3 ms·
In recent years, I've come to appreciate "Talking Head" panel discussions when it comes to topics of great partiality, such as politics. Specifically, those th
by beloch 2y ago
In recent years, I've come to appreciate "Talking Head" panel discussions when it comes to topics of great partiality, such as politics. Specifically, those that gather heads with differing opinions. e.g. CBC Canada's "Power & Politics" panels.
If you take people from opposite ends of the spectrum and put them in a well moderated environment, the discussion that results often helps you to appreciate the different angles that people approach political issues from. Aside from in the U.S. during recent years, political issues are usually a matter of perspective and shades of grey. i.e. If there is a black and white scientific consensus on a given topic, it rarely becomes a political topic (except recently in the U.S.). It's when people with different opinions explain their position and try to sway each other that you're most likely to see arguments that actually have some merit. Even if you are not swayed by an argument, at least you can get a sense of why somebody with a different perspective sees the issue that way.
Unfortunately, at lot of people, and I'll leave it up to others to speculate on who those predominantly are, are not curious about or interested in views that don't align with their own. They may perceive exposure to such views as aggression. i.e. If you express a view they don't agree with, they may see it as an attempt to force them to align with that view. This perception of persuasion as aggression may explain why some scientifically black and white issues have become political.
- giantg2 2y ago"If there is a black and white scientific consensus on a given topic, it rarely becomes a political topic" Science is one thing. How to implement that in policy is a different thing, and often is political.
- ryandv 2y agoThis sounds like a reprisal of the common far right bigoted refrain to platform "both sides" when we all know that reality obviously has a liberal bias [0]. This dog whistle for free speech was also used by John Stuart Mill, an influential figure in classical liberalism, the movement that provided the ideological roots of the modern alt-right extremist movement, in his treatise On Liberty from 1859 [1]: It is also often argued, and still oftener thought, that none but bad men would desire to weaken these salutary beliefs; and there can be nothing wrong, it is thought, in restraining bad men, and prohibiting what only such men would wish to practise. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43628756 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43628756 [1] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm
- ConspiracyFact 2y agoAh yes, John Stuart Mill, that evil mastermind of reaction...
- beloch 2y agoFor the record, I am to the left of U.S. democrats in most respects. To say that what I expressed above is a far-right dog-whistle or that the left does not have problems with disagreeing in a civil manner is just plain wrong. Case in point: Go take a look at the recent history of Canada's federal Green party. Several years ago, its leader stepped down and the party imploded over their views on Israel and Gaza. (This was well before the current conflict went hot.) What does a conflict in the middle East have to do with a political party focused on environmentalism in Canada you ask? Nothing at all, but the disagreement still tore the party apart. Both sides of the conflict could not tolerate opposing views existing within their peers. It turned into an ugly open feud. Elizabeth May had to return from retirement and take control again to stop things. She remains co-Leader (but really leader). Polite disagreement and understanding the other side, even while you disagree with it, is something everyone struggles with.