"Rabbi Heschel spoke those words during the last years of King’s life, when 72 percent of whites and 55 percent of blacks disapproved of King’s opposition to the Vietnam War and his efforts to eradicate poverty in America."
What I just quoted was the source quote (from an Op Ed by Cornel West) from which that stat is drawn in the article this gentleman quotes.
I'm not necessarily disputing the central claim here. But King's civil rights efforts were always more popular than his anti-war and later
economic activism. His personal popularity was probably greater too, and he was far and away regarded as the pre-eminent leader of black America in his time.
Polling was not as consistent or comprehensive back then. I wonder where one might be a more thorough treatment of
available data...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
An opportunity was lost with the collapse of the #IntellectualDarkWeb. Logic only travels so far in the absence of social trust, and building trust rich social networks across tribes is extremely hard to do.
We live in an era of echo chambers. I won't listen to your information because I don't trust your sources, because I see them as being ill-motivated and not just potentially wrong.
Wherever you stand on voter fraud, the Covid vaccine (both of which Sam and I get in to...)
...there is a need to sustain the attention of vastly different thinking people on a singular topic where information is being discussed that conflicts with their biases.
Most of us can listen to such information if it is coming from someone whose intentions we trust. If not...
I detect sarcasm from my friend @fullydavid, but let me address it. Because part of the value in speaking to Dave Rubin was to give me the chance to speak to other things.
I won't tag Rubin here because I don't think it's necessary. Others will do what they will. [1/43]
Here of course is the conversation, for The John Wood Jr. Show, that occasions the subject: [2/43]
Working with @braverangels I and my colleagues constantly disappoint people. Some people like the idea of good faith dialogue and empathy but draw lines as to who should be invited into such spaces. We've gotten backlash for engaging figures like Hawk Newsome, James Comey..[3/43]
But I also have to say something about it's aftermath.
This conversation was a victory because it showed an exchange between knowledgeable individuals on both sides of a highly charged topic that clarified differences, tested logical rigor & allowed for further reasoning on the subject.
It did so while maintaining a respect...
...and congeniality that would grant ppl on both sides of the conversation psychological permission to continue exploring in good faith.
These are the circumstances that allow us to learn from one another while also being able to function together socially.
Welcoming @tristanharris to the pod in an hour. A man to be admired.
Likewise @coldxman. In their recent convo Coleman makes a point I'd like to drill to the center of everyone's brains.
Generically politically informed people are as bias prone as anyone. More statistics...
...do not reduce tribal impulses that filter such information through its prejudices. Perversely therefore "recommending people get more informed may even exacerbate the problem."
"It's not a problem of intelligence. It's a much deeper problem." He's right.
Now as Tristan...
...points out there are different ways of being informed. It is the polarizing narrative structures (my language) that inform us in ways that inflame our biases and abridges our contextual understanding (most of this is not just flat out lies, though some is).
So at @braverangels we commissioned a poll from @YouGov to survey American's thoughts about the possibility of violence following a contested election, and the possibility that the election may in fact be rigged.