zlacker

Winning through "reason" seems kind of naive given today's social landscape. Are our politics broken because the facts simply aren't known? The misinformation-firehose/attention-economy/propaganda-machines are simply too powerful to be countered by merely being correct.

I'm not saying murdering everyone is the right alternative, but if you think trying to balance political power by "winning debates" or something seems reasonable, that ship has long sailed.

>>lifefo+(OP)
I think this is overblown. Most people do have reasons for what they believe.

I know everyone hates it when people “both sides” things these days, but one thing I do see both sides having in common is a refusal to honestly engage with and comprehend the other position. This doesn’t mean agreeing. It means understanding what someone believes and how they might have gotten there.

Where the echo chambers and other things that you mention do come in is in reinforcing that dynamic, in reinforcing each side seeing only a straw man version of the other.

>>api+J2
>Most people do have reasons for what they believe.

You're equivocating between reasons as in causes and reason as in rationality.