yep! but, since im new i dont know if im violating cultural norms or just being told im an idiot! :)

Hi! i do (mean to) try to add qualifiers like *mostly* and such to my questioning of whether or not speech/discussion/debate is a great mover of people's minds; certainly in the ultimate, talk is what changes minds, but its talk among people with emotional investment (eg. caring) among themselves, not some grand forum of the public. i mean, where is the "discussion" in a milo-like event?

and similarly, what motivated me to create an account and comment in the first place is my annoyance at the IDW: I think they are whingers (certainly Harris and Peterson), and their assertion that discussion & debate is what is important and yet they dont do it! it seems to me their get togethers are only amongst themselves; Harris certainly has been touring with Peterson, and a couple of events with Weinsteins, but he has explicitly asserted that Ta-Nehisi Coates, for example, is irredeemable and undebatable.

perhaps unfairly, i saw this posting in this light: the assertion that there used to be some great time in the past when the "Left" was changing minds through some series of grand public discussions/debates, but lamentably the "Left" has changed(?) been taken over(?) and this no longer happens.

Not evidence, just a model that might explain how a lot of opinion change happens.

I very much like this model, and bullet 4 is where people's minds are changed but it is through personal ties (as you say), discussion (yes) and very much suffused with emotion.

I also think that too many people are getting pattern-matched as Milos, and shouting down people who have been mis-typed as Milos has negative consequences

Again, who are we talking about? Damore-like? Peterson and the whole of the IDW? The unnamed (center? conservative?) academics?

I am not really at this site's level, so perhaps I am missing the point. But I certainly dont see rampant shouting down or personal/prestige/economic harm to average people in the real-world via the Left.

Maybe another question: Who is the Left you are talking about? It seems like mostly college kids with I suppose Antifa thrown in(?). So, how about the DSA (they are "Left" yes?): Is the DSA guilty of what you see happening?

(Finally, feel free to ignore my questions; I have no expectation or believe you are obligated to reply. We are just talking! :))

so i kinda expected those. so do you know of any evidence that people's minds where changed significantly or mostly due to debate/discussion? polls? surveys? ???

and of course on the other side, is there any evidence that those "fighting" for these believe it was debate/discussion vs (often militant) action?

i guess the "problem" i have is that im old (47) and read too much Zinn (to give you something to associate to or attempt to find similarities with people you know). ive specifically inculcate the belief that most things achieved have NOT been thru debate but action:

• race: civil war, civil right, not to mention the insane daily resistence you can read about from black history authors
• labor: militant labor strikes pre, say, 1930s, strong unions until 1970s
• sufferage: direct action
• gay rights: same

so, what i need to be convinced that shouting down the milos of the world is bad is evidence that talk is what had changed the world.

ah! hadnt seen this. thx!!

i dont know if you would prefer quote/question or just a free flowing sort of chat. this one will be of the open/free type ...

i personally id as part of the "Left" you are concerned about. do you have examples when the "Left" was significantly changing minds through dialogue/dialectic?

Have tons of questions so dont know where to start. How about 3.3: Did you mean to suggest or do you believe Damore is a "centrist"?

ah! ok, message received ...

(updated after serious down-votes)