>

Awarding a !delta for highlighting how, as a sense check, ideas that seem patently absurd probably shouldn't need understanding well to dismiss. I have a slight caveat that I've put in the edit of my OP, but this definitely challenged me enough to move my opinion slightly.
/u/mxlp (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

I like this topic. I generally agree with what you are saying and for reasons you mention plus it's helped me discover the errors of my own thinking. There are even books about conversation skills that advise listening to the other person and repeating what you think you've heard so the other person can let you know if you have a correct understanding.
My only arguments:
- Time. There are situations when someone must act quickly and delaying action with further discussion could be costly or catastrophic. In those situations a person has to go with the information they have and deal with the consequences. The hope, of course, is that the person isn't too far off in their judgement. A good example of this is one person deciding whether to use lethal force on another person.
- For some people, certain opinions are part of their identity. Exposing these opinions to scrutiny is like exposing their identity to scrutiny. In this situation, the person may view a rational discussion of the closely-held opinion as, "academic" or "theoretical," or even as a personal attack. I think a person in this situation has to already be open to change before they can entertain others' arguments. >

Agreed that in areas of self-preservation you need to go with your gut. In much the same way that if you feel that you should cross the street at night when coming up to a group of young people who happen to be black, it might be best to re-assess your possible prejudices in the safety of your home than discover that your gut was right and there were other elements of their behaviour that your subconsciously picked up on.
The identity one is a huge point, and that's been the biggest pushback I've had in real life, where people who identify as non-hetro feel personally attacked at the very idea of having to justify their sexual orientation.
This is the biggest area that I could maybe be moved on and I'm still trying to work through it, especially trying to think of counter examples where we would expect people to challenge their identity.
Definitely got me thinking so will come back later if I change my mind on this. >

Identity is a tricky one. I think many people do end up questioning their identity and trying to justify it. It is often seen when people change religions or the like. So it does happen, and it can be done. That said, I also see the issue with "needing to justify" any part of your identity. I tend to trend deontological on this one (If I'm remembering this correctly) - is it something that anyone would have to potentially justify? Like asking you to justify your gender doesn't make much sense for the normative, so it doesn't make much sense for the alternative. Other things may be in poor taste, but don't seem inherently as offensive to me - i.e. tatoos or obvious hair die. Especially if everyone is willing to accept a very superficial answer like "I felt like blue hair yesterday, so I died my hair". 
I think there are certainly some things you could strongly ask for in identity justification also - maybe choosing to be a cop, or join the military. Or why you are an investment banker. 
And then there's the to my mind unjustifiable - KKK member, serial murderer, etc. But maybe making someone actually think about why they're a member of a certain group could be useful. >

Sometimes the full "position" of people on one side is very scattered.
I think this is common for people holding contrarian views.  If you ask a dozen flat earthers for information about antartica and the artic circle, you'll get varying answers.  Often, there isn't a consensus among the contrarians of their alternative theory, just agreement that the more common opinion is wrong.
In these situations, trying to debunk each of the contrarians' views is playing whack-a-mole.  Debunk one idea, and they'll just drop it and pick up another they've heard.  you can't hit them all.
the truth often gets views to converge because the proof is there for experts demonstrate.  False ideas sometimes don't.  So, understanding the multitude of false ideas to an extent that you could represent them might be a lot harder than just understanding the strong evidence behind the truth. >

Actually, you can hit them all, of course you can. But they don't give a shit. These people don't care about reason. You may as well try and convince a creationist that evolution is a thing. You're wasting your time. >

If your only requirement is being able to briefly explain what the opposing viewpoint is, are you really arguing that we need to understand the opposing view, or just that we need to be aware of it? Like for the homophobia example, is it enough for me to know that someone is homophobic because of their religion? Would it be enough to say "some people believe the Earth is flat because all the evidence of a round earth are lies made up by the government"? 
And for that matter, what if I'm not aware of the opposing view? Say I have a strong belief that other humans have minds, and I've never come across anyone saying they didn't believe that. Is that unreasonable, in your view? Do I need to research every belief I hold to see whether anyone disagrees before it's acceptable for me to have a strong opinion? >

On your first question, I think that would be an improvement on the current situation, so as there's admittedly ambiguity here I would err on the side of saying yes, that's sufficient. That being said ideally people would have a slightly more detailed understanding e.g. "you're against gay people because of three key passages in the old testament".
On the second point, there's two elements. I think you should question everything, but I think it's understandable to not realise you've made certain assumptions that you've never been given reason to doubt or question. And secondly I think if you are aware that there *could* be an opposing view, in the days of the internet I think you should at the least do a cursory google or equivalent. >

This grants a significant amount of power - as well as pointless time - to those who have opposing views that have no merit.
E.G. I do not need to be able to explain in a way that would be satisfactory to flat-earthers the framework and idea of their theory.  In an argument about the shape of the earth there position is so thoroughly untenable that wasting time gain sufficient knowledge to satisfy your standard would be an absurd engagement. >

Other people have made this argument. I think you're actually appealing to a more foundational opinion about the trustworthiness of the scientific community (among other things) that makes any conspiracy theory of that scale is untenable. You therefore don't need to address the specifics of the theory.
Or if you haven't done that, then I would argue that you have actually unreasonably dismissed the flat earth theory. >

So...again, you knock someone off of having a reasonably strong idea simply by postulating an alternative.  
(And...your claim as I read it is that current knowledge can't be held in "strong opinion" when counter-knowledge is not deeply understood.  Maybe I'm misreading.) >

I explicitly said that you don't need a deep understanding. And also I feel like my previous reply explains this point. If I have an established opinion that "conspiracies can't be sustained at a large scale for a long time" and I evaluate the counter arguments and settle on my opinion, then it doesn't matter what flavours of conspiracy a flat earther presents, I already have a more generalised position that will always apply so I don't need to assess their detail to have a strong opinion on it. >

Whatever.  Doesn't matter - same problem.  You're granting power to knock you off your knowledge simply by postulating an alternative.  Why would we move from having a strong opinion to not having one based on the simple fact of someone proposing an alternative?  If information is useful, pragmatic, achieves desired results I can and should absolutely continue to act upon my knowledge even if someone poses an alternative idea.  
In an area where "truth" with a capital T is needed it might be worth my time to assess all alternatives, but for most things the noise of alternatives would be absurd to pursue.
I think you believe this sounds like being open to alternatives and a continued pursuit of truth.  That's great, and there is a place for it.  However, if "strong opinion" means something akin to "going to act upon" then the need to act outweighs the probality of improvement in outcome through following all alternatives to the point of sufficient knowledge (whatever your bar is).  You would spend literally all your time on almost a single topic, in a life where you need actionable information innumerable times a day/week/year. >

I don't think you're understanding my point, but I have given somebody a delta for this as it is a bit different than my original position.
I'm saying that if you can form a generalised opinion on the flat earth conspiracy theory, then any variation of that will not need further consideration and can just be ignored/dismissed, but only because you've established that general opinion that still applies. >

The square earth theory is not at all like the flat earth theory.  You just don't understand it.
Are you now less strong in your own ideas about the shape of the earth?  
If I say that your car will 1 in 1,000,000 times turn right when you turn the wheel left are you doing to know not hold a strong opinion about how your car behaves?  Should an insurance company raise rates until they fully understand that idea, and the thousand I can write right here that should knock away confidence in current knowledge?  Simply because I pose it? >

I'm not sure. Do I need to know the ideas fueling flat earth conspiracies before I can strongly believe that the earth is not flat? Or can I trust the volumes of research and science? >

I think you can appeal to established foundational opinions. If you have previously formed an opinion on the trustworthiness of the scientific community and have considered conspiratorial alternatives, that then applies to flat earth. And I genuinely think that's a much better way of forming an opinion on flat earth. >

Im not sure I understand what you mean by this?
What do you mean  "have considered conspiratorial alternatives"?
Do I need to have a strong understanding of Flat Earth, Hollow Earth, Matrix, Tortoise Shell, and Interior Cylinder (or whatever its called) theories before I can form an opinion on the shape of the Earth?
Do I entirely invalidate your belief on the shape of the world everytime I invent a new alternative theory?  Or can we stop at a certain point? >

No, but I don't think I explained myself well. I'm saying that if I form a general opinion on how conspiracies are impossible to sustain at a large scale for a long time, and I consider both sides of that general argument before holding that opinion strongly, then when any new claim comes out that posits a large scale, long term conspiracy, I can dismiss it without further analysis. >

Right, but does that constitute understanding the alternate positions?
Or just handwaving them because theyre superficially similar to other positions? >

See my edit, but I think you have to understand it well enough to recognise that fits into a category that you can dismiss. That can be easy for somethings and more considered for others. >

If I may, I think you are struggling here when you are dealing with situations of physical fact. The shape of the earth is ultimately not an opinion but a fact. No arguments really can change the reality of the matter. So, if you see firm incontovertal evidence that the earth is round, no understanding of alternatives is needed to dismiss them.
To contrast this to your example in OP with homophobia. There is no physical facts to do with homophobia, just moral arguments. In order to reject moral arguments, you do need to understand them. How does that sound as an alternative of your position? >

!delta I'm still reformulating but I think this is an important distinction that I might need to account for. >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/DuhChappers (4∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Let me try an uncharitable conclusion that I understand I can draw from your position. Do you agree or where do I get it wrong?
"Unless I understand why someone thinks eating babies is fine, I cannot say it is wrong." >

To take that to a more real world example, I actually have listened to people who abuse children, sexually and physically, justify why they believe it’s okay. I think they’re wrong and monstrous, but I have listened and been willing to hear why they hold the view they do. It makes it easier to articulate where they’re wrong, dismantle their arguments, understand and recognize that mindset in others, and avoid people like that in the future. Despite my disgust, this information has actually been applicable in my life. 
Many abuse victims explain similar things. While they regret their abuse occurred, their ability to spot the mindset of someone who will abuse them in the future is quite accurate and applicable in their lives. I met a friend of a friend once and her fiancé. I told our mutual friend to call me if anything happened because I believed her fiancé would abuse her at some point. I am sad to say I was right and our mutual friend contacted me asking what to do much later. That knowledge came from listening. From understanding how the minds of abusive and crappy people think.
It’s not about how much it benefits or doesn’t benefit the person with the awful opinion, it’s about what you can learn and take away from them. Whether that’s strength in your own argument or knowledge for your own life experiences. >

I absolutely agree, understanding the other's position can be extremely useful in a number of ways. And it's something I try to do and still have much to learn on.
Yet this CMV is about it being required to take a strong ethical position. >

I’m not sure what OP would say, but I think I would be willing to say you can be against violence without always understanding the reasons, but you should be willing to listen to them when presented with them? I would need a clear delineation of what constitutes violence. You could argue that meat consumption constitutes violence, some argue that hateful words are violence. I still think it’s best to give yourself the blanket rule on being willing to listen first before becoming an activist of some kind or taking a strong public stance on an issue. The good news is that most examples will not be as heinous as the ones discussed here, and for that reason I do generally think OP is correct. >

I agree again with most of that, though I suggest to avoid guessing what OP's thoughts are. 
As I am one of those people who argue meat consumpion is violence, and you brought it up: What are your thoughts on that? >

Totally with you on that one. Although I acknowledge that in order to feed cats and dogs and similar non-human family members in our lives there may always be a need for the “meat” industry in some capacity. While I would support lab grown meat for pets I suspect the way we would test that theory would not be something I would support… So I’m not sure what the answer is for that part of the meat industry. I do think the least we can do is lower our population and limit consumption. There is a company currently trying to farm octopuses, that is human excess. There is no need for veal, fois gras, and octopus to be cruelly harvested for rich people’s pleasure and those industries should be outlawed without hesitation and permanently. >


Totally with you on that one.

Do I get from this that you're vegan?
On the cats and dogs. There is vegan cat food. The little data there is shows this to be at least as healthy as normal cat food for at least some cats. Vegan dog food has a bit more data and options and is generally easier. The only big problem today is accessibility and specialty vet prescribed food which can limit options to only meat containing ones (I some cases vets can prescribe dogs meat free food as well, e.g. if they have an allergy). >

The one thing I worry about this line of thought is why exactly we feel like we can draw the line with animals on one side and plants on the other with regard to violence. >

Sentience. Animals (with very few exceptions) can experience, while plants (with no exceptions) cannot. >

The main thing I take issue with is this: 

When you actually understand somebody else's opposing opinion, a lot of the time you realise that they're not a bad person, they're just mistaken/misguided.

You are completely leaving out one of the main reasons people disagree: They simply have different values from you. I would strongly recommend The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt to get a better understanding of how different world-views place their emphasis on different values. This also means that, in fact, some people really are bad people, i.e. they simply have no compassion for other people or at least some groups. >

100%, but it also clarifies that too.
Somebody could think that the nuclear family is a fundamental building block of society, and that eroding it will erode society in the long term. They have no issue with individual people being gay, and would never want to get in the way of two people loving each other, and they know a few gay couples they're good friends with, but they have an issue with society encouraging more same-sex relationships, especially for bi people who could be in straight "traditional" families.
You can also have somebody who just finds gay people disgusting and thinks it's all degenerate.
From a policy perspective these two people might be quite similar, but I would argue that from a moral perspetive they are worlds apart, and making the distinction is really important. >


From a policy perspective these two people might be quite similar, but I would argue that from a moral perspetive they are worlds apart, and making the distinction is really important.

Are they? I've seen in real time the shift from "I'm okay with gay people; it's the gay agenda I don't like" to "mentioning your sexuality is part of the gay agenda" with the whole groomer panic. People who are fine with queer individuals but not on a societal level don't meaningfully mitigate the "it's all degeneracy" crowd.
So when you say,

but they have an issue with society encouraging more same-sex relationships, especially for bi people who could be in straight "traditional" families

Aside from being pretty nakedly hostile towards bisexuals and their agency, I don't especially need to sympathize with whatever "society encouraging more same-sex relationships" means to maintain a strong position against homophobia, nor do I need to give them "good person" credit. To bring it back to the more general point, not every allegedly nuanced wrinkle in an opposing argument merits rethinking some basic values. >

Yes, but if you conflate the two arguments (and I've seen both arguments in the wild), you're going to be far less effective in arguing or defending your position relative to them.  Plus, it's kind of bad faith to go "these two people are arguing for similar policies, so I'm going to arguing at them as if they both were the worst version of that argument." >


Yes, but if you conflate the two arguments (and I've seen both arguments in the wild), you're going to be far less effective in arguing or defending your position relative to them.

Do I have it right that you're saying treating them as the same means I argue against them the same way, which may not be effective?
In that case, that may be true if you're in for a structured debate that you intend to win, and to persuade an audience to your side. I can see that, yeah. But if we're just going by OP's view that one shouldn't have a strong opinion unless each flavor of the opposing position is individually considered, I'd say structured debate isn't the be all and end all, and one can be pretty secure in their opinion regardless of which of the two arguments or some new one they're encountering.

Plus, it's kind of bad faith to go "these two people are arguing for similar policies, so I'm going to arguing at them as if they both were the worst version of that argument."

If we're accepting it as true that the policies are similar, then yeah, I don't feel especially compelled to let one put my conviction into question more than the other. If we're not accepting it as true that the policies are similar, then yeah, treat different arguments as different for sure. >

I have absolutely no idea what a serial killer is thinking or their rationale behind it. But I STRONGLY believe that they are wrong. >

I did make a concession in my OP that there could be some room for some dogmatic rules that aren't justified. Murder seems to be a reasonably obvious one but you have to be careful you're not pre-loading the judgement, or that the definition can't be stretched. You could consider an abortion doctor to be a serial killer, but it's useful to understand their perspective. >

You need to say more strongly that you've changed your position. To keep your position unchanged you need label certain opinions "dogmatic rules" or "fundamental building blocks" or "foundational scientific facts", then just ignore them or their opposition willy-nilly as you decide.
As I scroll this thread there are more and more examples of you doing this. >

I think that US letter and DIN A4 are roughly similar but different sizes of paper.   How am I supposed to "reasonably explain" the views of someone who insists that the two are the same?

... that they would broadly agree with ...

People have a lot of views where they really just haven't thought things through carefully.   Should I expect then to agree that they haven't thought things through?
I tend to think that anti-vaxers have a lot of emotional motivation for holding those views, but I doubt that they're ready to admit that.

... A variation on my proposed model is likely the easiest way to change my mind. ...

Is it possible that this view is more about the idea that people should engage in discussions with sensitivity - that is to say, with consideration of the feelings of the other people that are involved in the discussion - than about actually being about the substance of another side in an argument? >

I think you can literally just take it down to:
"You think US letter and DIN A4 are exactly the same size". That is a crystal clear explanation of their view. You can then have the conversation of how they would go about proving that e.g. googling the dimensions, procuring physical samples and measuring/comparing them etc.
You don't have to explain it in a way that *you* agree with, just that *they* agree with.
I do think it is about a good faith effort to understand their position as far as you can and identify where you disagree (where possible). It has a side effect of being more sensitive and polite which is a bonus. >

Your view has exceptions for the, uh, really obvious stuff.
​
I have a strong opinion on rape. I think it's terrible and should continue to be illegal.
​
I cannot reasonably explain the other side of this, because I cannot fathom one that would be reasonable.
​
My strong opinion drives certain action when I learn that a friend that has been raped. I up my empathy, and drop at least one gentle encouragement to seek out therapy to help overcome the trauma. I think this behavior is probably a net benefit for the communities I am involved in.
​
If I apply your view, then my opinion would not be as strong anymore, and that would not drive me to be as empathetic towards victims, this change resulting in small, but net detriment on those around me. >

Absolutely, I've addressed this across various different comments but to compile it all here:
I'm open to some opinions in society being dogmatically followed without proper justification or understanding. It's just a good idea that rape is bad and basically the whole of society agrees.
I'm open to that and I completely accept the negative effects that you mentioned (and I even talked about them more generally in my OP) but I have reservations.
I think when you allow for the unarticulated support or derision of a particular act such as rape, you tend to see that the definition gets widened. We see this with rape vs active consent, we see this with "racist" vs "benefitting from a systemically racist society", we see it with "fascist" vs "not fully supportive of LGBT". There seems to be a constant drive to categorise people we don't like into the box where we don't need to consider their arguments any more.
I think getting rid of that box could get rid of that behaviour and I think that would be beneficial. >

I agree with you on the expanding definitions, and the implied danger of having dogmatic beliefs due to the "scope creep " that can happen. 
What is your differentiating criteria? I.e. how do you determine what should follow the rule as opposed to this dogma exception? >

One issue is that there often isn't one "other side" of the argument. There could be thousands of reasons why people think being homophobic is ok. Do I really need to explain each one before I can hold a strong opinion that homophobia is wrong?
Fundamentally, I think there are two ways to reach a conclusion. One is to investigate evidence and determine a logical answer. The other is to rule out all alternate explanations. Your CMV essentially demands the latter. But consider a statement such as "2 + 2 = ?". Using the former method, I can generate a logical answer that 2 + 2 = 4 without having to consider arguments for 2 + 2 equalling any other number, but under the latter (your method), I'd have to first explain why 2 + 2 ≠ 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, ... , ∞, before I can hold the strong opinion that 2 + 2 = 4, which is an impossible task, given that there are infinite alternate arguments. >

This is absolutely true for positions that you can demonstrate as being entirely logically consistent, but the problem there is that it infinitely fractals.
Whatever argument you make for homosexuality being OK is going to have a premise in it that somebody could disagree with. So you then have to demonstrate that premise. And so on it goes.
You can express lots of positions in a way that sound very compelling when presented in isolation, but it's only when they're faced with opposition do they show their weaknesses more clearly. >


This is absolutely true for positions that you can demonstrate as being entirely logically consistent

Would you say your view has shifted/changed, then?

Whatever argument you make for homosexuality being OK is going to have a premise in it that somebody could disagree with. So you then have to demonstrate that premise. And so on it goes.

This is the exact issue I raised in my previous post: there could be thousands of reasons why people think being homophobic is ok. Do I really need to explain each one before I can hold a strong opinion that homophobia is wrong? How can anyone hold a strong opinion when there are endless opposing arguments for them to understand and explain?
Put simply, if everyone followed your advice, no one would be able to form a strongly held opinion. >

No, I was arguing that you can't argue that homosexuality is OK to an objective standard like in maths where you don't need to consider any counter arguments. >

I got that, so were left with understanding/explaining opposing arguments, and I pointed out that there could be thousands of reasons why people think being homophobic is ok. Do I really need to explain each one before I can hold a strong opinion that homophobia is wrong? How can anyone hold a strong opinion when there are endless opposing arguments for them to understand and explain?
Put simply, if everyone followed your advice, no one would be able to form a strongly held opinion. >

What about situations where people are simply removed from reality and their opinion or position is, therefore, not based in reality.
Think about the MAGA cult.  If one of them is of the belief that January 6th was a false flag attack by Antifa, there isn't really anything to "understand" in their opinion.  It's just wrong and not based in reality.
Or even, on a more broad sense, that the 2020 Presidential election was stolen and that Donald Trump actually won.  If were to "briefly describe the opposing side's view", I'd say that they hold their view because their divorced from reality and Donald Trump told them what to think.  That's a pretty damn accurate explanation, but I highly doubt that they "would broadly agree with" with that explanation.
Overall, I think your view holds up well if everyone's view is actually based upon facts (even better if those facts are verifiable).  It might even work if views are based upon unprovable beliefs (as in religion, where there are no indisputable "facts" that prove god does or does not exist).
But when people form views based upon false "facts", there isn't really anything to understand.  They're just wrong. >

I'm not saying you have to explain their opinion in a logically consistent manner of "You think A and B and so C must obviously follow". For the MAGA example, you could simply say "You think there was a co-ordinated effort by the liberal establishment to change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election by faking democrat votes and/or not counting republican votes. Considering how close the final result was, this changed the outcome of the election and was the biggest political scandal in US history and an assault on US democracy. The appropriate response in that instance was to try to overturn that fraudulent result".
Now you likely have a point of agreement, which is that if the election actually was stolen, it would probably be justified to use violence to overturn the result. (You could maybe argue that you'd have to first exhaust the other remaining non-violent options e.g. the courts). You then come to an understanding that you both just disagree on the fact of whether there was widespread election tampering or not, you can say that they haven't provided sufficient evidence, and that all the court cases brought on this were dismissed etc etc,
But more importantly both sides come out with a better understanding of each other, a more humanised view of each other, and a potential opening for further productive conversation. In the model you're proposing, you both call each other names, everybody digs their heels in, and society continues to get more divided. >


The appropriate response in that instance was to try to overturn that fraudulent result

No, the appropriate response would be to present your objections in court and seek legal remedy, which they did. Almost every single legal avenue they walked down was closed to them as their claims were ultimately not supported by material reality. The appropriate response to this is not "overthrow the government", and I don't think I'll ever be able to understand or reasonably explain why people thought that way. That does not mean that I shouldn't have a very strong opinion on the attempt. My opinion is not in any way contingent on my understanding of their irrationality. >

What if their view is "yeah Jan 6th was a mistake, we should have gone through the peaceful and legal route first, but everybody was so angry and it just happened, kind of like the riots with BLM."? >

As soon as they compare what they did to what the BLM movement did, I know they are not arguing in good faith. One was a social movement that attempted to bring attention to the disparate policing practices facing some Black Americans, and one was a violent insurrection attempting to overthrow the legitimately and democratically elected government. >

With respect, I don't agree.
You and I probably agree on most things politically, and they are absolutely wrong, but I don't think that they are arguing in bad faith just because they are wrong.
From their perspective BLM was a massive social movement aimed at destabilizing the entire US system, including destroying the very concept of policing (defund the police) while Jan 6th was an attempt to rescue a stolen election.
This is sort of the OP's point, if anything. You fundamentally don't understand their point of view. You are assuming that they're all liars, when in fact they're simply wrong on the facts. >


You are assuming that they're all liars, when in fact they're simply wrong on the facts.

While I agree with that framing generally speaking, I think a crucial part is missing. That is, they tend to be "wrong on the facts" in very motivated and self-serving ways. It's not that they're all liars, not exactly, but they're falling pray to a lot of motivated thinking that just so happen to support wrong-headed core beliefs. Arguing that a colorful tapestry of lies, half-truths and unsupported claims "make sense from their perspective" sort of leave us in the middle of a barren field. >

"They" just spent four years hearing about how their guy only won because the 2016 election was stolen.  I have had people who voted for Clinton half-seriously openly speculate, to this day, that Trump is a Russian asset despite the House report being very clear that was not the case. 
If you do spin election interference for your own political gain, then acting surprised when the other side raises the issue is just thinking in...

very motivated and self-serving ways. It's not that they're all liars, not exactly, but they're falling pray to a lot of motivated thinking that just so happen to support wrong-headed core beliefs. >


"They" just spent four years hearing about how their guy only won because the 2016 election was stolen.

No. They have spent around 3 years hearing about an investigation - by Trump's own justice department - into Russian interference in the election, which revealed interferences took place. 
Did some people oversell that? Yeah. Did the Democrat jump wholesale in election denial like we're seeing the republicans doing now? No. >

Yes, Russian interference contributed to Trump getting elected.  He also had help from the Clinton campaign who used their "Pied-piper strategy to intentionally elevate Trump and push out less extreme Republican candidates in order for her to have a better chance at winning.  Interference in the election doesn't mean that Clinton should have won or that Trump's election should be challenged.  Russian interference was done to destabilize the country and not for his benefit even though he benefited from it.
Yet, when asked about challenging the election in 2017 by Gross, Clinton stated:

Gross: I want to get back to the question, would you completely rule out questioning the legitimacy of this election if we learn that the Russian interference in the election is even deeper than we know now?
Clinton: No. I would not. I would say –
Gross: You’re not going to rule it out?
Clinton: No, I wouldn’t rule it out. 

Again, perfectly circumspect and understandable statements but... it does directly put at issue whether it was a legitimate election.
Statements made by Clinton in 2020:

“There was a widespread understanding that this election [in 2016] was not on the level,” Clinton said during an interview for the latest episode of The Atlantic’s politics podcast, The Ticket. “We still don’t know what really happened.”
“There’s just a lot that I think will be revealed. History will discover,” the Democratic Party’s 2016 presidential nominee continued. “But you don’t win by 3 million votes and have all this other shenanigans and stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, ‘Whoa, something’s not right here.’ That was a deep sense of unease.”
Clinton also offered copious criticism of President Trump, saying she warned the country about her former rival, and “it was even worse than I thought it was.”
“I really did feel sometimes like the tree falling in the forest. I believed he was a puppet of Putin. I believed that there was relevant, important information in his tax returns. I believed he did not have the temperament to be president, he was unfit—not a partisan comment, but an assessment of him,” the former secretary of state said.

You can come to your own conclusions on the appropriateness of those statements in an election year. >

I think the issue with this is that it tends to get co-opted by bad faith actors a lot of the time. I think most of us know at least one or two people who are ridiculously passionate about something and will swear up and down that 'you just don't get it.' Now imagine validating that at scale. You don't believe in god? Because you obviously don't understand? You think you do? Well they don't. So now they can ignore you and hide behind this idea to justify their shittyness
Then there's the question of what's reasonable? I get that you probably went intentionally low so as to keep the barrier small. But. The fact is 3 sentences isn't all that much. The fact is we have no objective measure of that understanding in short form. So we have 2 choices

We let the opposition decide who knows, which makes it too easy to shut down conversation by calling your opponent unnowledgable and refusing to listen
We let others decide; and letting other people decide what I really believe (speak for me in general) is fairly high on my list of things that make a nightmare scenario. >

I think most people have a pretty good intuition for good faith engagement. If I make a good faith effort to explain their opinion back to them and they can't articulate why I haven't got it right, that seems pretty bad faith. Most people would get that. Also I'm not saying you need to get every opposing person to align with you, just at least somebody on the other side. >


just at least somebody on the other side.

See but again that's a terrible bar. Rasputin claimed he was a christian, yet he drank and fucked his whole life right till his death. He believed closeness to god included copious amounts of sexual sin by all accounts. 
I don't think you could realistically point to him and say 'see a christian agrees with me.'

I think most people have a pretty good intuition for good faith engagement. If I make a good faith effort to explain their opinion back to them and they can't articulate why I haven't got it right, that seems pretty bad faith. 

Then why do we need this rule. Either people have a good intuition and so can catch themselves and others when they start making a caricature of others, or they have a bad intuition which is why we need this rule. Both those things can't be true at once >

It's the effort to understand that makes the difference. If you make the effort to understand and they get evasive to not give you a clear understanding, I think most people pick up on that. >

This is kind of what I was getting at with this point:

You could also argue that a certain level of dogma is acceptable in a society and that not all opinions are equal in how they should be scrutinised.

My main issue with this is that it doesn't seem to be very effective to declare something an inalienable right if you haven't got pretty much everybody on board. Look at the issue of trans acceptance in the UK. It's been a protected characteristic in law since 2010 but transphobia is rife. I don't believe that shutting down conversation help anything. There are some foundational things you need to agree on to have a conversation, but they're super super foundational like "logic works" and "we both exist" rather than the other topics that actually get debated once you get off the ground with those. >


It's been a protected characteristic in law since 2010 but transphobia is rife

In the US, the civil rights act of 1964 passed in 1964.  Loving v virginia was decided in 1967.
but, most of the US didn't support interracial marriage until the 1980's, and it took even longer in some states.
historically, 10 years isn't a long time for attitudes on discrimination to shift. >

OP do you think there is a reptilian "soul-net" in the sky preventing human souls from escaping the matrix? >

This is an interesting point where I think you can appeal to more foundational opinions. So for instance if you have already considered the existence of the soul and can describe the other side of that argument, then you can have a strong opinion on this too as it relies on belief in the soul. Same with simulation theory, same with aliens etc. etc. >

I honestly don't see how that's feasible. If you said that to an r/escapingprisonplanet proponent (yup, it exists), they'll gladly inform you that no, they're not talking about "soul" the way you think you know. The earthly religions are a ploy, you see, the reptilians purposefully made them to confuse us, yadda yadda.
What I'm saying is that your solution either a)actually does what you're advocating against, just with a small preliminary step of "have I considered something similar sounding before?" or b) forces you to interact with every wacko idea indepth, as thats where their differences lie
edit. And I would argue that we all actually choose option a). Even the people you're criticizing for rejecting ideas outright, reject them for some reason, right? I'd argue it's the exact same mechanism you're proposing, just not verbalized