That’s not really the question… The question is, what do you do with those who say you shouldn’t make your country more vibrant and diverse? Do you really want them starting a separate and effective discussion on how to best destroy the country, or would you prefer to first engage them on this more basic issue?
It’s possible that I misconstrued the meaning of your words; not being a native English speaker myself, this happens on occasion. I was going off of the word “vibrant”, which I understand to mean among other things “vital” and “energetic”. The opposite of that is to make something sickly and weak.
But regardless of any misunderstanding, I would like to see some reference to the main point I was making: Do you want people to think on how best to do the opposite of what you are striving for (making the country less vibrant and diverse, whatever that means), or do you prefer to determine which of you is pursuing a non-productive avenue of investigation?
It’s possible that I misconstrued the meaning of your words; not being a native English speaker myself, this happens on occasion. I was going off of the word “vibrant”, which I understand to mean among other things “vital” and “energetic”. The opposite of that is to make something sickly and weak.
I think you may indeed be missing some connotations: in policy debate on immigration and multiculturalism, what one side might call “a vibrant and diverse neighborhood”, the other might call “a slum filled with hostile foreigners with no inclination to integrate” (see this blog post, for example).
So someone who says that “you shouldn’t make your country more vibrant and diverse” isn’t expressing hostility to vitality and energy, he’s objected to the loaded words and underlying assumptions.
It’s possible that I misconstrued the meaning of your words; not being a native English speaker myself, this happens on occasion. I was going off of the word “vibrant”, which I understand to mean among other things “vital” and “energetic”. The opposite of that is to make something sickly and weak.
I was more objecting to your use of the word “diverse”. And frankly these days “vibrant” has almost no meaning beyond being an applause light.
Even if my opponents try hard to discover “dangerous truths” that would help their side asymmetrically, I still expect them to mostly find truths that help everyone, because most truths are this way.
Also it’s kind of unusual that you want your political opponents to stop looking for correct beliefs because they may accidentally get too many. Most people seem to think the other way around: they feel their political opponents are brainwashed by leaders and would change their values if they had more curiosity and intellectual honesty.
I don’t think “truths” discovered under false assumptions are likely to be, in fact, true. I am not worried about them acquiring dangerous truths; rather, I am worried about people acquiring (and possibly acting on) false beliefs. I remind you that false beliefs may persist as cached thoughts even once the assumption is no longer believed in.
Nor do I want my political opponents to not search for truth; but I would prefer that they (and I) try to contend with each others’ fundamental differences before focusing on how to fully realize their (or my) current position.
I don’t understand your comment. Do you think statements like “the most efficient way to destroy our country is to do X” don’t qualify as truths because they are “discovered under false assumptions”? It seems to me that such statements can be true and very useful to know even if you don’t want to destroy the country, hence my original proposal. Maybe you’re using a nonstandard meaning of “truth” and “assumption”?
That’s not really the question… The question is, what do you do with those who say you shouldn’t make your country more vibrant and diverse? Do you really want them starting a separate and effective discussion on how to best destroy the country, or would you prefer to first engage them on this more basic issue?
Downvoted for conflating “not wanting to make your country more vibrant and diverse”, and “wanting to destroy the country”.
It’s possible that I misconstrued the meaning of your words; not being a native English speaker myself, this happens on occasion. I was going off of the word “vibrant”, which I understand to mean among other things “vital” and “energetic”. The opposite of that is to make something sickly and weak.
But regardless of any misunderstanding, I would like to see some reference to the main point I was making: Do you want people to think on how best to do the opposite of what you are striving for (making the country less vibrant and diverse, whatever that means), or do you prefer to determine which of you is pursuing a non-productive avenue of investigation?
I think you may indeed be missing some connotations: in policy debate on immigration and multiculturalism, what one side might call “a vibrant and diverse neighborhood”, the other might call “a slum filled with hostile foreigners with no inclination to integrate” (see this blog post, for example).
So someone who says that “you shouldn’t make your country more vibrant and diverse” isn’t expressing hostility to vitality and energy, he’s objected to the loaded words and underlying assumptions.
I was more objecting to your use of the word “diverse”. And frankly these days “vibrant” has almost no meaning beyond being an applause light.
Even if my opponents try hard to discover “dangerous truths” that would help their side asymmetrically, I still expect them to mostly find truths that help everyone, because most truths are this way.
Also it’s kind of unusual that you want your political opponents to stop looking for correct beliefs because they may accidentally get too many. Most people seem to think the other way around: they feel their political opponents are brainwashed by leaders and would change their values if they had more curiosity and intellectual honesty.
You are attributing to me things I did not say.
I don’t think “truths” discovered under false assumptions are likely to be, in fact, true. I am not worried about them acquiring dangerous truths; rather, I am worried about people acquiring (and possibly acting on) false beliefs. I remind you that false beliefs may persist as cached thoughts even once the assumption is no longer believed in.
Nor do I want my political opponents to not search for truth; but I would prefer that they (and I) try to contend with each others’ fundamental differences before focusing on how to fully realize their (or my) current position.
I don’t understand your comment. Do you think statements like “the most efficient way to destroy our country is to do X” don’t qualify as truths because they are “discovered under false assumptions”? It seems to me that such statements can be true and very useful to know even if you don’t want to destroy the country, hence my original proposal. Maybe you’re using a nonstandard meaning of “truth” and “assumption”?