Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

What conditions are necessary for people to discuss social problems with the aim of seeking consensus? (Instead of dueling verbal assaults on warring cable "news")

People need to learn to mind their own business. Unfortunately, everyone thinks they are right so they insist on everyone else thinking like them. There will never be consensus-that’s the key. I also think that 24 Hr news cycles keep people stressed and inflamed.

There shouldn't exist consensus. Never.

My humble opinion is to make the duelers switch sides, then debate each other.

Is anybody else just tired of it all and debate seems pointless? You already know what is going to be said and it is all just a zero-sum game with no positive externalities.

People don't need consensus, however exploratory conversation can allow opinions to be understood without being accepted. I think people need to be genuinely open-minded to have conversations like that. they have to believe they might not know everything, and the person they are talking to might know something they don't. Unfortunately, social media and scroll-thru information, among other things, closes our minds more, I feel.

There is a theory and movement called deliberative democracy. The normative theory describes a setting in which participants bring their views on a subject of mutual concern not to compete with others' views, but to provide their views for consideration with the goal of consensus. All voices are heard and all participants have equal voice. There are situations that have implemented this approach to address local or regional problems in a number of countries with trained facilitators. Pertinent data and reports are gathered to prepare for the deliberations. The goal is consensus but if that cannot be reached then compromise is sought. It is based on Jurgen Habermas's discourse theory.

I’ve research this idea and I would never support it as it’s not a design that solves social problems. The person here in Canada told me you have to have allot of accomplishments to have an opinion. If they say words like this while selling a flawed idea trust it only gets worse. Democracy is always mob rules and no problems get solved. It is possible to create a society wher problems get solved with a win/win results. To be a true win/win there is no compromise and both sides feel they win a lottery when their problem gets solved. I’m a programmer and studied our systems and researched solutions. It’s more than possible to have a much better social structure than mob rules democracy. My opinion could be wrong.

This is a big subject. My concern is the politics of "me-isms" that are perpetuated and exponentially amplified by warring cable "news" fiefdoms and the limitless chats podcasts and whatever else on the internet. It seems to me that there is no effort to rationally discuss and understand the particular problems of individuals in their everyday lives. Maybe the nature of the mass media and their agendas, which are inextricably tied to market share, would at least be a way for people to be heard and have their allegiances recognized--but then January 6 happened. I am 66 years old. I remember Viet Nam and the civil rights era. I remember the assassinations of Dr King and Bobby Kennedy and the1967 race riot/rebellion in Detroit. I remember watching Watergate every day with a young Joe Biden on the committee. I never thought anything like January 6 could happen in this country. I don't know if politicians and judges truly recognize how close it came to murder of legislators. Of course, six people died as a result of the assault and its aftermath. But I think that the situation right now would be different if a senator or congress member would have been killed. So why should it matter that it didn't occur? I'm afraid that it's too easy for people, including those very same elected officials and appointed judges, to put it behind them because there were no legislators casualities. So the way that the mass media foment anger and resentment and ignorance isn't helpful or safe. The concept of deliberative democracy that I only touched upon in my last contribution is simply a method for people to speak, be heard, listen, and pursue mutual understanding with the goal of consensus. There are many examples of how this has been helpful in many countries including the US. If you go on Google scholar and search deliberative democracy you will see hundreds of empirical case studies of actual such deliberations--how they are designed, facilitated, and carried out-- as well as articles that describe various deliberative models. Many of these studies and articles can be downloaded as pdfs for free. While they are mainly about issues affecting the public in a particular local region, that doesn't mean the principles can't be applied on a larger scale. I don't believe consensus on a national scale is realistic. the deliberative practice of actively listening to the other's pressing personal concerns about daily living with sincere respect as equals, regardless of economic status or education or race or gender or ethnicity, is surely better than what we have now.