DRAFT: Is intelligent discussion possible in this tribal climate of fear and hatred?

It seems to me that in recent times the fear and hatred has ratcheted up an emotional response that prevents any intelligent discussion on sensitive subjects. People form political camps. Put up their barriers and entrench themselves. They have no wish to 'engage with the enemy' argue a case or apply intelligence to the discussion.

 

My recent article on world government was a case in point.

 

Some people are totally opposed to the whole idea. Fair enough.

 

In my view disagreement is grounds for a good discussion on the reasons against, the reasons for, and possible ways of addressing the issues that I believe necessitate a world government.

 

Was that intelligent discussion forthcoming?

 

It elicited a series of responses that are evident and preserved in the thread:

 

a. Some did not read the article at all and responded with a knee-jerk reaction to the headline.

 

b. Some poured out emotional fury aimed at the writer.

 

c. Some were violently aggressive and rude.

 

d. Some immediately reached for their chosen internet sites that reinforced their own views and cited them as 'facts'. Reciting the usual exaggerated fake news.

 

e. Some did not read the article but immediately went off on rants about what they perceived the article to mean - missing the whole point - rulers, tyrants, human nature blah blah blah

 

f. Some immediately misapplied a label - socialist, commie, nutcase so that they could deride and belittle without actually engaging in having to think about the issue at all.

 

g. Some made tenuous links to historical events of little relevance and used that to undermine the premise and ridicule.

 

h. Some chose to merely state their own views without engaging.

 

I. Some looked at it, thought it controversial and chose to ignore.

 

j. Some merely said 'I'm alright Jack. My little bit is OK. I don't want to be bothered with dealing with those issues.'

 

k. Some thought the issues unimportant.

 

How many people actually tried to engage in an intelligent discussion with someone who had views different to themselves?

 

How many people o try to understand why I thought these issues were so pressing that we ought to take the chance of doing something which had inherent risks? How many people considered whether it would be possible to create a federation that would be effective, would address the issues and not degenerate into tyranny?  How many put their views, with reasons, their objections, coherently, and offered well thought-through ways of dealing with the international issues that I believe create the necessity for some federation of nations with international oversight?