[PaulDavisThe1st]

> That sounds like a perfect way to become a closed-minded bigot, using the original definition of the word.

What I choose to read or watch is really completely orthogonal with who I choose to spend time with. I enjoy spending a significant amount of time investigating contrary points of view, and find it very valuable.

That does not mean I wish to spend the time I spend with others hanging out with people who actively hold contrary positions particularly if we do not agree on the terms of discussion. I can be respectful of those people [0], and listen to them, without making the choice to spend (optional) time with them.

If your cancelling really involved those things, then I am sorry that you had to experience this, and am glad that you've found some peace in the aftermath. An awful lot of what is called "cancelling" at the present time does not amount to the things you've described.

[0] EDIT: actually, this is dishonest. If someone does not agree with the same terms of discussion, I find it very hard to actually respect them, even if I can "be respectful" in person.

[jaywalk]

If you can't even respect someone who sees the world differently, how can you do any real "investigation" of actual contrary views? It's sad to me that you don't even see a problem with this, because this is exactly why things are they way they are today.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

I didn't say I could not respect someone who sees the world differently. I said I could not respect someone who doesn't agree to the same terms of discussion.

Let's take a recent article linked on HN, on astral codex by Scott Alexander regarding Ivermectin. If I was to engage in a discussion with someone about Ivermectin, I would more or less insist that we both read this article as a starting point, since it already gathers, critiques and synthesizes almost every study that has been done. If someone wishes to defend the use of Ivermectin in connection with COVID19, then I'd have to insist that they answer the evidence presented in that article that strongly suggests that there is no reason to use it in parts of the world that do not have significant levels of parasitic worm infestation.

Now, perhaps they have some similar "reference" article that they'd insist we also read, and also had some similar basic evidence that they feel I should respond to. That's fine.

But we have to agree that our discussion is going to be evidence based, and that when I bring up evidence that contradicts their stated claims, they need to respond to the evidence by doing more than saying "I don't believe that'. Same in reverse, obviously.

If they can't do that, then sure, I can't respect them. If they can do that, then regardless of where we end up, I'm going to have respect for their position, even if I don't agree with it.