It seems like our society has been captured by an obsession with moral/philosophical relativism and everything being a social construct to be ignored at best and stamped out at worst while at the same time being held hostage by a refusal to consider that what was widely considered true in the past isn’t magically true today. Something isn’t true by virtue of being old. We can’t seem to have basic (let alone successful) discussions with each other because our definitions of certain concepts are often so different. You’ve likely seen this on this site, in real life and anywhere else political discussions are had. Below are some examples of what I mean:
1: “I don’t think a man can be a woman.”
“A man can be a woman because man and woman are constructs according to my definition.”
2: “I don’t think you’re meaningfully free if you can buy 50 flavors of ice cream but lose your healthcare and housing if you get fired.”
“Not according to my definition of freedom.”
3: “It’s racist to discriminate against white people.”
“Not according to my definition of racism.”
4: “I don’t think we can have a democracy if a handful of billionaires have so much power.”
“Not according to my definition of democracy.”
And so on.
How do you respond to these fundamental disconnects that seem to divide our society and prevent meaningful discourse and problem solving in so many ways?
These people weren’t going to come to any kind of speedy accord with or without consensus on the meaning of the terms being used.
I usually welcome someone else’s awareness that we aren’t using the same word the same way. Most people I argue with believe there’s only one right definition of a word and that I’m just wrong.
Debating via definitions is inherently a useless and exhausting activity, unless you’re debating the definition of a word.
If I’m talking about how the actions of humans affect the lives of other humans, there’s nothing less important than what you think a particular arrangement of 7 letters signifies. I get that those letters mean something specific to you, but can we get back to discussing how people are thrown on the street and denied healthcare because their billionaire business owner is replacing them with AI?
I don’t because even the dumbest can be incredibly “loud” because of social media, and it’s like being one voice lost in a stadium full of voices. If civilization truly suffers an apocalyptic event, we will get back to some basic truisms.
If you screw over the planet you do pay dearly.
If you don’t find food and clean water, you will die.
If you can’t protect the little you have, it will be taken from you.
Etc.
Having a shared understanding of definitions is important for productive discourse, but I don’t know how we can get there when we don’t even have a shared understanding of facts.
“Basic biology says there are only two genders.” Yes, and more advanced biology paints a picture of a broad spectrum of sex and gender characteristics.
“American is the land of equal opportunity.” No, here’s a mountain of data that shows that socio-economic mobility has been decreasing for decades.
I have to have a level of shared understanding with the other person or we will get nowhere. For example I cannot talk about transgender issues with someone who doesn’t understand the difference between sex and gender. It would be like trying to talk about car parts with someone who thinks that a car and a semi-truck are basically the same thing.
I mostly do not respond or engage. Occasionally I will here on the SDMB (though those times are increasingly rare), and very occasionally with one of a small number of friends who are willing to explore concepts and ideas without becoming immediately defensive.
Most people are not interested in learning, growing, or challenging their assumptions. Most people do not have a grasp of what reliable evidence looks like. Most people are violently dismissive of evidence that challenges their assumptions or “lived experience”. Most people do not understand why a particular idea or position even matters to them in the first place. Most people pursue rhetorical victory instead of mutual understanding.
Honestly, if you are in a debate about whether or not something fits the definition of X, Y, or Z, you are probably not talking about anything important.
The “fundamental disconnects” in the OP are misidentified. If you’re arguing about whether an action is racist instead of whether it is appropriate, you’re never going to come to understanding (not agreement, but understanding). These sorts of things are distractions. It’s ok, perhaps unavoidable, for others to have diverse and varyingly strict definitions of concepts. It’s our responsibility to figure out the at-the-bone feelings and ideas of our fellow humans and engage there.
Recently I’ve been struggling to have meaningful conversations about history because Americans do not seem to know about things that happened in their lifetime, let alone things from the past.
This. I also tend to see “history” being used by those on the right to apply to things that aren’t about history, but about honoring people. In other words, the whole, “you’re erasing history by renaming that building, removing that statue, etc.”. No, that’s not erasing history, that’s removing an honor that had been previously bestowed to an individual that doesn’t deserve to be honored. Learning history means learning about something / someone , not honoring something / someone. The latter is about value judgments, not learning.
It all depends on whether the person is in good faith or not. If there is a good-faith disagreement, I’m willing to talk for as long as need be. If the person, however, is just using definition-nitpicking as a way of purposely blocking or muddying up a discussion, then there’s no point.
I think at some point you just have to agree to disagree in a cordial and friendly manner. There are definitely a few viewpoints around here that I don’t agree with (mostly the far left/progressive/socialist ones), and I’m not going to convince anyone, and they’re not going to convince me.
You can discuss whether something is right or wrong without resolving whether it meets the definition of racism. People who use the definition of racism I was taught in college, can still have an honest discussion about conduct that discriminates against white people.
I don’t think these things are wrong, they are just a different layer of debate.
If you define female as AFAB, then you will reject trans women as women. Or if you feel gender roles are ordained by an all powerful, unquestioned deity then you will feel that people don’t have the right to change their gender.
As far as points 2 and 4, for a lot of people ‘freedom’ is just code for an authoritarian ethnostate with contempt for the marginalized. To them, people losing their healthcare w/o protections or a plutocracy are not at odds with their version of freedom and democracy. What does upend it is when marginalized groups grow in number and power. To them, freedom means freedom to not have to worry about losing their privileges and ‘their’ society destabilizing due to out-groups growing in number and power.
As far as point 3, it depends on how you define racism. If you assume white people hold the power, and racism can only be applied from the powerful against the powerless, than POC being racist against white people doesn’t count. I’ve seen debates on misogyny vs misandry about this too where people feel misandry doesn’t exist because we live in a patriarchy, and women have less power.
The real answer is accepting that people’s definitions of terms are different. What freedom means for a leftist is different from what freedom means for someone on the far right.
I’m not saying you have to agree with everyone’s definitions, but people do have different definitions and priorities within their cognitive frameworks of the world.
This is fine for casual conversations, but this does have an impact on how people live as our ideologies shape laws, policies, and how we interact with one another. i.e. We can only agree to disagree for so long, but eventually it’s going to come to a head. I don’t mean to imply you must or even should continue to engage when it’s obviously a fruitless endeavor, I certainly don’t, but at some point we can’t just continue to disagree cordially.
Debating a topic is an ineffective and inefficient way to communicate. Debate is about convincing the audience, not the other person. If there isn’t an audience, then there’s really no point to it.
I think we focus too much on persuasive speech, like debate, when our default should be listening to someone’s thoughts, asking questions, and then doing the reverse for them.