Yes, it’s a matter of gradation. It’s not an echo chamber for me because so many of you have different opinions, but generally we all care about what is true and the future of life on this planet.
So it’s easier to have discussions around the parts we disagree over.
generally we all care about what is true and the future of life on this planet
But (to stay true to the spirit of debate I just defended) is this not itself a straw man? Do you think, say, religious conservatives would say that they don’t “care about what is true and the future of life on this planet”?
Good question, and they might. In which case it would be easier to have a discussion with them.
However, I think much of the time they cleave to a more Kantian morality, where acting correctly / virtuously in accordance with an identifiable authority. They may also believe that the future of life on this planet is trivial when compared to quality of life on some metaphysical plane.
I have this discussion with my neighbour constantly who is nice, but she keeps saying I’ve “got to have faith” and that “they have a plan to fix all this when the time is right” all while real people are suffering and dying, and their suffering is indelible — it can never be made to have not happened — and they will never be coming back.
It’s really hard to have a real discussion about reality with someone like that.
Fair enough about literal religious nuts people of firmly held religious convictions. This side of the pond there are very few of those, fortunately. My basic point is that plenty of people who vote “wrong” (Trump, for example) would actually agree with you on most of your vision of the good society. The questions are mainly over how to get there. This IMO is the tragedy of democratic politics today, and specifically the USA. An almost absolute breakdown in communication.
Yes, I agree with that. I try to inject a little counter culture whenever a wade into the mainstream, but generally avoid it because I find it very saddening.
To be clear, you join the echo chamber because you won’t be judged there and also because you want to dissent from its party line?
Yes, it’s a matter of gradation. It’s not an echo chamber for me because so many of you have different opinions, but generally we all care about what is true and the future of life on this planet.
So it’s easier to have discussions around the parts we disagree over.
But (to stay true to the spirit of debate I just defended) is this not itself a straw man? Do you think, say, religious conservatives would say that they don’t “care about what is true and the future of life on this planet”?
Good question, and they might. In which case it would be easier to have a discussion with them.
However, I think much of the time they cleave to a more Kantian morality, where acting correctly / virtuously in accordance with an identifiable authority. They may also believe that the future of life on this planet is trivial when compared to quality of life on some metaphysical plane.
I have this discussion with my neighbour constantly who is nice, but she keeps saying I’ve “got to have faith” and that “they have a plan to fix all this when the time is right” all while real people are suffering and dying, and their suffering is indelible — it can never be made to have not happened — and they will never be coming back.
It’s really hard to have a real discussion about reality with someone like that.
Fair enough about
literal religious nutspeople of firmly held religious convictions. This side of the pond there are very few of those, fortunately. My basic point is that plenty of people who vote “wrong” (Trump, for example) would actually agree with you on most of your vision of the good society. The questions are mainly over how to get there. This IMO is the tragedy of democratic politics today, and specifically the USA. An almost absolute breakdown in communication.Yes, I agree with that. I try to inject a little counter culture whenever a wade into the mainstream, but generally avoid it because I find it very saddening.