The Politics of Epistemic Fragmentation

medium.com

3 pointsanigbrowl5 comments

> Even if someone’s model of the world is both horrifying and completely wrong, understanding its internal logic will give you an advantage in defeating it.

True, and a good point but: why must it be defeated? Isn't it still possible to coexist with those whose opinions differ? Wasn't that taught as a "good idea" not all that long ago?

If it's horrifying and completely wrong, then it needs to be defeated. (Ex., it's a moral imperative to punch nazis.)

If it's completely wrong but basically harmless, then there's no point in defeating it. (Ex., you don't need to worry about people who believe in ghosts.)

I have to disagree. Nazi's and other people of ugly opinions have as much right to voice that as anyone else. We have laws against actions that should cover whatever ugly they get up to.

Organization is a presule to action. Laws have a deterrent effect but they are not always sufficient. If laws were sufficient in and of themselves, atrocities and military conflicts would never occur.

Note that I'm talking about defeat in the rhetorical arena here. It's important to make it clear that Nazis are not merely bad people but also wrong & stupid -- otherwise, people who don't mind being bad so long as it benefits them will keep becoming Nazis.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com