Charlie Munger said it well: "I never allow myself to hold an opinion on anything that I don't know the other side's argument better than they do." In a world choking with short form video, Very few people have the attention span, let alone the will, to do the work required to have a worthwhile opinion.
I think this explains why Charlie Kirk's murder affected me so very deeply. As I wrote (https://www.whitenoise.email/p/blood-on-the-quad-the-assassination): "This is not about liking or loathing Charlie Kirk. If anything, he was the least threatening version of a conservative public figure: an enjoyer of debates and microphone time; happy to sit beneath a tent and take questions from rooms that bristle at him; a young husband and father with two small children who expected Dad home for dinner.
Kirk’s entire project was Socratic confrontation—show up, take questions, defend your claims, let the crowd push back. And still he was shot dead.
That’s the public square muscle atrophying in America. When you try to exercise it and take a bullet, it tells us something terrifying about the body politic.
Strip the jersey off to see the stakes: the medium (i.e. standing in the open and answering anyone) is what’s under fire. A society that shoots at that is flirting with suicide."
Many are threatened by open debate and discussion. And with good reason. Questions are dangerous. Asking too many can undermine the authority of leaders and institutions, particularly when they do 'questionable' things. This is why I prefer to always communicate in the most ironic and satirical way I can. It gives me an escape hatch to say nearly anything I want. And if, by mistake, I offend or anger those who adhere to some set of beliefs, no matter how absurd I think they are, I can say, "Just kidding." And we are all still friends.
Yeah I get it, but seems weird to me we'd have to do that. It's okay someone doesn't hold your precise beliefs, and seems illiberal to prescribe otherwise
As you know, I'm in favor of both debate and disagreement!
But, your post on LinkedIn was an insult, not debate. You framed anyone who disagreed about socialism was uneducated. That is not debate or disagreement and you cannot expect people to react to an insult with balanced debate.
If you want to debate, debate! If you want to insult, insult! Just don't insult and pretend like it's an invitation to debate.
Mao and the Soviets are indeed evil, which I interpreted this data as endorsement of - it's historical fact. I think it is evident what I meant since I included the commentary of "killed 10s of millions." Obviously I'm not talking about what's in their head as related to policy, here, I'm talking about extremist regimes.
I clarified with the person which was upset separately so they knew what I meant and made this clear again, and it's been resolved. Maybe I could have included even more specificity in my post (I thought clear, but I guess it wasn't to them, this happens online all the time). Like I said above everything makes sense with sufficient information.
We've already talked about how you have a specific definition of socialism that isn't shared with everyone. That's the problem with insulting people, they aren't open to hearing more about your context and nuance.
My definition is fairly textbook, and you know what no one was insulted here, there is just a strange double standard. Say fascism is evil and no one bats an eye. Say socialism is evil and people lose their minds. Either we're accepting all extremism is bad (I'd say so) or we're not. But no insults are intended. It's another question why people take this so personally to be insulted, too. It's truly not intended as such. We care about civilization or we wouldn't comment.
Charlie Munger said it well: "I never allow myself to hold an opinion on anything that I don't know the other side's argument better than they do." In a world choking with short form video, Very few people have the attention span, let alone the will, to do the work required to have a worthwhile opinion.
I think this explains why Charlie Kirk's murder affected me so very deeply. As I wrote (https://www.whitenoise.email/p/blood-on-the-quad-the-assassination): "This is not about liking or loathing Charlie Kirk. If anything, he was the least threatening version of a conservative public figure: an enjoyer of debates and microphone time; happy to sit beneath a tent and take questions from rooms that bristle at him; a young husband and father with two small children who expected Dad home for dinner.
Kirk’s entire project was Socratic confrontation—show up, take questions, defend your claims, let the crowd push back. And still he was shot dead.
That’s the public square muscle atrophying in America. When you try to exercise it and take a bullet, it tells us something terrifying about the body politic.
Strip the jersey off to see the stakes: the medium (i.e. standing in the open and answering anyone) is what’s under fire. A society that shoots at that is flirting with suicide."
Many are threatened by open debate and discussion. And with good reason. Questions are dangerous. Asking too many can undermine the authority of leaders and institutions, particularly when they do 'questionable' things. This is why I prefer to always communicate in the most ironic and satirical way I can. It gives me an escape hatch to say nearly anything I want. And if, by mistake, I offend or anger those who adhere to some set of beliefs, no matter how absurd I think they are, I can say, "Just kidding." And we are all still friends.
Yeah I get it, but seems weird to me we'd have to do that. It's okay someone doesn't hold your precise beliefs, and seems illiberal to prescribe otherwise
The Charlie Hebdo incident makes it clear that not everyone agrees that it's ok to have views different from yours.
As you know, I'm in favor of both debate and disagreement!
But, your post on LinkedIn was an insult, not debate. You framed anyone who disagreed about socialism was uneducated. That is not debate or disagreement and you cannot expect people to react to an insult with balanced debate.
If you want to debate, debate! If you want to insult, insult! Just don't insult and pretend like it's an invitation to debate.
Mao and the Soviets are indeed evil, which I interpreted this data as endorsement of - it's historical fact. I think it is evident what I meant since I included the commentary of "killed 10s of millions." Obviously I'm not talking about what's in their head as related to policy, here, I'm talking about extremist regimes.
I clarified with the person which was upset separately so they knew what I meant and made this clear again, and it's been resolved. Maybe I could have included even more specificity in my post (I thought clear, but I guess it wasn't to them, this happens online all the time). Like I said above everything makes sense with sufficient information.
We've already talked about how you have a specific definition of socialism that isn't shared with everyone. That's the problem with insulting people, they aren't open to hearing more about your context and nuance.
My definition is fairly textbook, and you know what no one was insulted here, there is just a strange double standard. Say fascism is evil and no one bats an eye. Say socialism is evil and people lose their minds. Either we're accepting all extremism is bad (I'd say so) or we're not. But no insults are intended. It's another question why people take this so personally to be insulted, too. It's truly not intended as such. We care about civilization or we wouldn't comment.