Rodin & Steinberg's Naïve Take on Public Discourse.
 |
| You, reading my title. circa 2021 [colorized]. |
I know that what I'm about to say is contrary to what I'm going to argue, butchya gotta hear me out. Before I start roasting criticizing Rodin & Steinberg (RnS), we gotta make sure we're on the same page about what they were saying. To that end, I'm gonna break out the approxaquotes: ~"[these just let me facetiously paraphrase]"~. Now that you understand, here's what RnS said about public discourse and what it should be:
~"Public discourse is bad today because people don't really listen to what the other side has to say. They take sides and then dismiss arguments simply because they come from people on the side opposite theirs. We gotta find that middle ground that everyone can agree on and doing that requires us to listen to all sides."~
Cool, cool. Its a good ideal. Slap that on a picture of a cat hanging from a branch and you've got a perfectly serviceable motivational poster. Unfortunately, I don't think there has been a single time in [US] history in which this has been a legitimately viable option for large scale public discourse. The reason for that being, of course:
There we go! There's the backbone of my argument! Public discourse is the way it is because there are some things that cannot be negotiated. We can't afford to compromise on things like human rights. We can't settle for just slowing down the rate of global warming. And I get it, refusing to compromise often causes people to double down on their stubbornness. Terms of unconditional surrender invite unconditional resistance, as the saying goes. But the fact of the matter is that we can't give in to the people who would tap-dance on the line* of genocide.
Now, its not as if RnS's idea(s) is without merit. It is just, as my title might suggest, naïve to think that it could work on such a grand scale. In order for it to work, we would first have to eliminate the framework that produces people who think xenophobia and the like is ok. Until we do that, we wont have any real room for negotiation.
*Authors note: There was something I watched or listened to recently in which the phrase "tap dancing on the line" was used, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was. If one of y'all knows what it was then I would be much obliged if you could share that info.
You bring up a very interesting point on how if we want public discourse to truly operate correctly, then we must create a way for us to listen and negotiate with each other. Although I rather agree with RnS's claims that public discourse does not work because one side does not listen to the other, you bring about an interesting point with pointing at that we simply do not have the means to negotiate right now. The framework of society is built upon so many opinions and the idea of freedom of speech, so until we can begin to agree on what the most important goals are, we are stuck in a never-ending loop of disbelieving, ad hominem arguments, and complete lies.
ReplyDelete