> misinformation is combat with MORE discussion, not less!
I wholeheartedly agree, but how do you get the other side to listen?
The saying goes something like "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."
I wholeheartedly agree, but how do you get the other side to listen?
The saying goes something like "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."
Pretend you think like them, and make arguments that go against that thinking. Unfortunately, the way the media exists today this never happens, and both sides just attack strawmen in ways that get people to click their headlines and listen to their talking heads.
I think it's disingenuous to paint the entire "other side" as unreasonable, but I may be misinterpreting what you mean by "other side" here. There will always be unreasonable people, and I don't have a solution for them. However, I think _a lot_ of people are very tired of being demonized for disagreeing. Not every republican is a rabid tea partier, and not every democrat supports antifa.
There's a lot of fundamental issues that are just not limited to "rabid tea partiers", global warming and the pandemic/masks just to pick two.
Both sides have attacked the trustworthiness of the other. You can't convince someone of something when they think you're lying, or will lie and dissemble to get what you want, and nothing you say can be taken at face value because it's all a con to get some other goal which you claim to not want.
There has been such a concerted effort to so malign the other side that's it's less about clear communication than it is trust. It's got more in common with soldiers inpast wars being encouraged to use terms like krauts, gooks and chinks and those being used as stereotypes to explain the behavior and motivations of the other side than anything else, IMO.
Censoring opposition in order to be heard more loudly doesn’t work. In an IRL discussion, if you start talking over someone forcing them to stop talking, they’re going to shut down and never listen to anything you have to say.
However, in my experience, both sides are logical, they just start from different axioms.
These are basic tenants of productive debate.
It is naive to play the game as if others aren't interested in capturing an outsized share of the winnings. And obviously they're not going to officially state their motives.
Change can be slow, even for good ideas. If you have faith in humanity and democracy, then you believe good ideas will prevail in the end. There were US abolitionists in 1770 and the civil rights movement ended in 1970.
I used to have a lot more faith in our democracy but I can't help but feel lately like something has fundamentally changed, and the system is just catching up to that. What changed? I have no idea, but something feels _different_ from before.
I hear your concern, but I think that the biggest change is that people have become accustomed to immediate change and more cynical overall. Democracies don't make sense unless you believe that people are good and correct ideas will ultimately prevail.
The only way is to stop preaching and listen to them. Really listen. This is how Daryl Davis converted the KKK according to his own accounts?
Re-education camps seem to be the go-to solution for many totalitarian regimes.
I’m not being a smart-ass... the desire some have for others to agree with them can itself be a pernicious thing.
> I wholeheartedly agree, but how do you get the other side to listen?
I don’t think there’s any winning some people over.
My mother had a very problematic stat about police violence and racism last summer. I was able prove it wrong by getting the real stat in five seconds with a Google search. The source is well known and reputable. She refused to stop clinging to her source.