It is of no use discussing something you disagree with the guy you disagree.
Nope. Discuss it with 50 others instead, so if the guy once said he used a knife to slice bread, you wind up guessing he is a serial killer instead.
Of course the guy could indeed be a serial killer, but what are the chances?
As long as people are more prone to believing than to directly perceiving, they will be manipulated. They will join some Colosseum and cheer at some innocent person’s death, they will throw rotten apples at him while he is tied on a plaza, and they will cheer for the burning witch; just because somebody spread the word somebody’s guilty or otherwise bad. And of course, it is always the best of them all that spreads such words, no? I’m afraid their being stupid doesn’t make them less guilty either, for they give their consent for that to occur.
The simple, easy, direct path of understanding each other solves numerous future problems. But there is a problem; not all can do it.
People get trained to sit in groups and listen to one talk, and then repeat it. They don’t get trained to freely talk with each other. They probably wouldn’t even need any training to do that, anyway. And the guy who addresses the group is then the always-right one and gives bad grades to those who don’t repeat him right. That is the death of freedom of speech, of understanding each other, of knowing the world. That is how people that preach how ‘everyone is evil’ get away with it, and don’t get lynched by everyone, instead. That is how we get divided into opposing factions that might as well not want anything more from us than to control us.
I’m not asserting all groups are bad of course; nor that all addressing the public is bad. But one should be able to honestly reply to what he is told, and that after he is able to know his own perspective, first. If somebody says there is a clown behind the door, one ought to be able to know that he doesn’t know whether there is any. He ought to have a look for himself.