrix
Probably, yes. That shouldn't stop us. — Xtrix
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.