> If I ever find myself in a conversation where I'm in the shoes of Person A, using good-faith communication means actually risking a complete failure of commun

> If I ever find myself in a conversation where I'm in the shoes of Person A, using good-faith communication means actually risking a complete failure of communication. Why even bother to communicate? The article actually addresses this, and in a good way IMHO (in the paragraph starting "Avoiding social catastrophe"). The reason to both to communicate, in such cases, is to attempt to demonstrate your willingness (and ability!) to engage in good faith, and thereby eventually restoring faith in Person B that good-faith communication is possible. Note that this is explicitly not an attempt to convince the other party of whatever it is you're arguing about. The goal is not to change their view, but to restore a society in which discussion about those views in good faith is at least possible again.