Or, to rephrase that slightly: why is it so hard for other people not to agree with my view of the world? That's the essence of being PC. Recognise that I know best.
Not agreeing with your world view does not make people "an unholy mixture of racists, anti-democratic groups, anti-vaxxers and lots more". You just show your ignorance and the lack of accepting a difference in opinion.
On the contrary, if everyone can see your opinion, then all the people who disagree have the opportunity to say so. There's always someone in the world who disagrees. Add to that the folks who say things they don't believe for fun, and the ones who are paid by businesses and governments to spread propaganda, and you have a real mess.
There's also the corollary for educated, intelligent people, "I just assume that people who disagree with me aren't really disagreeing with me, they're merely ill-informed."
I think the problem is when the speaker gets to be the sole determinant of sufficient empathy and listening. It leaves no room for disagreement.
>If you truly empathize with me and understood my position, surely you would agree with me. If you disagree, then you have not listened with sufficient empathy.
Sure, it doesn't mean they're infallible. But it very well could mean they are just brighter than I am, potentially by a long shot.
> Especially in a society where the most accomplished are often simply the most ruthless
This is a popular take at the moment, and probably somewhat true, but there really are people out there who are just better at things than I am. For whatever reason, they have demonstrated much greater capabilities than I have. And I feel like I should avoid writing off their opinions simply because they don't line up with what I think is popular consensus.
Of course I shouldn't buy into some point of view just because someone influential thinks it. But I can hold space in my head for keeping track of what the various schools of thought are around a topic, and not picking a winner until I have to.
"The best insight here is that self-worth and fear of shaming are the main motivators for not agreeing."
This is often true, but it is not always true. One person forms opinions on topic X based on reason and evidence, another based on ideology. It is only the latter who feels threatened by new facts or arguments, precisely because his rational foundation is shaky.
Thus there seems to be a fallacy - I'm not clear whether it is from the linked writer or the researchers he refers to - of assuming in the first place that the opinions being talked about are necessarily based on emotion more than on reason and facts.
Put another way, it's rather presumptuous to say, in essence, this new argument of mine is so strong that if others reject it, it must be due to their irrational ideology rather than the merits.
Edit: I don't mean to disparage the idea of making one's statements more diplomatically rather than contentiously - that is certainly a good thing, but that is a separate issue from presuming the reasons for people's views prior to finding out the actual reasons.
Perhaps you can explain something to me that I have found mysterious for years - how does one develop the mindset where they cannot conceive that their opinions on things are not universal? Three separate times in your screed you insinuate that people who like what you do not are not thinking. It's incredibly arrogant.
reply