4 ms·

I find this is more likely as the argument gets more abstract. But when two sides are trying to deal with an aspect of reality that is staring them in the face,

I find this is more likely as the argument gets more abstract. But when two sides are trying to deal with an aspect of reality that is staring them in the face, it's much easier to get practical.

lisper 4y ago
Yeah, that's what I used to think too. But recent events have falsified that hypothesis. It turns out that people can maintain some shockingly deep disagreement about the nature of reality.
- tunesmith 4y ago
  That's not what I'm talking about - by "staring in the face", I mean aspects of reality that are immediate. Which usually means smaller scale. I agree regarding things like climate change, democracy, and viruses though.
  - lisper 4y ago
    You will find that there is a surprising amount of disagreement over what is actually staring you in the face. Some people will insist that (for example) if you just look around you, any sane person will see irrefutable evidence of intelligent design, and that if you think about this logically you will be led inevitably and irrefutably to the conclusion that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, Jesus is coming Real Soon Now (tm), and in the meantime He has sent Donald Trump to deliver the United States of America from commie pinko liberal atheists. And if you don't accept all of that then there is clearly something wrong with you. There are literally millions if not tens of millions of American voters who at least profess to believe in the substance of what I have just written. Maybe they're all just trolling but I doubt it. I just have a hard time picturing them saying, "Ha ha, April fools! You didn't really think we were serious, did you?"
- ponow 4y ago
  This motivates smaller / local over bigger / global groupings.
  - lisper 4y ago
    Yes, but the problem with going local is it doesn't handle externalities well, and technology has made the planet a lot smaller than it used to be so these are getting harder to just ignore.

I find this is more likely as the argument gets more abstract. But when two sides are trying to deal with an aspect of reality that is staring them in the face, it's much easier to get practical.

lisper 4y ago

Yeah, that's what I used to think too. But recent events have falsified that hypothesis. It turns out that people can maintain some shockingly deep disagreement about the nature of reality.

tunesmith 4y ago
That's not what I'm talking about - by "staring in the face", I mean aspects of reality that are immediate. Which usually means smaller scale. I agree regarding things like climate change, democracy, and viruses though.
- lisper 4y ago
  You will find that there is a surprising amount of disagreement over what is actually staring you in the face. Some people will insist that (for example) if you just look around you, any sane person will see irrefutable evidence of intelligent design, and that if you think about this logically you will be led inevitably and irrefutably to the conclusion that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, Jesus is coming Real Soon Now (tm), and in the meantime He has sent Donald Trump to deliver the United States of America from commie pinko liberal atheists. And if you don't accept all of that then there is clearly something wrong with you. There are literally millions if not tens of millions of American voters who at least profess to believe in the substance of what I have just written. Maybe they're all just trolling but I doubt it. I just have a hard time picturing them saying, "Ha ha, April fools! You didn't really think we were serious, did you?"
ponow 4y ago
This motivates smaller / local over bigger / global groupings.
- lisper 4y ago
  Yes, but the problem with going local is it doesn't handle externalities well, and technology has made the planet a lot smaller than it used to be so these are getting harder to just ignore.