Social Epistemology"

Many political issues end up being framed as “pro vs “anti”. Pro/anti immigration. Pro/anti drugs. Pro/anti choice. Pro/anti life.

But a pro/anti framing is almost always subtly dishonest. When you say you are pro-life, do you really believe people who disagree with you are against life!? When you say you are pro-choice, do you really believe people against you are against choice!?

Obviously not. You are pro/anti legalized abortion. But by calling yourself pro-life or pro-choice, you imply that the other side is anti-life or anti-choice, which sounds bad. It is a subtle, but effective, way of manipulating people’s opinions.

In public political debate today, there seems to be little capacity for nuance.

For example, many conservatives seem unable, or unwilling, to differentiate between marijuana and “drugs”. Or for example, many liberals seem unable, or unwilling, to differentiate between legal and illegal immigration.

I believe politicians and pundits often understand the nuance, but just pretend not to. If you act like your opponent made a statement about B when they actually made a statement about A, many people in your audience will believe it. You can them trick your audience into believing your opponent has a different opinion than they actually have – usually a more extreme and idiotic opinion.