zlacker

>>hn_thr+(OP)
I don't like the conversation that goes in circles with no seeming chance for resolution (nearly anything political). It's all very interesting however, Political Science is not the kind of Science I come here for.

As for how to host these topics without devolving into flamewars - I think you'd have to try a different species. Emotions get all of us.

>>edoceo+A6
Precisely. Without anyone having the cognitive capability to change their own mind or fundamental beliefs, no progress can be made. If everyone is stubborn, no discussion is valuable except for the bystanders that are unsure. Digging heels further leads to flame wars.

>>system+Rb
Honestly a flame war isn't really that useful to the bystanders either.

>>seoaeu+se
How do you think scientific progress happens? They didn't just have flame wars in the past, they literally set humans alight. Even today, science is a very emotive topic (I studied economic history, people have fierce arguments around 17th century agricultural practices...humans are emotional beings).

I think the problem today is that people are unwilling to debate emotional issues, unwilling to have their own views challenged, and confuse their own emotional response to some topics with their own feelings of safety and well-being.

It is perfectly fine to have strong opinions, but because you hold a strong opinion does not mean you have to go to the grave with it.

Also, I am not really sure that there as many flame wars as people think. A lot of what people call "flame wars" are people attempting to trigger other people. If you get triggered by what someone says online, you only have yourself to blame.