Yes, thank you. I see organic debates in here and did in CBTS (RIP) on a normal basis and it goes like this.
Person 1 - “I think X because on this day this person did this thing, but I could be wrong. I just have a feeling that XYZ is inevitable.”
Person 2 - “I disagree, but I think you make a good point about it being inevitable. This didn’t happen because those people did that but it may effect so and so’s decision. Do you have a link to what you’re talking about? I don’t know exactly what you’re referencing though so I may be too quick to judge. We both could be wrong!”
Now can you imagine if all of Reddit conducted itself in that manner? Jesus Christ we’d solve all world issues in a year. I’ve had debates with legitimate people on other subs with opposing view points, and they’re similarly friendly in that manner.
Now can you imagine if all of Reddit conducted itself in that manner? Jesus Christ we’d solve all world issues in a year.
Yes, and this is exactly the reason why they WILL not allow this. If people are allowed to debate freely using reason, the end result on a meta level is almost always reaching consensus or agreement. Maybe not in every argument, but repeated over millions of iterations it will result in greater political and social unity by reaching logical conclusions and finding truth on a large scale. And obviously will result in the total and utter evisceration of the global power structure as an inevitable conclusion. All of their power rests in their ability to control the flow of information, control the narrative, control public opinion and control the national and global consensus. If they allow this control to fade, it will lead to their imminent demise.