I don't think consensus needs to be unanimously affirmative in order to make progress. Even dissent can be a form of consensus, in that everyone in this group acknowledges the proposed course of action, and have formed their positions relative to it.
So you're saying that we need consensus to do things now? My sides are splitting.
Can you name a thing that you think we have "consensus" about?
edit: and wait... "easier to find consensus"! I admit you lost me there. We just don't live in the same world. Do we have consensus for the policies we have now? So what is the justification for favoring them?
It doesn't make sense to me that there should be consensus. People have diverse opinions and values, and these topics are highly situational and subjective rather than neatly, objectively, universally right or wrong.
Yes, but that cannot be called a consensus. I’d claim that just means there is too much uncertainty to make a determination. (And less anyone misunderstands, consensus is not synonymous with unanimous)
The point is that consensus was one thing for decades and then it was later overturned. But if "the platform" backs the consensus then you don't get opinions that challenge status quo in the first place. I don't want to live in a society like that. Might as well be in China.
The problem is that the previous consensus was created by corporate centralized media, and in many ways was actually against the interests of most people who accepted it. Now that corporate consensus has fallen apart, so we've got two tribes each focused on the specific ways they were screwed over, with each ascribing the previous state of affairs to the other tribe. In a vacuum their differences could certainly be worked out to support a consensus. But given how well ragebait sensationalism seems to work, and the popularity of feel-good (well, feel-something at least) authoritarian demagogues like Trump, I don't see much hope.
The real problem is that there is a tyranny of sorts involved, whether by the majority or the minority is not really all that important. Consensus building should be the norm, not to ram your view down other people's throats because you can.
Yeah, that's a good point and I see where you're coming from. But generally when I hear the argument about consensus, it seems to end with nothing other than an implication of "and therefore they're obviously wrong, simply because of the current consensus".
Indeed. And while we can confidently agree with an outcome and believe evidence as we please, it is dangerous when we decide that consensus means we should no longer consider other opinions and then worse, actively shut them down to prevent speaking.
For instance we can disagree with and admonish others' views without silencing and removal through the 'disinformation' label. worrying times seeing this grow.
reply