Talk:Practicing Dialogue/From Demagoguery to Dialogue

This is the first time I've read your essay, yet it seems to be in a similar vein as some of my own, linked below. However, it misses the essential point in my view. The problem is not so much willful ignorance though, but rather that discourse is subverted in a variety of ways. The former explains away the latter. I think setting an example of precise, critical prose is a good way to deal with this problem, and so I try to do just that. Political media certainly resembles pro wrestling, but not exactly in the manner one might think. It's a fictional narrative. Frankly we need to be more critical of it. If people don't use their words, it's at least partly because of various furtive means of censorship.

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Socialism/Bipartisan_fraud

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Policy_and_Standards_for_Critical_Discourse

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/The_Parody_of_Debate

In other words, it's all well and good to say that political media is divisive and dialog too often goes nowhere. That much is obvious. But why is it divisive? How is it divisive? Why does dialog go nowhere? These are the questions that must be answered to solve this problem, and these are the questions I've attempted to address. It cannot be implied that the public themselves are just willfully ignorant, because if this were true it would do no good to write about it in the first place.

Anyway, please do share your opinion with me. I may add a critique of this resource in my own, but for the sake of collegiality I wanted to say something here first.

AP295 (discuss • contribs) 18:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)