Ugh. This book just presented a whole chapter on an experiment in communication designed to get opposing sides of guns/gun-control debates talking with each other. I could see where this was going, but I decided to give it a shot and the author failed.

Where did I see this going? The author presented the the experiment as successful because it showed that both sides didn't have to hate each other. Is that good? Yes. Is that good enough? No. As if both sides of this debate are equally moral sides. They are not. I get that it's probably not useful to hate people who want to enable killing kids, but there are other books out there explaining some of the research that goes beyond communicating to persuasion. This is the "why can't we all just get along" of chapters on communication.

I'd quote, but listening to the audiobook so I don't have an accurate transcription.