This Deep Dive examines the concept of "deep disagreement" in political discourse, particularly in relation to the Dark Enlightenment movement, and directly critiques the deep disagreement argument, asserting that it's a false premise used to avoid genuine dialogue, and highlights how the Dark Enlightenment uses this concept to present itself as a radical, "red-pilled" alternative, while actually perpetuating elitist power structures. Th Deep Dive examples a paper by Scott F. Aikin, which provides a more philosophical exploration of deep disagreement, acknowledging its theoretical possibility but arguing for continued optimistic engagement, despite the Dark Enlightenment's self-sealing "red pill" rhetoric. Finally, the conversation turns to a YouGov Data piece that offers empirical evidence of significant bipartisan agreement on numerous policy issues in the U.S., directly challenging the notion that fundamental disagreements make productive argument impossible.

Ver todos los episodios