بازار خرید و فروش انواع پارچه | پارچه سرا قیمت، خرید، فروش انواع پارچه
Yes, we are constantly divided. But what makes our disagreements so toxic is that we refuse to make eye contact with our opponents or try to see things as they could, or find common ground. Issues such as gun control, health care, and abortion deeply divide Americans. The reason people can`t find common ground on these issues, says New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, is that people no longer bother to understand other people`s views — a prerequisite for a real debate. Speaking at the 2017 Lowy Institute Media Awards Dinner in Australia, Stephens highlighted the important role of the media in reviving the “art of disagreement,” which he said is the backbone of any liberal democracy. getAbstract recommends Stephens` speech to media professionals, educators, and citizens of all stripes and political stripes. It is time for us to come together to stop the bleeding; the hemorrhage of the heart of our democracy. It is up to us, each and every one of us in this House, to calm down, to listen, to pause and to reconsider. then talk about it. It is incumbent upon us to be models of disagreement. Freedom of expression must ultimately be free, even if it can often be unfair.
Fox News and other partisan networks have shown that the fastest way to achieve huge profitability is to serve a regular high-carb, low-protein populist pap diet. Justified differences of opinion of the kind that could well serve democracy do not pass the market test. Those of us who otherwise believe in the virtues of unleashed capitalism should keep this fact in mind. Let me now turn briefly to civil discourse and the art of disagreement, the subject of my remarks today. “I disapprove of what you say,” Voltaire would have said, “but I will defend your right to say it to the death.” This is the only healthy way to live your life. And the only way humanity has ever progressed. Aristotle and Plato, Hobbes and Locke, Keynes and Friedman – they all developed their philosophical systems due to disagreements with their predecessors and among themselves. It`s usually the more we do something, the better off we are.
Instead, we are like Casanovas on the other hand: the more we do it, the worse off we are. Our disagreements can often make our voices hoarse, but they rarely sharpen our thinking, let alone change our minds. Right now, we seem to be making our disagreements so toxic that we often refuse to make eye contact with our opponents or try to see things as they could, or even try to find common ground. We seem to have developed a “my way or the highway” mentality. Compromise has become a one-way street and “change” means: you change, I don`t. But no country can have good government or a healthy public place without high-quality journalism – journalism that can distinguish a fact from a belief and, in turn, an opinion; who understands that the purpose of opinion is not to deviate from the facts, but to use them as a bridge to a broader idea called “truth”; and this understands that truth is such a great goal that, like Manhattan, it can be achieved on many bridges of radically different conceptions. In other words, journalism based on facts while being rich in disagreements. No country, let alone this country, can have good government and a healthy public place without high-quality disagreements. The first is the general problem: people have begun to view disagreements as inherently negative. This is obviously not the case: it is only through disagreements that we can reach higher truths and truly move away from our positions. The crucial prerequisite for intelligent disagreements – namely: shut up; listening; pause and rethink; and only then speak – missing. Quality differences of opinion and quality journalism can help us all distinguish fact from beliefs and rumours.
The purpose of opinion is not to deviate from the facts, but to use them as a bridge to the truth. The truth cannot be associated with Google hits or Facebook posts, tweets or text messages. The University of Chicago has shown us something else: that any good idea is really just a dramatic disagreement with another great idea. So here we are: intelligent disagreements are the lifeblood of any prosperous society. Yet in the United States, we are educating a younger generation that has never learned the how or why of disagreements, and who seems to think that free speech is a one-sided right: namely, their right to discharge, shout, or abuse anyone they don`t like so they don`t run the risk of listening to that person — or even allowing someone else to listen. The results are reflected in the precarious state of our universities and the frayed edges of our democracies. Most importantly, they are never based on a misunderstanding. On the contrary, differences of opinion stem from a perfect understanding; the fact that you have chewed the ideas of your intellectual opponent so completely that you can spit them out properly. Intelligent disagreements are the lifeblood of any prosperous society. Yet we now have a whole generation that has learned neither the how nor the why of disagreements and seems to think that freedom of expression is a one-way street. This has led to the fraying of our democracy.
The media, if there is one today, bear a special, but not exclusive, responsibility. They have done nothing and will do nothing to improve the state of public discourse; on the contrary, they reflect and accelerate its decline. This is journalism in defense of liberalism, not liberal in the American left-wing or Australian right-wing sense, but liberal in its belief that the individual is more than just an identity and that free men and women do not need to be protected from uncomfortable ideas and unpopular arguments. More than ever, they must be exhibited there so that we can revive the arts of disagreement, which are the best foundation of an intelligent democratic life. Polarization is geographical, ethnic and political. Polarization is also electronic and digital. Not only do we have our own opinions, but we also seem to have our own facts. These disagreements can make us hoarse, but they rarely make us smarter. They rarely sharpen our thinking, let alone change their minds. The title of my speech tonight is “The Art Dying of Disagreement.” It`s a topic that is dear to me – literally dear – because disagreements are how I`ve always made a living.
Disagreements are also close to my heart because they are the most important part of any decent society. And the media continues to amplify this – which is the third reason why disagreements are a dying art. Instead of promoting discussion, different media strictly prefer one side to the other. The result: news and worldviews that are quite true – but false. We disagree on racial issues, toilet policy, health laws and, of course, the 45th president. We express our disagreements in the tirades of radio and cable television in a way that is becoming more and more virulent; street and campus protests that are becoming increasingly violent; and personal conversations that are becoming more and more bitter. In other words, freedom of expression presupposes disagreement. If there are no of the latter, there are no first. The result is that the disagreements we need to have – and vigorously – are banished from the public square before they are resolved. People who might otherwise engage in a conversation to see where it might lead them instead choose to walk away from it so as not to say the “wrong thing” and are accused of some sort of political ism or phobia. For fear of causing offense, they give up the possibility of being persuaded.
The strongest indicator of human performance is the quality of human relationships. Donald Trump certainly has a way with 140 characters on Twitter. He speaks his own language, which not everyone can understand. In April 2015, Donald Trump deleted a tweet saying, “If Hillary Clinton can`t please her husband, what makes her believe she can satisfy America? @realDonaldTrump #2016president. (Borislov) Whether a tweet is deleted, a person can take a screenshot or find a way to reproduce a tweet as if it had never been deleted. This was a bad part of Donald Trump, who is derogatory to his opponent. He wrote “America in Retreat” and was featured as a speaker in the 2015 Munk debate “Has Obama Made the World a More Dangerous Place?” Let us also remember that we too have come together. We were all in shock together when President Kennedy was shot dead in Dallas more than 54 years ago. We were all together in 1969 when Neal Armstrong took “A small step for man and a giant step for humanity.” We were all rooted in Team USA when they beat the Russians at the 1980 Olympics. We were all together to tear down the wall in 1989. I will begin my remarks by giving you some tips that will be crucial for success, your success, in life: use people who disagree with you. You don`t know the value of your position until you have to defend it.
You may find the certainty that reinforces your views, or you may find that your views are unjustifiable and need to be reconsidered. .
