5 Comments

Your commitment to understanding others and steel manning their arguments is inspiring. I sometimes split hairs too much by trying to define with family what "success" or "well being" means. In these discussions, many people use circular definitions, or engage in logical fallacies, which I tend to point out, which often has a negative impact on my interactions. lol. Your strategy seems much more likely to produce a productive conversation. I hope I can channel your openness as I interact with my very conservative family during the holidays this year. Thanks for writing this!

Expand full comment

The difference is that Nathan only tries to understand. You try to change their behavior–primarily voting behavior, I assume. Of course, convincing people is harder than understanding their world view.

Expand full comment

How does the material blessing thing work? Are evangelicals supposed to enjoy them like Scrooge McDuck ..or share them? If they are supposed to share them, why the hostility to immigration.

Expand full comment

I don't know.

I think there is a notion of order here. And of having a "christian" country. But I don't know.

Expand full comment

Super interesting chain of arguments. Not sure it's wrong too.

My answer, assuming the argument chain is correct, is instead:

- Yes, but to the extent God doesn't exist, the solution of believing in a falsehood doesn't compel me, even if it had some positive benefits. Just push through.

- But on the other hand, Labor believes in its own falsehoods, so not sure where that leaves me.

- The political system is such that I can't see how an individual could start a coalition that will turn things around. Maybe Reform would, though.

Expand full comment