This is an excellent breakdown of the issue, but what's not clear is that one side is using facts and scientific basis for their opinions, and the other is being whipped up with propaganda that is not. While reasonable people on both sides might sit down and hash examples like this out, it has been impossible for most people to do so in their daily lives or on Facebook. If one person is basing their solutions for crime on previous experiments and historical facts about policing and drug abuse and the other believes that African American welfare queens are stealing most of the taxpayers money for hair weaves (something actually said on Fox) we are still way too far apart to find common ground.
The discussion actually has to start with both people understanding what the other really believes. Frequently, in these discussions, most peoples’ understanding of the opposing position only goes as far as a straw man perspective they have been given by their own side.
I think you are correct about that to a certain extent particularly regarding certain issues and perhaps more specifically the examples given here. Whether or not either side is accurate in their representations, however, is not directly related to the problem itself, nor does it negate the reality of the problem.
This is an excellent breakdown of the issue, but what's not clear is that one side is using facts and scientific basis for their opinions, and the other is being whipped up with propaganda that is not. While reasonable people on both sides might sit down and hash examples like this out, it has been impossible for most people to do so in their daily lives or on Facebook. If one person is basing their solutions for crime on previous experiments and historical facts about policing and drug abuse and the other believes that African American welfare queens are stealing most of the taxpayers money for hair weaves (something actually said on Fox) we are still way too far apart to find common ground.
The discussion actually has to start with both people understanding what the other really believes. Frequently, in these discussions, most peoples’ understanding of the opposing position only goes as far as a straw man perspective they have been given by their own side.
I think you are correct about that to a certain extent particularly regarding certain issues and perhaps more specifically the examples given here. Whether or not either side is accurate in their representations, however, is not directly related to the problem itself, nor does it negate the reality of the problem.
You don't work with the people I do.