I'm receiving ever-more angry barking and name-calling instead of explanations from those advocating political positions across the entire spectrum. Also,it seems that we should give the phrase "I don't know" a formal official burial this year. The phrase has disappeared from social media, along with its siblings, humility and self-critical thought.
This post was inspired by this Tweet by Geoffrey Miller:
Here’s how I would explain the violent George Floyd protests to a Martian anthropologist.
The U.S. Constitution gives a theoretical “right” to free speech but not a real-life ability to speak powerfully or widely. Whereas money and power give rich people many ways to blast out their messages, ordinary Americans wanting to get out their messages often get eaten in the public square by street vultures. Consider these two examples.
When Donald Trump wants to make an announcement, he commands dozens of types of federal military and police organizations. This allows Trump to calmly walk up to a podium or stroll down the street in order to tell Americans what a smart man he is, or how religious or healthy or whatever. While he stands up there flatulating these lies, no one interrupts Trump because he controls a massively expensive and well-armed system of law enforcement officers and they extend their perimeter so widely that unfriendly others can’t get close. If any protestors try to get close enough to interrupt Trump’s bombastic bullshit, Trump’s police officers and soldiers throw their asses into jail.
Compare this to the George Floyd protests, where many thousands of ordinary Americans took to the streets, but they were then on their own. Ordinary Americans don’t control law enforcement. They cannot control their perimeters in order to safely deliver their message without interruption. As we’ve seen over and over, as soon as the heartfelt protestors get started delivering their messages in the public square, the area becomes an undefended magnet for uninvited masses of miscreants: anarchists, vandals, arsonists, inciters of violence and many others who clearly don’t give a shit about George Floyd. Virtually every time ordinary people gather together by the hundreds or thousands, their message gets corrupted because ordinary Americans do not have the money or power to hire hundreds of law enforcement officers to control their perimeter. Their message gets diluted by broken glass, thrown bricks and burning businesses, as well as horrible injuries, shattered dreams and gruesome deaths. Following this widespread mayhem, the heartfelt protestors get blamed for something they never planned or intended. The many people who simply wanted to bring attention to George’s Floyd’s murder are accused of intentionally destroying America’s central cities. The photos appearing in the mass media are Exhibits A-Z.
That’s how it almost always ends for those without great amounts of money and power. That is how it is in this Land where everyone only has the right to pointlessly yell out their grievances in their own living room or from their front porch. This is the Land where people of modest means can no longer assemble in peace to deliver stinging rebukes to corrupt politicians because they do not have the money or power to control and deliver a message in the public square, no matter how important that message is.
We should enact a law that when people using social media make bold predictions that turn out to be untrue, they should be required to publicly own their mistakes on social media as loudly and brashly as they originally announced their predictions.
And if they CHANGE their predictions, they will be required to loudly announce that their original prediction was incorrect and that they are changing it. And they will be required to keep a running tab online showing others how often they have been incorrect in their predictions.
I'm tempted to close my eyes, flip through a dictionary and put my finger on a random word. That single word will be my next Facebook post. I suspect that this single word, no matter what it is, will be enough to trigger a political argument between vocal representatives of the two prominent political teams hurling factually spurious darts and arrows at each other, neither of these teams stopping to consider why 
people on the other side say those "disagreeable" things. Neither of them will want to take the time to put forth any effort to put the other side's best foot forward before responding. Neither of them will feel compelled to treat members of the other "team" like the human beings they are. Many of them will feel reluctance to ever say the following three magic words, "I don't know." The participants will be oblivious to the fact that many of their own self-evident "truths" are rickety, distorted within the comfy social warmth of their team's moral/political matrix.
I often feel like I'm trapped in the Twilight Zone episode, "The Monsters are Due on Maple Street," where all it took was a few random flickering lights to cause suspicions to ignite, leading neighbors to hate each other and physically attack each other. This episode of Twilight Zone, like so many other excellent episodes, was written by Rod Serling, who ended the show by reading this passage:
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices...to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill...and suspicion can destroy...and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own – for the children and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is that these things cannot be confined to the Twilight Zone.
Fast forward to a 2016 TED talk featuring moral psychologist, Jonathan Haidt, who stated:
We're really, really good at justifying ourselves. And when you bring group interests into account, so it's not just me, it's my team versus your team, whereas if you're evaluating evidence that your side is wrong, we just can't accept that.So this is why you can't win a political argument. If you're debating something, you can't persuade the person with reasons and evidence, because that's not the way reasoning works.
Why do so many of us treat opportunity to communicate online with each other like a vicious game when our country's existence is at stake?
It’s rather amazing. In this age of Coronavirus, we are grappling with hyper-complex problems involving epidemiology, efficaciousness of pharmaceuticals, economic projections and social stability. We are each part of an enormous complex adaptive system, yet it’s difficult to find anyone who lacks a complete understanding of the situation or who lacks detailed opinions about what should be done.
Apparently, it’s not good manners to say “I don’t know” in public any more.