Reply #38: Why skeptics and true-believers?

[anaxarchos]

Why not appeasers and freedom-fighters? How about the gutless and the alienated? Turtle doves and owls? Republicans and Democrats? The silent majority and the rejectionists? Methinks the message is in the "framing"...

More, lemme get this straight... the skeptics are those who think that wide spread fraud is "inconceivable", etc. etc... Do I get that right?

As for polemics, polemics are the natural language of politics going back to the Greeks. You can certainly retire to the woods to try to "fix" that but "they" will most certainly steal your vote (and probably your social security) while you are gone.

As for civility, civilized discussion, the norms of civil society, etc.... they are predicated on a degree of agreement and common purpose. The citizens of Athens were certainly civil to each other but somewhat less than that to the other 31/32nds of the population who were slaves and other non-status persons...

To butcher Rousseau, the first man who enclosed a piece of land previously held in common by all, declared loudly "this land is mine", and found those stupid enough to believe him... that man was the true founder of civil society.

His descendants invented "civility"...


Let me try a different explanation: the debate gets heated because the issues matter. Not only isn't it a "problem", it's part of the solution.