LogFAQs > #973831445

Antifar posted...

At what point are we allowed to move together?

I'd say after just about every good faith discussion people move closer together. (Forgive me, I'm not saying this is what you are saying, but) If the question is "when do people shut up and fall in line"? That's a different thing. Some people will never agree with even super basic things. Some people will change their minds hugely on major things. The best we all can do is just discuss and grow closer to an ever improving and helpful understanding of objective reality.

So often these "good faith discussions" take the form of rehashing long-settled topics. Dead and discredited ideas - climate change denial, bigotry, trickle-down economics - get propped up Weekend at Bernie's style in our discourse. That's not so we might sharpen our rhetorical blades against them, but to stifle our ability to move on to new subjects and make concrete progress on issues.

Additionally, to people for whom politics is a matter of life and death (trans people, pregnant people, those at risk from climate change) and for those whom politics makes material difference in their lives - the working class - it becomes incredibly tiresome to see the matter treated as an intellectual exercise, where policy outcomes are rendered secondary to mental masturbation.

I wouldn't characterize it like that. I don't think indulging in obstructionist thought experiments is that common, nobody has to discuss where they don't want to, that said exasperation is not evidence. Sometimes people say "look, quit disagreeing, the truth is self-evident" because the truth is self-evident and the people disagreeing are being annoying, and sometimes a person says "look, quit disagreeing, the truth is self-evident" because they have a blind-spot in the shortcomings of their own perspectives.

I have sympathy for people's emotions. And nobody has to engage in any conversation if they don't want to, particularly if it is emotionally taxing. Even so, IMO real serious good faith discussions should still happen about important issues (and also less important ones too).

It sounds to me (and correct me if I'm wrong) that maybe you think the motives of most people who engage in discussions on important issues are just being obstructionist, and that "good faith" discussion is just a bad faith tactic to stall helping people in need of help.

Is this at all what your perspective is?