To have any discourse (communication), two key elements are mandatory: a shared reality and reasonable affinity.
A shared reality requires agreement on the “facts”, otherwise known as “the truth”. For example, did Russia invade Ukraine or vice versa. Or for example, was the 2020 election rigged? Or for example, is there a climate trend requiring action. In current politics, opposing sides are working with different facts. So no shared reality.
And reasonable affinity doesn’t happen in an “us vs them” environment. For example, if you voted for T, then I hate you.
When we agree on facts and perceive the other party as a person with traits common to ourselves, then we get civil discourse. Lacking that, civil discourse cannot proceed.
A free press is supposed to bring us facts. Now it’s largely either opinions (which are not facts) or outright lies. And education that promotes exposure to other cultures helps with affinity.
Seems like the trends are making civil discourse very unlikely.
Obviously, just kidding. As always, I value discourse at the Pancake, particularly your always insightful contributions.
I think the "truth" items are the low-hanging fruit. There is no other side to the Pancake on who initiated the war in Ukraine. The civil discourse is most critical where there are legitimate gray areas. For example, that the climate is warming is a truth, so it is unlikely we can have any real discourse with deniers. However, how much is due to natural swings (e.g., the Ice Age and subsequent warming that occurred long before humans had an imprint), and how much is due to fossil fuels and cow burps? And, what are the most useful and practical policies? How to balance a transition to renewable energy sources with the need in the mid-term future for fossil fuels? Should we prioritize nuclear over solar and wind? And so on. There is no "truth" in the answers, but a civil discourse could lead to a general consensus for policy.
To have any discourse (communication), two key elements are mandatory: a shared reality and reasonable affinity.
A shared reality requires agreement on the “facts”, otherwise known as “the truth”. For example, did Russia invade Ukraine or vice versa. Or for example, was the 2020 election rigged? Or for example, is there a climate trend requiring action. In current politics, opposing sides are working with different facts. So no shared reality.
And reasonable affinity doesn’t happen in an “us vs them” environment. For example, if you voted for T, then I hate you.
When we agree on facts and perceive the other party as a person with traits common to ourselves, then we get civil discourse. Lacking that, civil discourse cannot proceed.
A free press is supposed to bring us facts. Now it’s largely either opinions (which are not facts) or outright lies. And education that promotes exposure to other cultures helps with affinity.
Seems like the trends are making civil discourse very unlikely.
Mark, you ignorant troll.
Obviously, just kidding. As always, I value discourse at the Pancake, particularly your always insightful contributions.
I think the "truth" items are the low-hanging fruit. There is no other side to the Pancake on who initiated the war in Ukraine. The civil discourse is most critical where there are legitimate gray areas. For example, that the climate is warming is a truth, so it is unlikely we can have any real discourse with deniers. However, how much is due to natural swings (e.g., the Ice Age and subsequent warming that occurred long before humans had an imprint), and how much is due to fossil fuels and cow burps? And, what are the most useful and practical policies? How to balance a transition to renewable energy sources with the need in the mid-term future for fossil fuels? Should we prioritize nuclear over solar and wind? And so on. There is no "truth" in the answers, but a civil discourse could lead to a general consensus for policy.