MCC Lecture Series: John Corvino - Shared screen with speaker view
Going back to what you said about debating on social media.. I fully agree with you. However, I do feel talking online helps me to think about what I say before I say it. as I'm not just blurting it out. I'm wondering if this is something you relate to on any level?
We know there are ways to persuade people, kindly, respectfully, etc., that are ultimately irrational. The advertising/PR industry knows this. For example, moving anecdotes about “my gay friend,” or meeting him might open the minds of others, even persuade them that their views about homosexuality were wrong. But, rationally, this should not persuade. It is a classic hasty generalization.As a philosopher, how do you recommend deciding between or balancing “what works” (stories, personal experience) with “what should rationally persuade,” when the latter, frankly, tends to turn people off?
You mentioned there are some arguments from others that are dismissible.. What do you consider dismissible in an argument?
How do you feel about powerful influential figures gaslighting people on the “other side” through social media. For example, President Trump’s over-usage of twitter to discredit and verbally abuse certain people. And do you think we as a society can change this normality of gaslighting and offending others that we do not agree with on social media? Also how should we as civilians respond to these tweets and comments, or what can we take out as a lesson from this?
Earlier you mentioned that there are groups not worthy of respect. How are those groups chosen? Surely white supremacists don't agree that they are not worthy of respect, though we can see it clearly. Who gets to decide on what views are worthy of being heard, or how can both sides agree on it?
I'm not sure if Maggie's question was really answered...
Question for Andy: Do we email our paper to you?
Thank you for your time, Dr. Corvino!
Thank you Dr. Corvino!
Thanks, i enjoyed it!