comment: >
  
  That’s not terribly responsive to my question. I’m glad that you’re able to have good discussions with your friends (although that’s presumably part of the reason why you consider them friends), but I don’t see how that relates to the question of the correlation between political spending and the quality of political discourse. (I am, to be clear, not asking you to come up with the statistics for me, but I’m curious whether you can square our opposing thought processes.) Anecdotal experiences with friends doesn’t, to me, really speak to the question of whether people who aren’t friends (i.e., the vast majority of most communities) are able to engage in productive political discourse.
context: Little Free Libraries are not a good indicator for political discourse. Libraries in general aren't even a good indicator. 
  The only indicators that I would think show people are having honest discussion are voting rates, party/political group donations, and friendship networks that show groups that are not contiguous. >
  
  Why would political donations be a sign of healthy political discourse? Aren’t small-money donations through the roof the past few election cycles? >
  
  Because the more people pay for something, the more a person is interested in that topic. Money is speech. And, as a personal experience, donations to political groups usually means that person is going to talk to me about that topic. >
  
  I see what you’re saying, but I don’t see the correlation between spending and honest discussions that you are. I would actual guess that spending is significantly more highly correlated with fear-mongering rhetoric and political polarization, not healthy and productive discourse, but I could be wrong. >
  
  All of my in-person experiences have been honest discussions even between my Trumpian friends and my Progressive friends. I only have experienced dishonest discussions with anonymous people online. >
  
  That’s not terribly responsive to my question. I’m glad that you’re able to have good discussions with your friends (although that’s presumably part of the reason why you consider them friends), but I don’t see how that relates to the question of the correlation between political spending and the quality of political discourse. (I am, to be clear, not asking you to come up with the statistics for me, but I’m curious whether you can square our opposing thought processes.) Anecdotal experiences with friends doesn’t, to me, really speak to the question of whether people who aren’t friends (i.e., the vast majority of most communities) are able to engage in productive political discourse. >
  
  There are two kinds of political discussions:
  
  People agree on the objective facts but they have differing opinions and arguments on what should be done.
  People don't agree on the objective facts, and both sides accuse each other of being liars.  Note: this does not mean both sides are equally guilty.  If one side was 100% honest and the other side 100% lying, you would still see the exact same interaction.
  
  The second kind of discussion is garbage, and unfortunately, it's what you mostly see nowadays, thanks to widespread distrust of educated people, as well as the harmful efforts of certain news media outlets which specialize in misleading people for financial gain. >
  
  
  thanks to widespread distrust of educated people, as well as the harmful efforts of certain news media outlets which specialize in misleading people for financial gain.
  
  Personally I blame social media.  On the one hand you have the "broadcast" effect: where you can transmit the stupidest ideas to everyone, instantly (looking at twitter and "Ye"). On the other you have the anonymity and impersonal nature of posting. I can't see the person's face/body language I'm posting to: and this creates an emotional distance that makes it harder to empathize, on both sides. >
  
  I think it's also much harder for an ignoramus to duel an expert face-to-face.  On the Internet, he can quickly Google any subject, and learn enough soundbites to create the illusion of knowledge.  It won't fool the expert, but it may fool onlookers.
  However, in real-life, any Internet troll who tried this shit would get utterly humiliated. >
  
  I think it's a mistake to assume the infallibility of people in academia or other tastemakers.
  A lot of people who consider themselves "experts" use their education to learn just enough to justify what they have already believed is true without ever challenging their fundamental presuppositions.
  I don't think people are indoctrinated necessarily, but people are walking away with a very specific understanding of the world, a grand meta-narrative of history, and a way of interpreting facts and figures that justifies a worldview that can be described as liberal. The interpretation of objective fact is always tricky and I don't think we take it seriously enough. >
  
  
  I think it's a mistake to assume the infallibility of people in academia
  
  Who said anything about assuming they're infallible?  This is a strawman fallacy.
  Experts aren't infallible and never claimed to be: they've just verifiably devoted years of their lives to the study of a subject and they've allowed their work to be judged by other experts in the field, so their abilities have been tested, and they're more likely to know what they're talking about than Joe Rogan or your Uber driver who says he did his own research. >
  
  That's true when they are talking about said subject. It's not when that subject is not the topic at hand. A professor in philosophy has no expertise in economics. But it's easy to grant greater authority to an expert who looks and sounds the part, even if they are no more qualified than a random, nonexpert.
  We see this effect when doctors run for office, for example. Their expertise is so limited when it comes to policy, even healthcare policy, as to be almost meaningless, but we still give them a sense of authority and expertise. They know how to carry themselves, and they speak with authoritative language, and that's often all you need. >
  
  
  A professor in philosophy has no expertise in economics.
  
  Interestingly enough, people get most of their thinking on the economy from journalists, and journalists don't have any particular expertise in economics either. >
  
  Read the local newspaper including weeklies and independents. Watch local news and listen to local radio. >
  
  Little Free Libraries are not a good indicator for political discourse. Libraries in general aren't even a good indicator. 
  The only indicators that I would think show people are having honest discussion are voting rates, party/political group donations, and friendship networks that show groups that are not contiguous. >
  
  Why would political donations be a sign of healthy political discourse? Aren’t small-money donations through the roof the past few election cycles? >
  
  Because the more people pay for something, the more a person is interested in that topic. Money is speech. And, as a personal experience, donations to political groups usually means that person is going to talk to me about that topic. >
  
  I see what you’re saying, but I don’t see the correlation between spending and honest discussions that you are. I would actual guess that spending is significantly more highly correlated with fear-mongering rhetoric and political polarization, not healthy and productive discourse, but I could be wrong. >
  
  All of my in-person experiences have been honest discussions even between my Trumpian friends and my Progressive friends. I only have experienced dishonest discussions with anonymous people online.