exc-550712f8e4b0619cc3af9df3
In the early stages of the Something to Consider Lab is a book on the keys to having productive, enjoyable political conversations. We want to make it a definitive guide or ruleset that we can all agree to before starting a political conversation to make sure we’re getting the most out of it. Reader Christian even suggested that we can make it a community pledge, which we’re working on now.
We’re hoping it helps prevent the ever-dreaded emotional flame war that leads to personal attacks and breakdown of dialogue.
So we want to get input from the community before we button up our ideas and get to work on the guide.
Let us know what you think should be:
The rules we should agree to ahead of time to get the most out of them together
Looking forward to everyone’s thoughts!
Ukrainian victories on the ground have been swift, dramatic, and devastating. And each win seems…
The Russians just got whipped. What the heck happened?
Mark Schauss is the host of Russian Rulers History and Battle Ground History. Known for…
https://play.acast.com/s/d1a6ddca-f102-4b5c-8d87-630132fe5aaa/62f43f685dc1ea00136539f2 Hot Updates Severodonetsk fell slowly as expected, but then Lysychansk fell quickly because Russian…
https://embed.acast.com/d1a6ddca-f102-4b5c-8d87-630132fe5aaa/62d0a6529385dd0012e405d1 Lots of ways we can split this. Much has been discussed about decoupling of…
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the…
View Comments
I assume you've been introduced to the 15 Commitments of Conscious Leadership - you could glean some insights from there.
May or may not be related to what you've asked for, but a broad consideration for me that often underlies and has the ability to polarize political discussion is whether participants believe there is absolute truth, or alternatively believe that truth is relative and valid only to the beholder.
We're definitely using the Commitments as inspiration, yes :)
I actually didn't even consider looking at people's different epistimological and metaphysical beliefs--it's a really useful avenue; thank you!
There is nothing personal in politics. If you're debating policy, you need to determine if you have the same axioms or not.... if your axioms differ, all you can do is present your case and answer questions and hope people will modify their axioms.... and you have to accept that they might not, and their axioms are as valid as yours.
If you all accept the same axioms, logic will come to a conclusion based on them... or determine that it cannot be proven. If that's the case, scroll up, you're back to differing opinions. No good comes from arguing over that.
Flamewars can be fun. They are rarely productive.
instrumental music
jazz music
cozy beach cafe
trap workout