I like to examine issues from all possible angles and I like to discuss openly, freely acknowledging if there are areas of uncertainty or bias. I even like to discuss hypotheses, regardless of how incendiary they might be. The “what if” is sometimes more interesting than simple fact-finding. Problem is, not everybody is comfortable with open-ended perspectives or even interested in finding an objective truth; many people just want to be right. That's why I often struggle with balancing opposing viewpoints. If what is right is a gray zone (as is very often the case), but discussions turn into a verbal tug-of-war, then how do you have meaningful conversations about such topics?

To me, the first thing to determine when engaging with people with opposing viewpoints is to what extent they are married to those views, and how open minded they really are. In my opinion, there is little point in engaging with people who have cemented their views and are incapable of discussing things openly and hypothetically; not willing to concede points just the same as they would make them. It just makes for a lot of arguing and very unpleasant listening.

When first engaging with someone over an issue, I would always like to first ask: ”What would cause you to question your views, and reconsider your opinion?” And maybe also ask ”Which aspects of this case have you found to NOT support your position, and what evidence is there to disprove your conclusions that you have been unable to disregard?” If the other person cannot bring themselves to answer these two questions truthfully, odds are that their bias is simply too deeply seated. It goes for social media, it goes for politics, it goes for science, it goes for fandom of all shapes and sizes – pretty much anywhere people have strong opinions.

By asking that people first indicate how deep their bias is, you will be able to easier identify people with whom it is meaningful to have a discussion. That’s not a guarantee that you will arrive at any form of conclusion, or that either of you will necessarily change your viewpoint.

It just makes for a much more agreeable and stimulating conversation.

One thing I object strongly to is the way the word “socialism” is used here in the US. The usage reeks of programming, of indoctrination. People use it without knowing what it means or really having experienced it, or even realizing where and when they have actually experienced it.

Forget about the word. Try to disassociate what you’ve been taught to think it means. Think about it in collective terms:

All for one and one for all.

A society where we all are bound by a shared social contract; where we all pool our resources for the common good. Is that really so bad?

Are there problems with (some aspects of) socialism, in the many different ways it has been interpreted and applied? Has it been abused? Certainly. But the same can be said for capitalism.

Rampant, unchecked greed in pursuit of profits for the few is not a solution to the needs of the many. Individualism and self-interest do not lead to greater harmony and collaboration.

I don’t think the path to a well-functioning society lies in single-mindedly believing in and orchestrating government based on one ideology taken to an extreme; it lies in smartly applying the right ideology and the right policies where and when they do the most good for the most people. And imagining one set of policies as “evil” or inherently bad does not allow for a balanced solution.

I know the response of many Americans to this argument is: “it doesn’t work”. But you’ve PROVEN that it works. Socialist policies pulled you out of The Depression and the more recent Recession. Socialist policies gave you access to infrastructure, education, healthcare, law enforcement, a social safety net (of sorts), military protection, etc etc.

The question is not binary: whether to ONLY apply socialism or capitalism. The question is when to apply one over the other, and how to find the right balance.

The sooner we can get back to figuring that out, instead of painting this depressingly black-and-white picture of reality where one type of thinking is evil and the other is good, and engaging in polarizing and divisive rhetoric that leads nowhere, the sooner we can make society better. For ALL of us. Not just for a privileged few.

The problem is, the American political system has trained Americans to think about society in binary terms: Democrat or Republican. Liberal or conservative. Socialist or capitalist.

This is not meaningful.

The world changes, the economy changes, the environment changes, culture changes, and we have to respond to it, and adjust. To think that one side of a simplistically two-sided ideological coin is always right in every situation is just foolish.

The right answer to any problem ALWAYS depends on what the problem is.

Stubbornly applying the exact same solution - whether liberal or conservative - to every single problem is the clinical definition of... you guessed it:

INSANITY.