3 ms·
> I think what religion and politics have in common is that they become part of people's identity, and people can never have a fruitful argument about something
by tasty_freeze 4y ago
> I think what religion and politics have in common is that they become part of people's identity, and people can never have a fruitful argument about something that's part of their identity. By definition they're partisan.
That is a damn broad brush he is painting with. This is in the nature of "enlightened centrism" BS. Claiming partisans cannot have a fruitful discussion is simply unsupportable.
For sure, if neither party has any real knowledge and it's just identity at stake, then it will be fruitless. If the people involved care only about ego preservation and not learning, then it will be fruitless. But someone can be partisan, knowledgeable, and able to discuss things rationally.
- saxonww 4y agoHe didn't say they couldn't discuss things rationally, he said they couldn't have a fruitful argument. I'm not sure what he meant by this, but to me a fruitful argument is one where one or more sides learn something, and/or one party changes another's mind on a subject. Very often, with religion and politics especially, everyone's already made up their minds. They know the right answer. There's certainly no chance that they're mistaken. Regardless of how rationally the topic is being discussed, there's no learning going on, it's just a performative recital. IMO it's better just not to get involved in conversations like these (I'm personally bad at this, though). I think that all pg is saying here is that it's better to be open-minded.