Par good faith communication
Šodien uzdūros rakstam, kuru novēlētu izlasīt katram cibiņam, kas domā vai raksta par politiku: The Endgames of bad communication.

Tur ir gan ļoti vērtīgs praktisks dažādu taktiku/attieksmju uzskaitījums (ko nozīmē good-faith komunikācija, un kā izskatās bad-faith argumenti). Šo sarakstu ir interesanti attiecināt gan uz oponentu komunikāciju (gan ieraudzīt, gan apzīmēt šīs lietas ir vērtīgi), gan uz savu (es, piemēram, ieraudzīju lietas, ko pats daru gluži neapzināti, kaut arī vienmēr cenšos diskutēt godīgi).

Papildus arī globālāki novērojumi par šīsdienas informatīvo klimatu, un tā sekām kopumā:

Decades of culture war have degraded civic discourse, putting many open societies in a tailspin of bad faith public communications. (..) History tells us that the endgames of society-wide communication breakdowns are catastrophic. When open communication cannot be used to resolve conflict and coordinate behavior, societies are driven towards chaos, war, oppression, and authoritarianism.
(..)
Calls for good faith communication are understood at best as naive requests to calm the outrage and conflict that now runs rife in political discourse. Both ends of the political spectrum (the far left and the far right) express this view. Both sides believe that “the other side” simply can’t be trusted and therefore cannot be engaged in good faith.
(..)
This stance of assuming the undesirability (and sometimes impossibility) of good faith communication sets off a spiral of mutual dismissal, distrust, and villainization. The only outcome of this dynamic is escalating cultural conflict and, eventually, physical violence.
(..)
Meanwhile some parties actively seek to benefit from this dynamic, such as social media companies that leverage conflict for attention capture.[5] The culture war, like most wars, is a source of profit, and is therefore perpetuated despite the dangers.
(..)
Given well-documented advances in the field of information warfare, there should be no illusion: today’s culture war cannot be won by any side. Mutually assured destruction is now the name of the wargame.[6] The saturation of bad faith communication throughout culture is steadily increasing, like a kind of dangerous background radiation emitted from scientifically engineered memetic weaponry. Public political discourse is quickly becoming a toxic warzone, leaching externalities into families, friendships, and identity structures.
(..)
Without a change in the current trends, authorities are increasingly likely to use force to secure ongoing social coordination. This includes increasingly overt censorship and the ideologically motivated disenfranchisement of dissidents.

P.S. Jā, un tāpēc es joprojām skumstu pēc aborigens diskusiju klubiņa. Kaut kā viņas prasme uzdot polarizējošus jautājumus neitrāli, un iesaistīt abas puses atklātā diskusijā bija unikāla (vismaz cibā).