Read on Twitter
What I accepted in 2000 (and to a lesser extent, because I know I was more freaked out by the result) 2016, is that profoundly failing critical thinking in one area doesn't mean you are doomed fail *everywhere*.
That's especially true with failed thinking in politics, which (and this is fundamentally my critique of mass politics) your views are rarely causally tied to concrete consequences in the world, so they can fly away from reality with little downside and lots of potential reward.
But for now, there's a moment of people mashing on the retweet button for stuff that if it was said by the opposite side, they not let stand for a moment.
And ofc part of that is because people now believe the opposing side is, in motive, moral stature, and *essence* different.
And ofc part of that is because people now believe the opposing side is, in motive, moral stature, and *essence* different.
You *have* to model your opposition correctly, as humans with flaws. Not just because that lets you anticipate and overcome them, not just because it lets you sometimes persuade them -- but because you can always best test arguments by uprooting them from your own biases...
...and one of the best ways to do that, is to put those arguments in the mouths of your opponent.
I know that some people think they are thinking better, more clearly, when they are full of emotions; righteousness; anger; love; even compassion.
I know that some people think they are thinking better, more clearly, when they are full of emotions; righteousness; anger; love; even compassion.
But I've never found that to be true in myself, and looking at smart people who are publicly accepting poor arguments just because they are made by people who share their foregone conclusions, I'm like: why? Will you hold yourself later to account, privately at least?
