  > it's important to note the difference or you will always be arguing against something other than their claim.

I think this is critical insight and applies to a lot of topics. I think it is true for pretty much every heated topic.

The mistake we often make is that we believe that the other side is not optimizing correctly. Instead, it is often that they are optimizing but under differing constraints. If we don't pay attention to these differing constraints we'll just end up with infuriating arguments as it will ,,sound like'' we're talking about the same thing, but actually aren't. It's one of the major difficulties of communication: we have to make a lot of assumptions to interpret the other person.

Importantly, there's no way to convince the other person that they're wrong unless you are able to understand their model. It's easy to assume you do, but if your model boils down to "they're dumb" or "they're evil" then all you can do is fight. You have to understand your enemy and all that...[0]

[0] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/17976-if-you-know-the-enemy...

▲ stevenAthompson 7 days ago | parent [-]

> they are optimizing but under differing constraints

Most often this doesn't happen because one side fails to understand the other, it happens because one side is dishonest about their motivations or goals.

In this case, the censors would like you to believe that they think pornography is harmful. The reality is that they're religious zealots who feel the need to prevent other people from making their own choices about something their religious leaders have told them is evil. They can't admit their real goal though, or people will realize it's just westernized Sharia law and stop taking them seriously.

▲ godelski 6 days ago | parent [-]

IME it doesn't help to villainize the other side, it only escalates things. You're right that there are bad actors, but I don't think this is accurate for the majority of people. You need to differentiate the people leading a group from the people within a group. Leaders may be highly manipulative bad actors, but that doesn't mean that the people that they duped are.

It may not be good logic, or even self-consistent, but everyone is always using some logic. I'm saying "find it if you want to convince them." Very few people see themselves as evil, or more accurately intentionally choosing evil. And I say this as someone who was once a member of a religion that has its own state. You're not going to pull people out of that by acting like they're evil. They're trying very hard to be good, just misguided.

There's an saying that I believe was popularized during the Cold War. I think you should consider it.

  The difference between you and me is smaller than the difference between us and our respective leaders.

▲ stevenAthompson 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

I agree with most of what you said, and it was well said.

However, I disagree in two ways.

Firstly, while villainizing them is unhelpful convincing them is utterly impossible when religion is involved. It doesn't matter if we learn to understand their perspective, especially as logic/reason often doesn't apply and they aren't being honest about their goals and motivations.

I think the best anyone can hope for in such cases is for all parties to agree that we all have belief structures, and that we don't get to force those beliefs on others via the law. IE - "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." It's the only rational basis for a society in which different belief systems coexist. The United States used to understand this, but we seem to have forgotten.

Secondly, I do agree that it might be easier to reason with folks the further you get from the top of the ladder. The "true believers" who fly airplanes into buildings or who want to outlaw eating candy because it might lead to smiling on a Sunday didn't start down that path last week.

The issue with the bottom up approach is that the folks on the bottom seldom have any real power, and for good reason. If pawns were allowed to move backwards they would kill their kings.

▲ godelski 5 days ago | parent [-]

  > utterly impossible when religion is involved

If that were true, I wouldn't be where I am and we'd be having a very different conversation. I can tell you it wasn't impossible for me

	▲	stevenAthompson 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I was going to argue that you seem like a bit of a rare creature, but I suppose you would know better than I. I didn't bring it up because I didn't want it to sound like a personal attack or something. Do YOU feel that it's common for folks to change their minds about such deeply held beliefs? I've met a few over the years that I know of. Maybe there are more, and I just don't realize it.

▲ cindyllm 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]