There are many good reasons to read Tim Urban’s excellent new book “What’s Our Problem?” One of them is how he hammers home the point, both with words and pictures, that higher-end and better thinking about any issue should be based on the issue’s merits, rather than on who is on which side of that issue.
Have you read Yale Professor Timothy D. Snyder's substack? And his comments to the UN Security Council? His excellent push back on the Russian Representative?
I agree with you on making one's own mind. However one achieves that process.
My saying follows: "I yield my mind to no person".
I am totally for Ukraine and the defeat of Russia in the no matter what camp. Bullies need smashed in the teeth and here, killed. Russia is led by war criminal and asks his soldiers to commit war crimes. They need complete destruction. Never again to the Russian bastards.
My father taught me to listen to those with whom I disagreed. If nothing else, I might learn better how to stand in opposition by hearing what they said. Another reason was to try to engage and maybe, just maybe, they'd see things my way. At the very least, I'd open myself to an opportunity to learn something.
Some time ago, I began to make a point to read opposing views. I even subscribed to one and when I set aside the overly outrageous language and read for content and not in search of argument, I found some interesting stuff.
Though I don't remember him specifically saying anything about it, I also learned to ask questions about those with whom I was prone to agree and often saw things less than complimentary. The two sides have more in common (not necessarily good stuff) than we'd like to think. For one example, today's left and right extremists both attack free speech, albeit from different angles and in opposition to different ideas. Nonetheless, the behavior is the same. As I see it, today's politicians too often behave badly, no matter which party they support. The president holds too much power and must be opposed is said by both Ds and Rs, depending only on who is president. So, is that merit based?
We are best served looking at issues as independents, not automatically from a partisan position, even if we maintain our party affiliation so we can vote in primaries.
About the Chinese lab business? Sure, we should consider the dangers of such studies, but turning it into an international political issue is not that.
I think an interesting experiment would be to have the information delivered by the voice of the opposite person and see if what you hear differs? Obviously we would have to find a topic that say Trump could say "Biden-like" opinions on...or things Biden could say in "Trump-lile" opinions. It's like if the person speaking is unpalatable, your brain clicks I to this space of I hate this. Versus if the guy you like is on...boom, you click to I agree with what he is about to say. I think that is part of what you are saying. But I wonder if we could deliver the information from the other side would you just blindly agree (not you in particular, anyone really)? I sometimes wonder on polarizing topics, could we get Biden to stand up there and speak Ron DeSantis' words about transgenderism and people would agree? Or if Trump started saying the border is fine or we will do whatever it takes for as long as it takes, would that be agreeable?
The book of the year! Really good! We need a digital space where "high rung" thinkers can meet and problem solve. He calls them "idea labs." Why not digital ones? Something like these: https://joshketry.substack.com/p/why-doesnt-this-exist-building-a
Have you read Yale Professor Timothy D. Snyder's substack? And his comments to the UN Security Council? His excellent push back on the Russian Representative?
I agree with you on making one's own mind. However one achieves that process.
My saying follows: "I yield my mind to no person".
I am totally for Ukraine and the defeat of Russia in the no matter what camp. Bullies need smashed in the teeth and here, killed. Russia is led by war criminal and asks his soldiers to commit war crimes. They need complete destruction. Never again to the Russian bastards.
I will take a look at Timothy Snyder's substack. Thanks for the recommendation.
Interesting! I was going to agree with the argument of this post because I respect your opinion, but then I thought for a second…
Sorry David, I liked most of what you had to say, but cannot agree re Russia and Ukraine.
Understood. And there are good points on both sides.
But in my opinion, I don't think Russia will ever attack a NATO member. This war is about Russia preventing Ukraine from becoming part of NATO.
That said, Russia is 100% to blame for the war.
The relevant question now is what should US policy be going forward. And people can and should debate that.
My father taught me to listen to those with whom I disagreed. If nothing else, I might learn better how to stand in opposition by hearing what they said. Another reason was to try to engage and maybe, just maybe, they'd see things my way. At the very least, I'd open myself to an opportunity to learn something.
Some time ago, I began to make a point to read opposing views. I even subscribed to one and when I set aside the overly outrageous language and read for content and not in search of argument, I found some interesting stuff.
Though I don't remember him specifically saying anything about it, I also learned to ask questions about those with whom I was prone to agree and often saw things less than complimentary. The two sides have more in common (not necessarily good stuff) than we'd like to think. For one example, today's left and right extremists both attack free speech, albeit from different angles and in opposition to different ideas. Nonetheless, the behavior is the same. As I see it, today's politicians too often behave badly, no matter which party they support. The president holds too much power and must be opposed is said by both Ds and Rs, depending only on who is president. So, is that merit based?
We are best served looking at issues as independents, not automatically from a partisan position, even if we maintain our party affiliation so we can vote in primaries.
About the Chinese lab business? Sure, we should consider the dangers of such studies, but turning it into an international political issue is not that.
I think an interesting experiment would be to have the information delivered by the voice of the opposite person and see if what you hear differs? Obviously we would have to find a topic that say Trump could say "Biden-like" opinions on...or things Biden could say in "Trump-lile" opinions. It's like if the person speaking is unpalatable, your brain clicks I to this space of I hate this. Versus if the guy you like is on...boom, you click to I agree with what he is about to say. I think that is part of what you are saying. But I wonder if we could deliver the information from the other side would you just blindly agree (not you in particular, anyone really)? I sometimes wonder on polarizing topics, could we get Biden to stand up there and speak Ron DeSantis' words about transgenderism and people would agree? Or if Trump started saying the border is fine or we will do whatever it takes for as long as it takes, would that be agreeable?