This video illuminated one of the main underlying causes of disagreement; critical thinking. It doesn’t matter what your political affiliation is or what your conclusions are, what always matters most is HOW you got to your conclusions. I never thought in terms of left/right positions, but rather positions that made sense or didn’t make sense (all of which were subject to change in the face of new information/better arguments, of course). Labels come AFTER the individual topics that form the collective that the label defines, otherwise your opinions are merely dogma. This is why the main thing separating most on the left and right from each other are their conclusions; they both got there the same way.
The point of the video wasn’t that you need to compromise with someone you disagree with on a particular issue in order to reach some form of agreement. The point was about people’s inability of separating individual issues from a collective of issues. This is not a problem of politics but that of cognition. Most people are stupid, and stupidity doesn’t discriminate based on political affiliation. To prove it, here are some examples of viewers who not only completely misunderstood the point of the video, but then proceeded to perfectly prove the video’s point of throwing the baby out with the bath water lol
The real problem with those who believe 2+2=5 isn’t that they’re wrong, it’s that they believed it for the wrong reasons, and are also unwilling to change their belief in light of evidence/reasoning that disproves it. Someone who believes 2+2=4, in spite of new evidence disproving it, is just as dumb as someone who believes 2+2=5. Someone who breaks the rules just because (left), is as dumb as those who follow the rules just because (right). Don’t appeal to either novelty nor tradition.
The whole point of having an opinion on a social/political issue is that it is what you believe to be the most logically sound and morally-just option that maximizes well-being. You’re not supposed to adopt a position in order to join a group, nor are you supposed to adopt a position as a result of joining a group. If your objective for taking a position is indeed the desire for truth/well-being, then you should always be open to all differing positions in case there is a better one available; That doesn’t mean you automatically change your opinion in the face of any opposing argument, no matter how stupid it is.
Your disagreement with someone on one issue, should not automatically invalidate your agreement on another. If you can dismiss a person’s entire collective of opinions as a result of one disagreement, then you hold the positions you do AS A RESULT of being Conservative/Liberal (which is the wrong reason to hold a position). Labels aren’t meant to be obeyed blindly; they are meant to imperfectly distinguish people in order to hasten the genesis of dialogue, and to generalize wide arrays of topics for the sake of conversation. The individual topics themselves are always the main priority, instead of the label that defines the collective of topics. Think about how much effort would be required to have to go down the list of all the bands I listen to whenever someone inquires on my musical taste. We both save so much time and effort if I simply say “Rock Music”. If I then tell him I don’t listen to the Rolling Stones and he responds with questioning my claim of listening to “Rock Music”, then he doesn’t understand generalizing, which means he doesn’t understand/recognize nuance, which means he’s a fool.
Absolutism is one of the things that SJW’s and the alt-right have in common. They both prioritize the collective over the individual whether it’s an idea or a person. The left are pro-ethnic segregation, the alt-right are pro-ethnic segregation via ethnic nationalism. They both shun anyone who doesn’t agree with literally all beliefs held by the group. Secular dogma is still dogma, secular religious certitude is still religious certitude. If you believe anything without question, then you never know whether it’s true. If you are insular in your belief in spite of new evidence/better arguments, then truth is not the reason you believe in it.
The point of the video wasn’t about compromising on disagreements, but to focus on agreements; It’s cliche, but true. If person A & B agree on 9 out of 10 issues, but refuse to work together on the 9 issues they agree on simply because they don’t agree on all 10 issues, then they’re fucking idiots. Plain and simple. When you can’t solve a question on an exam, you skip it and solve the ones you do understand first and return to that question at the end if you have time. Leave the disagreements as the last bridges to cross, and in the meantime cross all the bridges you agree on while skipping hand-in-hand.