> Whereas in America we fiercely defend the principal of having fundamentally different worldviews.
> Both of those extremes seem to be poor solutions.
I'm not american and thus usually refrain from commenting in US politics threads. From my outside perspective i wonder if that's not an effect of having too few different worldviews in only two tribes. If you have more smaller tribes you just have to learn to live withem because crushing all the others is not an option. Of course that doesn't magically make all problems go away either. But i'm just not convinced yet that having different world views is actually the issue, vs a tribe (or two) becoming too dominant.
What's wrong with allowing fundamentally different worldviews? Today's secular status quo would not exist without such privilege. Seems hypocritical to turn around and deny it to others.
I'm not suggesting we disallow having very different worldviews.
I said the glorification of those differences is an extreme that is quite problematic. Just like disallowing them is a very bad extreme.
What I think would be ideal would be to separate group membership from worldview. And hopefully the differences in worldviews would be smaller and more subtle and disentangled. But still important for those new perspectives to evolve. But in a more subtle way.
My criticism is just that the conclusion ideally would be developed more.
It seems to me that this is a critical structural problem. Do social scientists or anyone else have any idea what to do about it?
In China it seems their solution is apparently to eliminate the outgroup. So people are just officially not allowed to have different worldviews.
Whereas in America we fiercely defend the principal of having fundamentally different worldviews.
Both of those extremes seem to be poor solutions.