"Where's your proof?" is the taunt thrown up to anyone who questions prevailing narratives. But the question goes both ways. Here's how basic legal concepts can apply to our most divisive debates.
Earlier in your talk, you mentioned the need for a football coach to go into the owner's office and explain his 2-15 season. That is the thing; one only really needs to explain themselves to the boss. What you give, if anything at all, to those who are not the boss is courtesy, narrative, spin.
Those who have authority necessarily have an upperhand when it comes to argumentation. Theirs is the "official" explanation and to challenge it is to implicitly also challenge their authority. This is why the US legal jurisprudence is so vastly different from the rest of the world as it seeks to intentionally undermine and hamstring the authority of those in authority in proving the case, especially criminal cases.
One of the missteps that I see in those who challenge the "official" position of those in authority is that they unwittingly move the goal posts themselves and are locked into a defensive position when they posit the alternative position. The rejoinder to the alternative position is "prove it" and "That isn't acceptable proof." It is better in argumentation to not directly offer an alternative explanation but to seek to undermine and prove unreasonable the "official" position. As a defendant (US Courts), one need not prove innocence (or even a singular alternative explanation or one at all) but rather simply show that the position of the one bringing suit is unreasonable and not supported by the evidence.
When it comes to the recent malpractice of the federal government, there is a real issue that people are psychologically invested in being right. Accepting that they are wrong would cause tremendous psychological dissonance and upset their view of reality and personal sense of self. A tremendous amount of moral damage (moral wounds) was done to people in a way that made them complicit in their own wounds and the wounds of others. The thing about moral wounds is that it makes people vested in perpetuating the lies that brought about the wounds. This cannot be argued with but rather their wounds need to be healed in order for there to be a conversion process of them accepting that their position was wrong and that a different position is more reasonable. Or at least of being to have a debate over the issue.
Well said Dan!
Earlier in your talk, you mentioned the need for a football coach to go into the owner's office and explain his 2-15 season. That is the thing; one only really needs to explain themselves to the boss. What you give, if anything at all, to those who are not the boss is courtesy, narrative, spin.
Those who have authority necessarily have an upperhand when it comes to argumentation. Theirs is the "official" explanation and to challenge it is to implicitly also challenge their authority. This is why the US legal jurisprudence is so vastly different from the rest of the world as it seeks to intentionally undermine and hamstring the authority of those in authority in proving the case, especially criminal cases.
One of the missteps that I see in those who challenge the "official" position of those in authority is that they unwittingly move the goal posts themselves and are locked into a defensive position when they posit the alternative position. The rejoinder to the alternative position is "prove it" and "That isn't acceptable proof." It is better in argumentation to not directly offer an alternative explanation but to seek to undermine and prove unreasonable the "official" position. As a defendant (US Courts), one need not prove innocence (or even a singular alternative explanation or one at all) but rather simply show that the position of the one bringing suit is unreasonable and not supported by the evidence.
When it comes to the recent malpractice of the federal government, there is a real issue that people are psychologically invested in being right. Accepting that they are wrong would cause tremendous psychological dissonance and upset their view of reality and personal sense of self. A tremendous amount of moral damage (moral wounds) was done to people in a way that made them complicit in their own wounds and the wounds of others. The thing about moral wounds is that it makes people vested in perpetuating the lies that brought about the wounds. This cannot be argued with but rather their wounds need to be healed in order for there to be a conversion process of them accepting that their position was wrong and that a different position is more reasonable. Or at least of being to have a debate over the issue.