4 ms·

The goal of democratic discussion isn't to agree on the truth, it's to reach decision-making consensus for governing. People can come to that kind of consensus

by cle 5y ago

The goal of democratic discussion isn't to agree on the truth, it's to reach decision-making consensus for governing. People can come to that kind of consensus while disagreeing on fundamental things.

fellowniusmonk 5y ago
Ultimately I think we agree about consensus being fundamental, democracy is great in that people have a path for the peaceful transfer of power in the face of disagreements and cultural shift. It's great because it gives us generational paths to decrease violence. How fundamental? Where would you draw distinction (if at all)? So my brother is an anarchist, he is also a drug abuser that has spent time in jail and is a dangerous person to be around physically. I have yet to ever see him argue in good faith. He does not tell 99% of people that this is a what he believes, he just argues in person and online whatever can cause the most turmoil and/or positions that point to everyone being selfish and fundamentally evil, or the situation hopeless and that cruelty and power dynamics are not something that often "is", but something we "ought" to embrace. In a democratic republic people "can" do a lot of things, just like the individual "can" do all kinds of things without dying or being jailed right away. That doesn't mean they are healthy or good, that doesn't mean every ungrounded belief that exists needs to be engaged or given equal billing in public discourse. It's noise, not signal and if we are intelligent we will reject it as noise instead of rebroadcasting it. It also doesn't mean we ought to abandoned working towards a "grounded" consensus because rejecting factual evidence is somehow "virtuous" or cynically sophisticated. Increasingly I see that people seem to argue as if rejecting a pragmatic, propositionally grounded and arguable discourse is something to give up on, or to stop advocating for, and I do question the intent behind that as it seems unsustainable and counter to past, evidentially productive, consensus building. Seeing these arguments in the wild is to be expected when an increasing percentage of the population express a rejection of democracy itself in polls. On pluralistic open forums people/anarchists/my brother will argue orthogonally about how to "do democracy" while advocating positions that epistemologically undercut attempts at consensus, and they'll do this instead of saying "I reject democracy" because in many circles it's not in vogue _yet_ to say you've rejected democratic governance. The idea that a majority of people in any country can fundamentally disagree that we live in a shared pragmatic reality, one that can be scrutinized, investigated, argued/communicated about and we will somehow still end up with sustainable democratic outcomes seems improbable, and I question anyone saying grounded arguments aren't that important.

by cle 5y ago

fellowniusmonk 5y ago

Ultimately I think we agree about consensus being fundamental, democracy is great in that people have a path for the peaceful transfer of power in the face of disagreements and cultural shift. It's great because it gives us generational paths to decrease violence. How fundamental? Where would you draw distinction (if at all)? So my brother is an anarchist, he is also a drug abuser that has spent time in jail and is a dangerous person to be around physically. I have yet to ever see him argue in good faith. He does not tell 99% of people that this is a what he believes, he just argues in person and online whatever can cause the most turmoil and/or positions that point to everyone being selfish and fundamentally evil, or the situation hopeless and that cruelty and power dynamics are not something that often "is", but something we "ought" to embrace. In a democratic republic people "can" do a lot of things, just like the individual "can" do all kinds of things without dying or being jailed right away. That doesn't mean they are healthy or good, that doesn't mean every ungrounded belief that exists needs to be engaged or given equal billing in public discourse. It's noise, not signal and if we are intelligent we will reject it as noise instead of rebroadcasting it. It also doesn't mean we ought to abandoned working towards a "grounded" consensus because rejecting factual evidence is somehow "virtuous" or cynically sophisticated. Increasingly I see that people seem to argue as if rejecting a pragmatic, propositionally grounded and arguable discourse is something to give up on, or to stop advocating for, and I do question the intent behind that as it seems unsustainable and counter to past, evidentially productive, consensus building. Seeing these arguments in the wild is to be expected when an increasing percentage of the population express a rejection of democracy itself in polls. On pluralistic open forums people/anarchists/my brother will argue orthogonally about how to "do democracy" while advocating positions that epistemologically undercut attempts at consensus, and they'll do this instead of saying "I reject democracy" because in many circles it's not in vogue _yet_ to say you've rejected democratic governance. The idea that a majority of people in any country can fundamentally disagree that we live in a shared pragmatic reality, one that can be scrutinized, investigated, argued/communicated about and we will somehow still end up with sustainable democratic outcomes seems improbable, and I question anyone saying grounded arguments aren't that important.