Indeed.
The trouble in the US is that the centre is in between fact and fantasy.
There's no conversation to be had until the right stops working backwards: that's to say, it works out what it wants to believe (fantasy), then looks for any facts it can to support the theory, and tries to undermine by any means information it finds inconvenient. If there are dissonant facts, they don't reject their theories. They attack the messenger. And if necessary they disappear and return later as if time cured the errors.
Until they do real time falsification of their own hypotheses sincerely, there's no way to talk to them.
In this space, the point is to look at the factscape and try to build theories that conform with it. If a theory fails, accept it, learn the lesson and move along to the next idea.
Unless you figure why people like Hannity and Limbaugh distribute their bizarre theories, and that you can't rely upon them, then you can't expect to have conversations with people who see what their game is. It's a shame. But that's why I'm not interested in arguing across the centre line of US politics.
I am happy to argue with the sort of Republicans there used to be, who are to my right but whose theories are based in science or reasonable choices; and also to argue with identity politics liberals and socialists to my left. But really, I'm not interested in arguing with people whose trick is always to try to undermine actual evidence, or actual people, so as to indulge their fantasies. Life's too short.
Let them congregate with one another. The virus will be right there with them. And Darwin too.
| 