The fact that you are opposed with straw-manning and tribal shaming doesn’t imply that you are engaging in truth seeking, as you seem to suggest.
Truth seeking is not done by exposing an opinion, it’s done by confronting with people who disagree but can explain why, and you both engage in exploring your priors, collecting and evaluating evidence, etc. It is to be expected that when you send your opinion in the wild, you will be met with both angry blind reactions and calm considered ones. Hopefully you will engage with the interesting ones and ignore the rest.
What I see in your post is that you don’t want any negative reaction when you expose an unpopular opinion, because it would be truth-seeking to expose an unpopular opinion without any hidden agenda. But that is not enough: is how you respond to argumentative critics that qualify you as truth seeker. In an ideal world all kind of discussions would be of the rational kind, but there’s a reason rationality must be made up of walled gardens.
That’s why I reject your thesis: those three examples were not exemplifying paragon rational behavior, and it is not actively harmful to discuss rationally of politics, unless you have a very fragile online reputation.
The fact that you are opposed with straw-manning and tribal shaming doesn’t imply that you are engaging in truth seeking, as you seem to suggest.
Truth seeking is not done by exposing an opinion, it’s done by confronting with people who disagree but can explain why, and you both engage in exploring your priors, collecting and evaluating evidence, etc.
It is to be expected that when you send your opinion in the wild, you will be met with both angry blind reactions and calm considered ones. Hopefully you will engage with the interesting ones and ignore the rest.
What I see in your post is that you don’t want any negative reaction when you expose an unpopular opinion, because it would be truth-seeking to expose an unpopular opinion without any hidden agenda. But that is not enough: is how you respond to argumentative critics that qualify you as truth seeker.
In an ideal world all kind of discussions would be of the rational kind, but there’s a reason rationality must be made up of walled gardens.
That’s why I reject your thesis: those three examples were not exemplifying paragon rational behavior, and it is not actively harmful to discuss rationally of politics, unless you have a very fragile online reputation.