LeoNot posted a photo: Upscaled with Gigapixel v1.1.1. 1000x832 => 4000x3328 (4x) Model: Standard V2, denoise: 0.01, sharpen: 0.01, decompression: 1

LeoNot posted a photo:

LeoNot posted a photo:

Understanding the Opposition Is Betrayal?leo.notenboom.org Problems viewing in email? View online.The elephant in the room. (Image: Gemini) I'm cursed. I'm cursed with an apparently above-average ability to see both sides of most arguments. Or opposing viewpoints. Or alternative perspectives and explanations. And yes, it's a curse. The problem is, I am actively discouraged from sharing my alternate understanding. Why? Because too many people cannot distinguish between: Being able to articulate an alternative belief or perspective. Actually supporting that alternate belief or perspective. To be super clear, those are two different things. And yet people conflate them all the time. Even here, I have to make something up silly so as to avoid distracting blow-back should I select a "real" and important issue that people have opinions about. So, let's say there are two diametrically opposed camps on a specific issue: perhaps whether or not elephants can make good house-pets. Let's also say that I can articulate the rationale used by both sides: I can describe at length why some believe that elephants should never ever be house pets. I can also describe, again at length, why some believe elephants are the perfect house pet. Note that I have not revealed what I personally believe. I only have the ability to articulate both sides of the issue. Now, if I'm speaking with someone who is pro-house pet, and I describe to them the position, beliefs, and rationale of the anti-house pet crowd, there's a significant chance that I'll be branded anti-house pet myself. I've not claimed agreement with one side or the other. My only transgression is my ability (and willingness) to articulate "the other side" to someone who believes elephants are awesome pets. Of course, the same is true in the other direction: if I'm speaking with someone who is anti-house pet, and I describe to them the position, beliefs, and rationale of the pro-house pet crowd, I'll likely be branded pro-house pet. Whether or not I am. One of the biggest disincentives to reasoned discourse is that if you can articulate a position you don't believe him people will accuse you of believing it anyway. Not only are we unwilling to entertain opposing viewpoints, but we're also unwilling to accept anyone capable of articulating those viewpoints. Your ability to accurately describe "the other side" brands you as being part of that side. Whether or not you are. It's as if merely understanding the other side is a mortal threat to your beliefs. And if that's the case ... well, to me that says something about your own confidence in your own beliefs. They seem easily threatened. It's long been said that you can't really defend your own position until you can adequately argue the opposite view. You strengthen your own position by the depth of your understanding of the opposing viewpoint. Apparently, that's not a thing anymore. At least not in public discourse. Merely articulating the opposition is betrayal. We're not allowed to consider what it is the other side believes ... not for ourselves, not for them, and not for anyone trying to truly understand all positions. Merely entertaining wrong thinking, even as a thought exercise in the pursuit of strengthening your own position, is wrong. Instead, we all just retreat into our little tribal bubbles of safe thought and ostracize anyone who might even consider further examination and understanding. Because heaven forbid we might be wrong, and we cannot allow for that threat. Read and comment at leo.notenboom.org