Most arguments are based on belief rather than facts. We rarely do the research and testing ourselves and instead just trust whomever we already agree with and is considered an expert.

Problem is that’s on all sides of the political spectrum. Everyone thinks their experts are right and everyone else is crazy or deluded.

The way to resolve this and find out what’s actually true isn’t by shutting down what one disagrees with, but by engaging in debates and discussion with each other, and pointing out the holes in each other’s reasoning and tests.

Ah, that’s smart

I definitely agree.

Sure, np.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Page 280 if the link breaks: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.59272/page/n279/mode/1up

People rarely know what the paradox of tolerance really is and just use it as a cudgel to shut down any argument they disagree with.

The creator of the idea himself said

"I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.

But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument"

Why 2 piholes?