zlacker

>>rapnie+(OP)
Really? People censoring themselves is the problem? Whenever I take a peek at social feeds I see people saying crazy things, insults, conspiracy theories, hate, etc. Usually I end up the feeling that the larger the audience and concurrency of engagement, the less people censor the them selves, it usually even make them see extra things that normally they won't say.

>>mola+uy
Frequent in-person discussions between people with different opinions tends to make people compromise and find nuance more easily. However if one side of the discussion is self-censoring, then both sides will tend to develop extreme opinions without any means to tamper them. As such, what you are describing is actually evidence to support the self-censorship hypothesis, not refute it.

>>hudon+eB
>Frequent in-person discussions between people with different opinions tends to make people compromise and find nuance more easily

Is there any reason to think this is the case? In my experience, in-person disagreements over 'big things' (be they politics or philosophy) either end in bitter disagreement, or what appears to be a compromise but actually isn't (because one or both parties do not wish to talk about the topic any more, before things get worse).

> However if one side of the discussion is self-censoring, then both sides will tend to develop extreme opinions without any means to tamper them.

This assumes that most disagreements are resolved when there is a difference of opinion. Personally, I rarely change my opinion after speaking to someone, and I instead change it when I do my own reading around topics. The fact is that it's awkward to ask 'what's your source for that?' in a conversation between friends. Either one or both parties don't care enough to provide a source, or it's impractical (such as at a dinner party).

To surmise, I'm questioning whether mere in-person disagreement really does tamper the essence of those extreme opinions, not merely the appearance presented to that particular conversation partner.

>>claudi+EK
I don't agree. I have many very interesting conversations with people that I do not agree with politically, but I respect their intelligence and point of view, and vice versa. It is vastly more realistic to have a nuanced and respectful debate in private, versus a public discussion which will inevitably devolve. If you would like proof of this, open literally any twitter thread about politics with more than a few replies.