Accord has gone live Call now to someone who disagrees with you about Brexit
We're a small team of British developers who have been working on Accord which has just gone live! Accord will allow you to have a real conversation with a real person, on a topic that you passionately disagree on, in a quest to build mutual understanding, empathy and tolerance.
To try out this service please call in to +44 1327 552039 now to discuss "Will Brexit make Britain a better place" with someone that disagrees with you!
For more information see http://strikeanaccord.wixsite.com/accord
40 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 83.3 ms ] threadI like half of the concept - having a discussion. But I think the topic, structure and timing are all wrong.
It's like asking someone to self-evaluate when their raise is being decided tomorrow, versus having a raise, and sometime later asking that person to self-evaluate.
But that's why we argue and debate in the first place. We don't do it AFTER the votes have been called, because it's too late to change anything then.
Very, very, very few people that hold untrue facts in their mind are open to re-evaluating those facts.
No thank you.
EDIT: added the word "NOT" above.
Your statement made more sense before the edit.
Or maybe... just maybe... you're the one with untrue facts in your head, and his true facts collide with your untrue ones?
Unpossible!
The charitable way to read the comment is that a particular person he talked to was unconcerned by facts, and that this is a common problem with heated/divisive discussions. (This jives with my experience that most people don't care what's true, they just want to make socially approved noises.)
It doesn't matter if it's trump.
Or Hillary.
Or global warming or vaccines or JS or Modi or Putin or any number of things.
Most human beings don't tend to change their opinions when directly engaging in discussions.
The only people who change their positions are people actively trying to change their views.
The real trick to changing an opinions is to stop trying and start listening.
That's anathema to most people.
To that extent I wholeheartedly agree. If you can't even agree on the base data, how can you build a conclusion?
ME: British are against the muslim immigration because large percentage of muslims hold these undemocratic antiwestern beliefs: A, B, C, D, and they don't assimilate.
THEM: You're a racist / bigot. Shame! Shame! Shame!
I'm thinking of the 2nd person asking questions about the first argument, asking for evidence, facts, definitions etc, in an attempt to understand.
I ask as a British citizen who has failed at all attempts to try to understand the other side (and I could take blame of course. I still seek a solution)
A perfect argument would indeed require both sides to show the evidence, to use logical constructs, to refute the opposing ideas. And some definitely try.
However, I agree with you that all elements of the political spectrum are engaging in some pretty heavy name calling these days. One reason why Accord's project is so important.
I think the website makes it clear that this is for people who are willing to listen to each other. Once that mutual willingness is there, I believe a discussion like this can be very profitable. (Actually, I do not only believe so, I know so from many personal experiences.) Of course you are going to have some bad apples in the lineup who are going to start nasty arguments, but I think the presentation of the website is such that these should be kept to a minimum.
A big thank you to the Accord team from me - in a political age defined increasingly by the demonization of other political/social opinions (something all sides engage in), we desperately need more polite, levelheaded discussions.
For example, given the demographic information in the 2016 US Elections, I would expect Hilary supporters to have much higher representation in an online/telephonic medium. Is that the case?