are we happier now that we can reach millions of minds? or were we happier with smaller circles of family and friends? is there a great injustice that needs each and every one of us to play the persuasion game?
Or acceptance of difference. The underlying notion many seem to believe is that they are inherently right and so all they need to do is express their "mind-space" to somebody else, and that other person will come to feel the same.
But the thing one forgets is that the other person also often feels exactly the same. And it's not even a matter of one person being right and another person being wrong.
In any sort of reasonably complex topic, people can see the same data and make informed conclusions that are mutually exclusive. Seeing successful persuasion or violence as the only ends largely simplifies down to violence being the only end. Or, "The History of Humanity."
That only works if both sides do it. The problem is that there are many political ideologies across the entire spectrum that are unwilling to accept the difference to the point of resorting to violence to remove it.
Except certain resources are exclusive. For example, global human effort. How much global effort should be expended towards fighting climate change? In cases like these, people can't just accept their differences, a choice has to be made.
Acceptance of difference only works in cases where both parties share the same reality. There can be no acceptance of different opinions about positions that don't agree in objectively measurable facts. You can accept different opinions on economic policies, you can't accept different opinions on whether smoking causes cancer.
> is there a great injustice that needs each and every one of us to play the persuasion game?
How about yes? Some might say there are a few universal issues that qualify. Others might say that the issues aren't universal but there are so many that everyone should take up some set. Either way, they might agree that peer to peer persuasion is ultimately more effective than top-down edicts. They persuade to avert harm, just as you are attempting to do right here and now in a more meta kind of way, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Identifying methods of persuasion that are more effective and/or less harmful themselves is something worthy of our curiosity.
are we happier now that we can reach millions of minds? or were we happier with smaller circles of family and friends? is there a great injustice that needs each and every one of us to play the persuasion game?