The problem w/ the “it’s just rational debate” thing is that people—even philosophers!—simply do not passively consume evidence and arguments like sponges and get swayed in this rational direction or that. We are deeply affectively motivated to see what we want to, as we want to.

The presupposition that we’re all just sitting down at the same table to hash out the same evidence — or, that if we simply *would* all look at the same evidence, and just follow where it leads us, then we’d surely converge on the (same) right answer — is laughably false.

Or it would be laughably false, if it wasn’t constantly exploited by those whose political agendas even they might not be fully aware they have, but are nevertheless snuck in and pushed through under the cloak of “neutrality.”

I’m writing a big chunk of my dissertation on this, so hopefully I’ll have more to say about it on here in the future. But for now, I just encourage you all to (a) read @christapeterso’s blog post if you haven’t already, and then (b) have a read through the replies, here: https://twitter.com/christapeterso/status/1348468395117723648

Truly amazing what people will decide counts as “evidence”, or even as “an argument”, when they do or do not want to.