You say A and I say B

You say that it’s A and NOT B

I Say that it’s the opposite — it’s B and NOT A. A is wrong. B is right.

You say it’s the opposite.

I say you’re misinformed

You say I’m biased

I say you’re irrational

You say I lack the background to understand

I say you’re crazy

 

Now,

Above disagreement could be trivial, or not trivial

But problems are meant to be solved

It’s logical to solve the problem which emerged. It’s logical to reach consensus.

If someone says you’re wrong — it’s logical to find out if you’re wrong or not.

If you say someone is wrong — it’s logical and kind to enlighten that person.

Unless of course you don’t believe someone could convince you that you’re wrong — in which case it’s best calling it there and then.

Or you don’t believe you could convince someone they are wrong — in which case it’s best calling it there and then.

 

This is not what we do

We will neither end it there and then,

Nor enlighten each other, conclude

We do the worst thing there is: we fight one another, we create antagonism — and the only thing we’re getting in return is confirmation of our biases

 

Granted, how do you even reach consensus — with someone who negates everything you say?

You say white and they say it’s black.

You say left and they say right

You say it’s good and they say it’s evil

?

 

Obviously if there’s nothing you agree on — then you live on different planets — and should call it there and then.

And if there is indeed something you agree on — then obviously this is where the discussion should begin

And building from the ground up, from the common ground — you can slowly attempt to build up to the point of divergence, the point of contention

And you can now consider the chain of reasoning which lead to that point

You can now examine what rendered the results different

You can now consider if there’s an error in the process

Or perhaps there’s a multitude of solutions?

 

Either way — having done all this diligent inquiry — your understanding of the counter position is now incredibly subtle — and vice versa

From what was previously perceived as pure opposites — is now largely unity — with just small part being divergent

This divergence may be unacceptable

Or it can perhaps actually be negligible

 

If there’s an error — you can ONLY correct it by revealing it from the ground up.

Obviously you can only agree on the existence of error — if you can agree on ANYTHING AT ALL in the first place

Therefore it is absolutely impossible to reach consensus without STARTING with some consensus, some common ground, some foundation

 

Of course this is not what we do

We lack the courage and intellectual integrity to question our believes

AND we lack courage and assertiveness to admit that we consider their views WORTHLESS — and therefore should likely end it there and then, and perhaps altogether

AND we lack patience and empathy to actually give others the chance to learn — rather than merely stroke our egos by broadcasting our all-important views for the millionth fucking time

 

For all of the reasons above,

Whether you disagree about organisation of the society, or about organisation of the business, or about organisation of the relationship, or about organisation of the universe,

it’s your fault

Because if there is a common ground — you should be looking for it now

And if there is a common ground — you should now be building up from it

And if there isn’t a common ground — then you should get the fuck out of there

 

It’s your fault:

-Either you’re too stupid to understand that it’s impossible to agree without first finding something to AGREE on. No one will MAGICALLY change for you. No one MAGICALLY changes their views. You have to BUILD mutual common ground of UNDERSTANDING, and from there follow with subtler and subtler points.

-Or you’re a coward. You lack courage to DISAGREE.

You will pretend you agree and suffer. And others will suffer too, as you will have to cheat them

 

Where it matters — there we must build common ground, must build dialogue, must unravel the truth

Slogans of free speech and tolerance made us so incredibly stupid

You’re free to be stupid and believe anything you want — but this doesn’t make you free to pretend that you’re not a fool, if fool you are indeed: not interested in truth, not interested in learning, not interested in dialogue

We must learn to talk again

Build from the ground-up again

And disagree at high level of subtlety again

There can be no “tolerance” for the beliefs of others if there is not profound understanding of the subtlety of an issue — and a VAST COMMON GROUND

Otherwise tolerance means nothing