Hmm maybe. I'm not evaluating my model of the world on its effect on society if made popular, only its proximity to reality and predictive power. I don't think

Hmm maybe. I'm not evaluating my model of the world on its effect on society if made popular, only its proximity to reality and predictive power. I don't think understanding that beliefs are arbitrary and fighting for your beliefs is mutually exclusive. If anything there's at least the acknowledgement that because many moral arguments work both ways, bringing people who disagree to your position requires other methods. If you want to get more technical, there are normative and positive statements, the former describing what we are talking about here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics In that lens, "Your stance is what seems to me what would increase extremism" is probably positive because it could be evaluated experimentally, but "cutting in line is wrong" is a normative statement. My open question (and I'm very open to being wrong) is if there's a way to convince line cutters from a culture of line cutters of their wrongdoing without resorting to violence or coercion. How would you do it?