[kwlug-disc] Non-tech reference, but may be useful by tech co.

[Chris Frey]

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 01:09:44PM -0500, Mikalai Birukou via kwlug-disc wrote:
> Id est extremism is how one's own views are approached, and how
> they are expressed.

...

> We can discuss anything, when we don't turn to extreme expression+attitude.

...

> Second note, all whatever-deniers may simply be lost because of some of
> points in Laird's list. Like Corry says that inside vaccine denier you may
> find someone with relative that was over-prescribed opioids.

...

> P.S. Will I denounce Dawkin's "militant atheism"?

These 4 examples are, in my opinion, what is wrong with conversation today.

	1) Starting off with something reasonable, like avoiding emotion
		in speech and communication, but then letting that idea go
		in favour of:

	2) Holding the cognitive dissonance that you can both discuss
		anything but that some topics (or perhaps methods)
		are too extreme, which leads to:

	3) Using prejudicial language to pre-categorize your opponent
		as a "denier" or "anti-something", instead of listening
		to their points of view, which leads to:

	4) The idea that you can be tainted with bad ideas, and we all
		must pre-emptively denounce the bad ones in order
		to not become infected.

With logic like this, we won't have honest discussion on anything, and
we can kiss our culture goodbye.

I find the term "extremist" completely unhelpful.  It tells you nothing
but that they are a potential enemy (or depending on your position,
a potential ally).  Therefore, the article is doing exactly what it
is preaching against.  Quoting:

	2. NAME-CALLING AND LABELING.

	Extremists are quick to resort to epithets....

In some ways that article reads like a list of argument fallacies. :-)
I took that class in college, and it was useful.  Studying logic and
logical fallacies is likely more useful than framing things
in terms of characteristics of "extremists".

- Chris