ratbastid

I think it's worse than that, Uber. As Ustwo demonstrates, any time we have a disagreement with someone, the thing to do is to call them names, and then blame the gulf in the discourse on them and their irrationality.

I'm no saint about this, God knows. But I'd love to see us shift into a paradigm where we're individually responsible for the discursive gulf. Like, maybe the reason they seem so damn wacky is because of the attitude I'm bringing to the conversation. Maybe if I could be a little open or flexible in my understanding, I could get something valuable from what they say.

I know, personally, I don't tend to operate from there, much as I'd love to see this section of TFP go that way. I notice that I'm pretty hesitant about taking such a position unilaterally, which I guess is because I don't trust those I typically disagree with to see any value at all in such an approach. (Edit: As demonstrated by politicophile! Look if you frequently end up saying, "Well, you're just crazy!", you might be wise to examine your own rationality.)