Dialogue

Here is an interesting long form piece in the WaPo about a meeting between an anti-Islamic protester and Muslims in Texas.

A lot of anger has been expressed on both sides that has its roots in epistemological closure.  One side has its information, the other has its information.  There is simply no overlapping agreement on facts.  What was interesting about the piece was how - even though they couldn't break through some of the less grounded beliefs of the anti-Muslim activist - the simple act of talking actually seemed to make a difference.

This is another reason why Nazi punching is really not that helpful.  During the "Mother of All Rallies" (the same time as the Juggalo march), Black Lives Matter showed up to counter-protest.  The leader of the pro-Trump rally invited a spokesman for BLM to talk.  Few were moved.

But not all.

Several people afterwards came up and engaged the speaker, challenged him respectfully.  A few even admitted to having their minds changed a little.

Because of the self-reinforcing narratives that come with epistemological closure, it can be very hard to use facts to dissuade someone who is truly invested in their belief systems, but it is not impossible.  And it is exhausting to try and convince millions of Americans that, no, sharia law is not a threat to you in any way, shape or form.  That's just a dumb argument to have to have.

In the end, however, it might be our best hope.