Quote Originally Posted by Monty92 View Post
Exactly. But with the right format, the credibility of these claims can be effectively interrogated and exposed. Someone who insists, for example, that there is no objective reality and the validity of the 'lived experience' should always be given primacy can easily coast through your average 2-hour debate in which the moderator's main job is to ensure the panel doesn't get stuck on specific points of disagreement and to keep things flowing...

But actually it is that final demand that ruins such debates.

Take the first podcast between Sam Harris and Peterson. They were intending to discuss many issues but from the very outset got stuck on their respective beliefs on the right definition of the word 'truth'. They ended up discussing this single point for three hours!!!

It was of course faintly ridiculous, but sometimes that's what you need...
Problem is that any dialogue now is retrospectively spun into something it never was to suit whatever agenda people want. Look at the Cathy Newman/Peterson thing. A rational conversation in which he examines ideas rationally and rightly refused to be tarred with ideas or opinions he's never held or espoused (leading to her receiving some legitimate ridicule) becomes 'Evil alt-right trolls attack female presenter'. Everything is now weaponised in order to suit an agenda and further polarise opinion. Debate and discussion therefore become redundant and nobody changes anybody's mind.

There's nothing else for it. We're just going to have to start shooting these people.