Another approach to discussing issues across the divide

Screen Shot 2017-08-11 at 11.42.30

Much normative (or value-based) reasoning by liberals (and mainstream economists) is about the consequences of political actions for the welfare of individuals. Statements about the desirability of policies are based on trading off the consequences for different individuals….

…Meanwhile, much conservative normative reasoning is about procedures rather than consequences. For example, as long as property rights and free exchange are guaranteed, the outcome is deemed just by definition, regardless of the consequences. People are “deserving” of whatever the market provides them with.

pub. 08/2017


Suggestions for progressives to counter the idea that supporting Trump is supporting the US

Screen Shot 2017-08-01 at 15.11.45

“Leaks.” The “leak” frame is about national security leaks: truths that could harm national security is revealed to the public or enemies of the nation. Under the metaphor, “leaks” become truths that could harm the security of the President. Since national security leaks are crimes against the nation — unpatriotic and un-American, so under the metaphor, “leaks” threatening Presidential security become crimes against the nation that are unpatriotic and un-American, matters for the Justice Department and the FBI to look into and for the Justice Department to prosecute.

pub. 07/2017

In turning the ship around, a challenge to progressives

Screen Shot 2017-07-09 at 15.33.18

For Rorty, a Left that neglects victims of economic selfishness will not only fail; its neglect of class will trigger a terrible backlash that ultimately ill-serve the very groups that Leftist identity politics are intended to help. “The gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will very likely be wiped out,” he worried. “Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. The words ‘nigger’ and ‘kike’ will once again be heard in the workplace. All the sadism which the academic Left has tried to make unacceptable to its students will come flooding back. All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet.”

pub. 07/2017

Video: From the gentlest of atheist debaters, effective methods for undermining people’s non-evidence-based beliefs

Screen Shot 2017-05-18 at 13.10.42Huh, that headline is hard to connect with. Let’s try again:

Screen Shot 2017-05-18 at 13.26.04pub. 05/2017

Street epistemology is a method of asking people not only what their beliefs are and why they believe them, but most importantly how they determined their beliefs are true. We know that being presented with established facts only causes “the other side” of any debate to dig in deeper, so street epistemology skips specific facts altogether to focus on the bigger picture. This video is an introduction to the concept.

How to turn down the heat when talking to people you disagree with

This was floating around Facebook as a Word document; I don’t know who originally wrote it.

How To ‘Depolarize’ A Heated Conversation

The Challenge:

To understand someone else’s point of view—and perhaps have them get a sense of your own—on topics that evoke such high levels of passion, anger, and discord at a time when the stakes have never felt higher.

A few core principles:

  • Avoid labels.
  • Start by really listening and understanding someone else’s perspective. This only works if you acknowledge to yourself that you have much to learn.
  • Seek underlying points of common ground and concern, and acknowledge them. These are less likely to be about policy than about basic fears, dreams, and values.
  • Never assume that anyone is completely against you or completely with you.
  • Stand with the most vulnerable—both the most vulnerable parts of ourselves as well as the most vulnerable people.
  • Listen with empathy and expect to learn.
  • Act out of love, not fear or hate.

Techniques to use during a conversation:

1) Rely on phrases firmly grounded in inquiry, such as:

  • Tell me more about…
  • What has been your experience with…?
  • How does that work in situations such as…?
  • What would it look like if…?
  • I hadn’t heard that, where was it posted? [For conversations focusing on information, such as when someone cites a news story or statistic]

2) Watch out for the word ‘why’. Often it can make people dig in their heels on a subject, even if the questioner is asking from a place of genuinely wanting to understand the other’s position. You can arrive at the same goal by using words such as curious, interested, and elaborate. Mix and match them with phrases from above, or use some of these examples:

  • I’m curious what your background has been with…?
  • I’m interested to hear more about…
  • Can you elaborate on…?

3) Try to use open-ended inquiries instead of yes/no questions. Avoid phrases such as the following that often precede a yes/no question:

  • Do you think that…?
  • Isn’t it true that…?
  • Would/Wouldn’t you agree…?

4) A close cousin of the yes/no question is the double-barreled question. Such as:

“Are you religious or do you just not care?”

Stay away from using them when discussing any sensitive topic. If you are asked a double-barreled question you can respond with neutral phrases that might open up the lines of communication, such as:

  • There’s a lot more going on than those two things.
  • If only it was so cut and dry an issue.
  • I wish it were a simple choice.
  • Somewhere on the vast spectrum between those two things is where I stand.

Remember: It may not be possible to change each other’s minds, but it is possible to have a conversation without escalating the fiery emotions and resorting to your respective corners only to wait for the next round. If both sides leave with the feeling that the other side is, at the very least, not a crazy/misinformed/ignorant fool then perhaps that is accomplishment enough.

seen 02/2017

How do you effectively argue against demagogues?


It’s a slippery slope argument, one that evokes the most obvious parallels about the rise of fascism in the interwar period.

The thing about this kind of argument is that the critic is trying to convince the listener that the slippery slope exists. That listener, who might be sympathetic to at least part of Trump’s message, will naturally be more skeptical. Every time Trump backtracks on a minor issue, it will be easy for sympathizers to persuade themselves that his critics are hysterical and have overreacted.

pub. 11/2016