[ExitPlatosCave]

Possibly... Take them at their word that they can they really believe what they are saying is true.

Thus being polite versus thinking they are deliberately deceiving you.

But not that you have to also accept what they say as correct or true for yourself.

[dustfinger]

I understand that part of the essay. However; the essay argues that the orthodox privileged group is the one that cannot see that there are truths that cannot be safely expressed, but concludes that this same group should be polite to those that believe such truths exist. If my understanding is correct, how could they know to be polite to those outside of their demographic. For that, they would need to be sympathetic, or at the very least empathetic.

I guess my big problem with the concluding statement is that it places the responsibility of resolving the impasse on the demographic that is apparently incapable of imagining the world from the others perspective. That seems futile in the absence of empathy. Whose responsibility is it then, to establish a sense of empathy amongst the majority of the orthodox privileged group (empathy would be needed in the other group as well of course)?

Consider also that an obligation to be polite and silence ones voice from engaging in meaningful discourse, may very well be what ultimately leads to an orthodox privileged group in the first place, making the proposed solution a paradox.

[AnimalMuppet]

You can ask them to be polite. They're not going to know that there's anything to be polite about on their own.