What's the point in discourse if not to change the other person's mind? Triggering the limbic system of the person you are talking to is the fastest way to ensure they won't be able to engage with their PFC and actually hear and consider what you're saying. If the point is just to feel better about how righteous and right you are, then by all means proceed with your approach. But if the point is to influence somebody's views, then you are self-defeating in your approach.

Personally, I think federal officers have executed law abiding citizens. But if I start out by screaming "The Nazis have control of our government and are executing innocent people in the streets!" then not only have I closed my own mind to potential challenges to my views (which is at best hypocritical to expect the other person to be open-minded when I am not myself open-minded), then we get nowhere and just come away hating each other and thinking the other person is crazy. Worse, it poisons the well so the future reasonable person is immediately written off with guilt-by-association (person A was crazy and person B shares a view with them, therefore they must be crazy too).

> What's the point in discourse if not to change the other person's mind?

That was a question made at one of those public debates that the Oxford University likes to organise, and I think the answer is right on point: the purpose of discourse is to let the audience (or readers) reflect on an opinion, which takes time. It's *almost never* to change the opinion of the person you're debating. It's a given that most people that do like to engage in debate or public discourse are the kind of people that are unlikely to change their minds, and if ever they do, it won't be on the spot.

Ah, yeah that's fair since we're talking about moderating online discussions which are accessible for the public. Although I think the principle still stands for people who aren't approaching the discussion from a principle of neutrality. The people in the audience that you want to change the minds of will react similarly to the way I described, so you might get a small percentage of open minded people but you limit your reach. The extremity of the position also tends to resonate poorly with moderates/undecideds, so I would still suspect that a more reasoned, logical argument would be more effective with the audience. That said though, you make an excellent point.

I understand your point which sounds reasonable for a lot of debate, but the counter argument would be that in some situations you are normalizing both sides, when one side is not acting in good faith and is on the wrong side of history. Examples being Southern slave holders, Putin's invasion of Ukraine, fossil fuel interests regarding climate change.

If one did live under Nazis German rule, would it have been wrong to scream, "The Nazis have control of our government and are executing innocent people in the streets!"? At that point you're trying to wake the public up to do something about it, not sit down and have a debate over Goebbels latest speech with some fence sitter who can't decide whether Hitler has gone too far.

yes, this was my point, thank you for articulating it much better than me

This can be said generally at all times by someone. It’s not just a naive way of thinking it’s extremely dangerous and a real threat to republican society. You will never sway the center with aggressive and blatantly bias rhetoric.

Not in completely open communities, no.

It would be better to gatekeep political communities with precisely worded "principle" questions and then flag for violations of those for anybody who slipped in under the radar.

Even political communities where everyone is nominally on the same page do break down over issues of tone, disingenuous arguments, etc. though.

There’s basically no point of political discussion if you all agree, besides bitching and moaning.