Comment by Rayhem

Yes, that's exactly my point. It's easy to say "I think X so X is right" but I'm trying to find more objectivity by drawing analogies/looking for asymmetries with other things. What happens if we perturb the system in a given direction? Of course, pronouncements of absolute moral certainty pretty much fall to unprovable religion - "murder is always bad because God doesn't approve, even if everyone agrees to it!" - but I find it likely that there are approximate moral certainties (like murder or theft generally being harmful, or, in this case, interruption culture being the more rude of the two).

> If it just so happens that the answer to a vexing societal question is for people that I'm right and do things my way, then I have to become suspicious of whether I'm really arguing as logically as I think I am.

I appreciate this position greatly and I think it's very noble. I try very hard to argue with myself along the same lines to arrive at better conclusions. My concern with the alternative - that people are hard, there are no answers, and all we can do is communicate - is that it means nothing is knowable with a side effect of supporting the status quo.