Many people who fall toward left or right political extremes, and end up disrupting what could be normal good lives, start by getting themselves and their followers to agree to a series of steps, each of which is small but together is radical.
Opposition groups tend to not want to grant even a single step on that ladder. One side tries to say the first thing, it’s recognized as a lie; and they’re like “no”. So hardened extremes conform.
I find that a more useful path is to like naturally agree with steps 1, 2, and 3, with the person you’re debating with, and often you will, but then be like “nah that step to 4 is a logical fallacy, here’s why.”
Nuance.
That’s the key in today’s world of algorithms. It’s all designed to get you from step to step until you’re in some weird camp, one way or the other.
The way out is to recognize the process; identify each small step as a small step, and to identify where you draw the line against social pressure, audience capture, and algorithm optimization, and be like, “no, that part’s stupid.”
Opposition groups tend to not want to grant even a single step on that ladder. One side tries to say the first thing, it’s recognized as a lie; and they’re like “no”. So hardened extremes conform.
I find that a more useful path is to like naturally agree with steps 1, 2, and 3, with the person you’re debating with, and often you will, but then be like “nah that step to 4 is a logical fallacy, here’s why.”
Nuance.
That’s the key in today’s world of algorithms. It’s all designed to get you from step to step until you’re in some weird camp, one way or the other.
The way out is to recognize the process; identify each small step as a small step, and to identify where you draw the line against social pressure, audience capture, and algorithm optimization, and be like, “no, that part’s stupid.”