
Persuade or Be Persuaded - howsilly
https://thepointmag.com/2019/politics/persuade-or-be-persuaded-agnes-callard
======
ssivark
Pretending abstract principles have black-or-white truth value is the root
cause of the problem. Each party trying to persuade the other in an argument
is just papering over that fundamental issue. How can two people on opposite
sides of a contentious debate ever agree if their logical axioms/priorities
are not the same? Debating principles is a touch of luxurious navel-gazing
that is available only when suitably screened from real world consequences and
related emotions.

A far more constructive approach, IMHO, is to debate actions, and try to find
middle ground. The reasons for which either of the disputing parties might
consider the resulting action satisfactory might be completely different, but
what matters is that it allows the deadlock to be resolved and for people to
move on. In most cases, that is what the parties seek, and are happy to work
towards and concede minor ideological points in the matter.

However, with increasing emphasis on abstract statements, people easily lose
touch with reality and are prone to pointless bikeshedding, but with
increasing polarization and anger, while the actual situation becomes worse.

It seems more natural that we derive principles from behavior as a bunch of
abstractions convenient to communicate, rather than deriving behavior from
principles.

~~~
jadbox
Often you cannot give the proper context of why an action is prefered until
you debate/speak of the principles. For example, we both may want healthcare,
but there isn't an easy 'action' to arrive at without discussing the 'truth'
of if people have the right to their health or if the framing of the decision
should be a market economic one. So I think you need both: both abstract
arguments (without navel-gazing) and also a focus on the here-and-now
immediacy of need fulfillment.

------
iron0013
I think, increasingly these days, those who are in the wrong (like the picket-
line crossing author) know that they're wrong and wallow in it like pigs in...
mud. You can't convince folks like that, and it's disingenuous of them to
demand that you waste your time trying to do so.

------
notJim
Good response here: [https://thepointmag.com/2019/politics/whose-university-
respo...](https://thepointmag.com/2019/politics/whose-university-response-
agnes-callard)

Don't be a scab.

------
wutman
This is a harsh thing to say and here goes. This article and its response are
boring. They're what happen when you take a high-stakes situation (union
creation, scabs, overworked grad students) and take all the emotion out of it.
People already interested may read these happily, but as a layperson, it took
some effort for me.

The tldr; is ("scab" professor) supports holding class even when the sky is
falling because of their duty to educate. The other side (grad student
organizer) argues that not holding class was okay because many undergrads
supported the grad student's efforts. Scattered throughout are references to
Plato/Socrates and some philosophical musings on if grad students are
employees in the since of working for a business (and therefore able to
unionize).

