Rather narcissistic take. Sounds more like projecting than anything based on evidence

I don't think it's that simple. The allegorical values in religion do not need to be wrapped in anti-Semitism, divisive rhetoric, and bigotry. It's not a matter of right and wrong. It's like an apple being wrapped in fetid rancid meat. Yeah the apple is an apple but you don't want to eat your way through what it's wrapped in.

Be well read in the logical fallacies.

Know them so you can avoid them even(especially) when you're evaluating perspectives in your own head.

Know them so you catch yourself making them.

Know them so you recognize when others are making a bad argument.

More sadly realistic than sarcastic really.

“An argument is a collective series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Contradiction is just the automatic naysaying of anything the other person says”

“No it isn’t.”

You have to be honest with what your dealing with or your not going to even convince yourself. I’ve lived it my whole life and had to deprogrammed from the shallow side of it. I could have been a toothless tweeker but I chose another route.

And you don’t have to say it to their faces. Haha. When it’s your fiends, family and most everyone you’ve ever grown up with though… It’s hard admitting this in the first place.

But my point was to offer up the type of interaction I’ve dealt with as examples of really stubborn and hard headed people that prefer not to learn about something but to vent about topics they know nothing of

[removed]

“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience”

Spengler wouldn't have agreed, even if there are some parallels to his theory of 'civilizational' obsolescence. His point was never that history itself reaches a conclusion - almost the opposite.

There is this flat earth documentary that I don't recall anymore but at the end, the flat earthers did this experiment where they tried to see if the lights would be the same from a distance and they had to adjust it in the end because of the sphere shape of our planet.

It made them doubt :)

Calling people with different political views anti intellectual or "stupid" is a surefire way to change minds

I think this is the most striking topic in philosophy and it cuts straight through to our daily lives. I agree with you. I think that human beings have been telling stories since there were human beings, and that infact perhaps even telling stories is an attribute of being human itself. It’s dangerous and it is only rarely explored in serious work I’ve noticed, sometimes in Fiction like Frank Herbert’s Dune. (An excellent series on this very topic)

As an aside I don’t think that we fully understand mythologies and their applications and I’m deeply fascinated by them.

I guess I have to question whether it's possible to have "meaning" without information. (and vice versa)

That's an interesting thought, I don't think I have an answer for it.

The thing is, everybody believes their arguments are based on logic and facts, including those people with strong, biased convictions. Most people care about being right, and 'winning' the argument than they care about truth.

Also we're not 100% logical beings, and most of our arguments are about our subjective views of the world.

I don't, actually. Our brains are wired for certain kinds of communication and storytelling is one of the more critical aspects of our basic nature.

This isn't to say that "story" (or constructed narratives) exist independent of people ~which is a position I encounter a lot on the internet ~rather, that it exists in our minds and in our words.

And, by extension (and to some degree), through our actions.

Im particularly interested in state mythologies and how we use them or are used by them, do you think people can exist without any kind of „story“ or constructed narrative?

I have never seen any case where the other party would even partly agree. Could you provide some concrete examples?

[deleted]

If someone made their decision based on emotion, they will never change it based on logic.

You're not wrong. If people truly have that conviction the only thing we can do is to present it still and then move on. Because who knows, even if the chances of them changing is slim, they could still eventually change their minds. But yes, it's very hard.

I think studies have indicated that people tend not to change their mind about strongly held beliefs, even when presented with facts and logic proving they're wrong.

I use a method for political conversations with people i know wouldn't agree with me first by asking the person to describe their worries with living in this country, what about the future makes them nervous? After allowing them to speak, sometimes for quite awhile, sometimes intersecting just to drive them back from going on too long a tangent if necessary. Then when I feel an appropriate opening, usually a trail off or longer pause, I start by breaking down how the system at play over our lives creates or makes those problems worse. Without mentioning specifically it's the system I'm talking about, use a little hot words as possible to avoid cognitive dissonance. Once I get them in agreement with the majority of what I've said, I follow it up with how the political system I've studied and aligned with could be introduced, sometimes with direct examples of it being done before, again never mentioning the name of this system, and most of the time this has been effective. Once I find an opening to do so with impact, I drop the ball of just what they were favorable for. Certain people this has planted a seed, others who i have more time to spend with, I have brought people fully around to the point they start asking me questions on their own.

Most of the time, changing people's perspective involves patience and understanding of why they might think the way they do. Being gentle with folks helps invite them to the table, rather than slam a door in their face.

I think the comment is a sarcastic take on modern politics.

One has to live a life of extreme privilege to think like this.....l am sure a poor person in Africa or India has a lot to look forward to by the simple act of focussing on obtaining a better life for his progeny.

Fukuyama has retracted his original thesis, stating something like "history has resumed with 9/11". The sheer hubris needed to think that the neoliberal world order is the end of all things. Lol. It's nothing but a failure of imagination which is why Russia's invasion of Ukraine shook the West so badly.