Don't answer. I *literally* beg you to consider this in solitude, because then your answers are more likely to be sincere.

When you encounter an argument you strongly disagree with, do you a) just wait your turn to tell how wrong he/she (obviously) is or b) actually listen and ponder about it?

"so-called centrists silently supporting Nazis." A tiresome charge, born of a worldview demanding villains be wholly wicked, grotesque, stupid.

To me, the world is not so obligingly simple. I may call a right-wing figure evil, yet decline to call him a fool or a monster.

Changing your opinion is often regarded as a sign of weakness, but it should be a source of pride, because it means you’re capable of learning.

Whenever you angrily lash out at political opponents, you reinforce their side's impression that your side is irrational. If you wish to actually change minds, be charitable and reasonable. Your demeanor will often be more persuasive than your arguments.

Claim: the binary framing of politics reinforces division and adversarial thinking. Many countries have more nuanced political landscapes, with party systems reflecting multiple independent dimensions --- eg. economic, social, environmental. In cases where strictly dualistic division remains,

Modern discourse often appears less a pursuit of truth than a quest for self-assurance. One camp exalts the virtues of individual perseverance and prowess, paying scant heed to the broader forces that shape our fortunes. While this viewpoint offers a comforting simplicity in a complex world,

I found that I was just mistaken; a realisation I arrived at quite on my own, albeit not without some reluctance.

I endeavour to be less wrong henceforth, preferably in a manner ambiguous enough to remain open to most favourable interpretation.

I have a rather curious inclination when engaging with others: I tend to extend the fullest benefit of the doubt. I readily acknowledge that this approach may, at times, lead to errors, perhaps even glaring ones.

Ideological bias causes otherwise smarter people to be more often wrong when interpreting politically polarising data, regardless of political affiliation: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

Remedy? re-evaluate your strongest beliefs at times, by studying strongest opposing views with open mind.

While I’m all for civil and convivial discourse, I doubt moderating hateful speech is ever straightforward. It often means policing the other side's rhetoric while staying blissfully unaware of our own lapses. I see plenty of vile and arrogant speech on the right, even unhinged conspiracies, yet

Remember the time when social media was not about vilifying others? When it was, for the most part, a conglomeration of the pleasantly mundane: photos of children’s birthdays, mentions of wondrous achievements in science and tech.

Trying to find people who might be interested in teaching skills of critical thinking in a form of friendly conversations, preferably in YT in a channel that doesn't exist yet. #atheism , interest in #philosophy and #epistemology in particular would be great, #kindness necessary. Any takes?

Somebody should fix Claude. It takes more nuanced approach, and as such is definitely not suitable for modern media #politics #ai. ChatGPT is the same, it doesn't understand that biases exist only on the right side

Olipas kiva huomata, että Steelman -periaatteelle on näemmä ihan suomenkielinenkin termi: tinyurl.com/mufsxm2r Mietin kertooko se, että en ollut aiemmin edes kuullut tuosta jotain nykyisestä keskustelukulttuuristamme. Olisipa some, missä neutraali algo korostaisi viestejä, mitkä noudattavat tuota.

Some on ollut pitkään rikki, mutta tietyssä mielessä tilanne huolettaa nyt vielä enemmän. Voi olla, että sisällissodalta vältytään antamalla kaikille erillinen, oma siilonsa -- mihin trendi näyttää viittaavan -- missä voi sitten keskenään samanmielisten kanssa valittaa kuinka karmeita ihmishirviöitä