3 ms·
While everything you said is true, I think it misses the point. It's clear that in order to have a reasonable discussion, we need to have two reasonable people
by alansammarone 9y ago
While everything you said is true, I think it misses the point. It's clear that in order to have a reasonable discussion, we need to have two reasonable people who are willing to discuss. And you may just include "is not a conspiracy theory nutjob" or "is able to express his/her point of view in a clear way" in your definition of reasonable (of course, you should'nt include "agrees with me" in your definition of reasonable").
The point is that you should try it out to see whether they're "reasonable". And if they are, then you're supposed to have an open, genuine discussion with them.
- matt4077 9y agoIn that case, we do indeed agree. Except, probably, where exactly those lines get drawn. There is obviously a grey area, and we probably have more nuanced options to react, rather than just a binary engage/ignore. I believe my argument was based on those culture war examples of the last months–most notably Charlottesville, where this idea of debating ideas on equal footing was frequently invoked. But it may be my German schooling that puts the ideas aired at those rallies firmly outside the Overton Window.