In Dialogue

The dialogues restate other people’s ideas. Sometimes I riff on those ideas, extending or reinforcing them. When I do, I add the Editor avatar. Often, though, I write in harmony with direct quotes, which I put in annotations. The people I quote appear as avatars.

I focus on arguments and try to be concise, so conversational niceties will be lacking. Don’t take the dialogues to model how people should talk to each other, especially not if they’re trying to be genial.

That’s one way of defining them. But I mean “dialogue” like a dialogue in a play and “argument” like an argument in a courtroom—not a verbal fight but an attempt to persuade using reason and evidence.

The speakers disagree, but I wouldn’t say they’re fighting. Each side tries to convince the other with facts, logic, and rhetoric. There’s conflict, but it’s foremost between ideas, not people.

It’s whichever side doesn’t speak first. That means con goes last since pro goes first.

I have opinions, but the dialogues are less personal punditry, more explainer journalism. Think of them as the “why” for the “what” of opposing views on current controversies. Whatever my views, I try to challenge them as much as defend them.

To think critically about your own and others’ ideas. To try to see things differently or more clearly. That’s why I write the dialogues. That’s also why I think people should read them.