|
|
|
|
|
|
by wfo
3813 days ago
|
|
|
Yes but what if the other side doesn't extend you the same courtesy? What if the other side sees your thoughtfulness as weakness, your careful consideration as waffling and flip-flopping and leaps onto the opportunity to push even more extreme views, becomes even more absurdly divisive? On the whole in terms of writing, social media, op eds, etc I feel intellectuals (left and right) have taken this advice too much and been stomped all over because of it. Be polite, respectful, but firm and unyielding. Don't concede points without needing to. Don't give credence where credence is not due. Don't allow people to exploit your willingness to respectfully consider their arguments to shift the Overton window and win before you even open your mouth. Because the person who is arguing back doesn't want to win the argument. He just wants the audience to consider his ridiculous, extremist views just as or almost as reasonable as yours. So you can meet in the middle, which has been pushed so far towards him that it was where he wanted to be in the first place. I think this is excellent advice if you're talking to someone you know and respect in real life. |
|
|
But I feel as though at some point in journalism school, it's drilled into students never to say "this thing is, and I stand behind it."
Instead, we get either the global negative ("People who are not me say this thing is") or an artificial alternative ("Some say this thing is, others hold this [uncredible but nevertheless presented] view").
Scientists issue retractions all the time - that's how the process works. Media should be comfortable with the same when it's interfacing on science questions.