Comment by AnIdiotOnTheNet
6 years ago
Having been in many arguments that seem like that[0], I think the answer is actually quite simple: sometimes it's just hard to communicate with other human beings. Communication can only convey understanding with shared context, and sometimes our contexts line up enough to make it seem like we're conveying understanding but each of us is consistently misunderstanding the other. Between the frustration and our tendency towards viewing attacks against our arguments as attacks against our being, you sometimes wind up with the kind of behavior discussed in this story.
The story itself is effective because it constructs a malevolent purpose to explain everyday phenomena we don't normally think too much about. John Dies at the End used Baader-Meinhof to similar effect.
[0]If I'm honest with myself about it, arguing is one of my favorite pastimes.
I think a lot of divides are because people have different assumed axioms, and in many cases cannot even declare what those axioms are.
Example:
I know pro-life people who cannot understand how someone could simultaneously hold the belief that aborting fetuses with congenital defects is okay, but rounding up the severely handicapped and killing them is not; there is nothing magical about birth that changes a life from not being valuable to being valuable.
Simultaneously I know pro-choice people who cannot understand how someone could simultaneously vouch for reducing or eliminating social welfare services to single mothers but also vouch for making abortions illegal; clearly the pro-life people don't care about babies after they are born!
Since the other side holds inconsistent views, they are wrongheaded hypocrites and all of their arguments can be dismissed without further thought. No compromise is possible because to compromise with hypocrites is to enable their hypocrisy.