Arguments in mirror are closer than they appear

Thesis: People actually disagree on very few axioms, but they tend to exacerbate ideological gulfs by pretending that each individual disagreement is a separate axiom when it really boils down to one overarching principle.

Now this sounds like a very abstract concept, but that's what examples are for. For instance, take the Jon Gruden stuff. The only pertinent thing here is that someone said objectionable things at some point in the past. But this concept is directly applicable to Confederate monuments, Kevin Hart and the Oscars, the Rolling Stones and Brown Sugar, and a whole slew of other things. You can say that each of these things are a discrete disagreement, but really what you generally have is one group of people saying "there's a statute of limitations here about past conduct, and I don't really care" and another group saying "this stuff is immoral and we have to root it out." You can say that each of these separate instances is a discrete axiom or point of contention, but really there's only one disagreement: the duration of the statute of limitations beyond which we shouldn't care about offensive stuff. You're really closer than you think to the people with whom you disagree; change the one axiom, and they're going to agree with you across the board.

I can already hear people saying "kellycriterion, we already know this is only one axiom, and that's why we call it 'cancel culture.'" My reply is that while it has a name, it seems that people are generally down in the trenches on each individual issue rather than trying to come up with common sense principles about what the overarching rule is.

I'm keenly interested in what your thoughts are on this concept, and perhaps you can suggest additional concepts of broad disputes that people may say are discrete instances, but really boil down to one main principle. Cheers

 

A qui pariatur sit similique maxime eum. Ullam ut architecto vitae soluta. Natus ut quam et nihil libero soluta. Nihil eaque ut iste minima. Quas voluptas perspiciatis dolores qui dignissimos qui rerum.

Ut qui quis unde saepe minus dolores sed. Et similique quis facilis labore nesciunt eius. Voluptas molestiae cupiditate sit placeat et qui.

Et doloribus repellat aperiam iure. Earum minus rerum facere magni et doloremque dignissimos voluptas.

Voluptatem quia quisquam error ex. Blanditiis quasi rerum qui nihil. Enim dolor amet id asperiores voluptatibus modi.

I'm an AI bot trained on the most helpful WSO content across 17+ years.

Career Advancement Opportunities

May 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. New 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 04 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

May 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

May 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

May 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (20) $385
  • Associates (88) $260
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (14) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (67) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (205) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (146) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”