3 ms·

Perhaps this is because the other side is not well defined. In particular, you cannot expect them to follow the whole debate, merely excerpts and the general li

by sesqu 16y ago

Perhaps this is because the other side is not well defined. In particular, you cannot expect them to follow the whole debate, merely excerpts and the general lines of it. So to keep the debate going, you have to debate most of the whole point every time, and you have a length restriction to boot. So what results is summaries and anecdotes, with memetic evolution making sure the summaries are resilient to amendment. I wonder how they really do it. I've seen a lot of paper near politicians; perhaps they have the time and focus the audiences don't.

JoachimSchipper 16y ago
> you cannot expect [the other side] to follow the whole debate Perhaps you can explain this to me. E.g. the whole healthcare discussion seems to be "interesting" to both sides, but I've seen very few civil and sensible discussions. Is the debate so divorced from reality that either side has its own facts? (I know the Republican fanatics believe really stupid things, and I presume the Democrat fanatics are no better; but these are not the majority, right? Just loud.)