
The Politics of Epistemic Fragmentation - anigbrowl
https://medium.com/the-weird-politics-review/the-politics-of-epistemic-fragmentation-175d6bbb98a4
======
h2odragon
> Even if someone’s model of the world is both horrifying and completely
> wrong, understanding its internal logic will give you an advantage in
> defeating it.

True, and a good point but: why must it be defeated? Isn't it still possible
to coexist with those whose opinions differ? Wasn't that taught as a "good
idea" not all that long ago?

~~~
enkiv2
If it's horrifying and completely wrong, then it needs to be defeated. (Ex.,
it's a moral imperative to punch nazis.)

If it's completely wrong but basically harmless, then there's no point in
defeating it. (Ex., you don't need to worry about people who believe in
ghosts.)

~~~
h2odragon
I have to disagree. Nazi's and other people of ugly opinions have as much
right to voice that as anyone else. We have laws against _actions_ that should
cover whatever ugly they get up to.

~~~
anigbrowl
Organization is a presule to action. Laws have a deterrent effect but they are
not always sufficient. If laws were sufficient in and of themselves,
atrocities and military conflicts would never occur.

