> how about we set up some sort of proactive ‘evidence based truths’ thing to potentially preempt future BS. It's basically how you'd run a project, right? If

> how about we set up some sort of proactive ‘evidence based truths’ thing to potentially preempt future BS. It's basically how you'd run a project, right? If there was some point of contention, you would document that point, attaching the various conflicting opinions, perhaps with pros and cons of each, whatever else was important, and then that argument is done. If a genuinely new future disagreement arises, amend it. Over time, more distinct points would arise, and you'd do the same thing, gradually building out a model of The System: what it is composed of, how it works, where things are decided, where things are not, where do we still have unknowns and more work to do, etc. A reasonably decent model of what our reality is composed of. In the world of democracy and public affairs though, we seem to have instead chosen to take an approach with no organization or persistence of decisions. So, an event occurs, a couple hundred internet arguments break out, composed in part of thousands of mini-arguments involving past unresolved disagreements, and plenty of insults and ill will. And then tomorrow when the next event occurs (or a new wrinkle in yesterday's), we start from scratch doing the same thing all over again. Round and round we go, like we're on a treadmill to nowhere.