General Meade, Debbie, and the Observation Tower. Gettysburg, 1977. #gettysburg #gettysburgpa #gettysburgpennsylvania #pennsylvania #vacation #holiday #daytrip #daytrips #cartrip #attraction #attractions #civilwar #civilrights #observationtower #eyesore #disagreement #statue #statues

Learn to Disagree More Effectively A conversation with Harvard Kennedy School professor Julia Minson about focusing on concrete behavior rather than mindset.

Learn to #Disagree More #Effectively

#Disagreement is essential to better #decisions —but most of us either avoid it or handle it poorly.

hbr.org/podcast/2026...

Prof Eileen John speaks at our Penelope Mackie Research Seminar⁣
⁣
'Embracing Artistic Disagreement without Relativism'. ⁣
⁣
🕒 3-5pm
🌐 @UoNHumanities A1
⁣
#philosophy #aesthetics #art #relativism #disagreement

Kindness in disagreement shows strength, not weakness. Builds bridges. #Kindness #Disagreement #Strength #Unity #Respect

Original post on mementomori.social

Folke Tersman has revised his SEP-entry on Moral Disagreement, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/disagreement-moral/

The author on Uppsala University's pages, www.uu.se/en/contact-and-organisat...

#ethics #morality #moralPhilosophy #philosophy #filosofia #etiikka […]

‘Fundamental disagreement’ in US-Greenland talks as Nato allies up military presence ‘Geopolitical tensions have spread to the Arctic’ said a statement released by Greenland and Denmark

www.the-independent.com/news/world/e... #news #viral #Greenland #usa #disagreement

'Fundamental disagreement' remains with Trump over Greenland after high-level talks | CBC News A top Danish official said Wednesday that a "fundamental disagreement" over Greenland remains with U.S. President Donald Trump after highly anticipated talks in Washington with U.S. Vice-President JD ...

14/1 2026

#Fundamental #disagreement remains with #tRump over #Greenland after high-level talks

Danish, Greenlandic foreign ministers reject idea of US control, stress unity

#tRumpistan #Kingdom-of-Denmark #uspol #glpol #dkpol

www.cbc.ca/news/world/w...

Denmark warns of 'fundamental disagreement' with US over Greenland There was no major breakthrough during the meeting, and President Trump reiterated his interest in acquiring the island shortly afterwards.

14/1 2026

#Denmark warns of #fundamental #disagreement after White House talks on #Greenland

#tRumpistan #tRump-regime #Kingdom-of-Denmark #uspol #glpol #dkpol

bbc.com/news/article...

Tell me, how would you like me to reject you? In conversation with Stanford students involved with civic engagement, Hwang explores how to approach political disagreement in different contexts. The post Tell me, how would you like me to reject you? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

Understanding Modern #Cosmology : Medium

Why #Leaders should #Encourage #Disagreement : Misc

How #Hungry #Fat #Cells Could Someday #Starve #Cancer to #Death : Misc

Latest #KnowledgeLinks

knowledgezone.co.in/resources/bo...

When You Have to Execute a Strategy You Disagree With #leadership #changemanagement #management #disagreement #trust #challenge #risks #organization #reorganization #communication #engagement

Conflict in Relationships
#Conflict #Relationship #argument #couple #partners #married #disagreement

This is what political courage looks like: Indiana Republicans defeat Trump's gerrymandering plan It seems like every year there is a story about how the United States is more politically divided than ever, to the point in which some are manipulating the way basic democracy is done in order to achieve extra votes. As President Trump pushes for the _congressional redistricting_ of various states in order to assure his party stays in power during his presidency, the Republicans in GOP-governed _Indiana voted against it_ to favor democracy over allegiance to their party. To many, Trump’s push for redistricting in order for traditionally Republican-voting states to receive more congressional seats is a blatant form of _gerrymandering_. Gerrymandering is an unfair, yet sadly common, tactic in order to redraw and rig voting maps to favor specific politicians or political parties. This method has been used from incumbents to retain their seats of power for upcoming elections, undermining voters. > @kate_forthepeople > > I AM SHOOK!!! INDIANA YOU ARE MY ❤️!!! #gerrymandering #redistricting #theanswerisno As of this writing, the GOP-controlled _Texas_ has redrawn their maps to favor five additional seats for Republicans and Democrats in _California_ voted to redraw their maps in response. This had led to Trump encouraging other red states to redistrict, but his own party members in _Indiana broke rank_ to keep their current map and let the voters decide who to represent them in the 2026 midterm elections. These Republicans also _are reported_to have received violent threats regarding this vote along with _upsetting the President_. The hope of several politicians, including former ones like _Arnold Schwarzenegger_, is that gerrymandering is something that is universally reviled by all political parties and “terminated” as Arnold would put it. > @cnn > > Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger criticized congressional redistricting efforts happening across the United States during an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper. Schwarzenegger said both parties are “trying to outcheat each other” through redistricting. #CNN #News #politics Douglas J. Amy of _FairVote.Org_ shares how discarding gerrymandering tactics could be achieved: __“The only sure way to eliminate gerrymandering – both intentional and unintentional – from American elections is to abandon single-member plurality arrangements and adopt proportional representation. Indeed, the whole purpose of PR is to minimize wasted votes and ensure that the parties are represented in proportion to the votes they receive. This eliminates the possibilities of unfair representation produced by gerrymandering. The key to eliminating partisan gerrymandering is the large multimember districts used in PR systems.As numerous studies have shown, as long as a PR system has at least five seats in every district, it is effectively immune from gerrymandering.These districts largely eliminate the wasted votes that make gerrymandering possible. In such districts, even small political minorities do not waste their votes and are able to elect their fair share of representatives. Thus, under PR arrangements, where voters live or how district lines are drawn makes no difference – fair representation will result.”__ __ __ > @thoughttrek2.0 > > The history of Gerrymandering It is indeed still a turbulent political landscape that will still be filled with disagreement, however this move by Republican Hoosiers allows the fights to be more fair and encourages politicians to work together for the people’s will rather than their own party’s. On the same day Indiana rejected the gerrymandering, a few GOP senators sided with Democrats for a three-year extension of _Affordable Care Act subsidies_ after months of contention and a government shutdown over them. This, too, leads to hope and a possible trend that disagreement and debate leads to better outcomes over outright party allegiance at any cost.

Berry's Political Disagreement Why did the California Governor cancel his acting class? Because Halle Berry said his performance wasn't presidential material!

New entry of AI-generated #comics and #jokes added to our #website:

#Berry's #Political #Disagreement

comics.lucentinian.com/13236
#AIJokes #FunnyNews #AIGeneratedJokes #Comedy #VisitUsNow

Germany, Spain Women's Coaches in Tense Post-Match Handshake Germany's Christian Wück and Spain's Sonia Bermúdez confronted each other following the 0-0 stalemate. Bermúdez approached Wück to shake hands but spoke some

Germany, Spain Women's Coaches in Tense Post-Match Handshake

#ChristianWück #coaches #disagreement #SoniaBermúdez #WomensNationsLeague

Trouble And more trouble.

Maybe #English isn't first for you, or you rushed the #translator, but I find no #disagreement with you in what I said. I am not #confused. There will be #bodies, and there will be #victory.
You should read more of #MissKitty to know she has called the bodies a LOOOONG time ago.

KIND Snacks founder Daniel Lubetzky starts new speaker series for civil disagreement KIND Snacks founder Daniel Lubetzsky JD ’93 sponsors new speaker series in collaboration with ePluribus Stanford for civic dialogue. The post KIND Snacks founder Daniel Lubetzky starts new speaker series for civil disagreement appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

KIND Snacks founder Daniel Lubetzky starts new speaker series for civil disagreement KIND Snacks founder Daniel Lubetzsky JD ’93 sponsors new speaker series in collaboration with ePluribus Stanford for civic dialogue. The post KIND Snacks founder Daniel Lubetzky starts new speaker series for civil disagreement appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

KIND Snacks founder Daniel Lubetzky starts new speaker series for civil disagreement KIND Snacks founder Daniel Lubetzsky JD ’93 sponsors new speaker series in collaboration with ePluribus Stanford for civic dialogue. The post KIND Snacks founder Daniel Lubetzky starts new speaker series for civil disagreement appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

KIND Snacks founder Daniel Lubetzky starts new speaker series for civil disagreement KIND Snacks founder Daniel Lubetzsky JD ’93 sponsors new speaker series in collaboration with ePluribus Stanford for civic dialogue. The post KIND Snacks founder Daniel Lubetzky starts new speaker series for civil disagreement appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

At The Conversation Coalition we believe in Challenging yet Cordial Discussions.
Check it out today!
#FindYourPeople #Conversation #Disagreement

Opposing Orthodoxy about Heterodoxy “Whenever I see people engaged in philosophical debate or argument, I want to see people trying to win. I like my philosophy adversarial, aggressive, combative, and even hostile. I think there are some good reasons for this approach… but I also think it’s more fun that way. And I’m not the only one. Friedrich Nietzsche once said one of the reasons Socrates was so popular among the high-born youth of Athens was that he introduced them to a new kind of competitive wrestling.” That’s Michael Veber (East Carolina University) in a recent article in Theory and Society about why he won’t be joining Heterodox Academy anytime soon. Why not? For one thing, he doesn’t like “loyalty oaths”: Heterodox Academy (hereinafter, HxA) is an academic advocacy group devoted to promoting open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement in research and education… If you aspire to team up with notable heroes of the campus free speech movement and declare that you too are HxA, you must go online, click a box, and thereby affirm the following statement. “I support open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement”. In other words, you need to take a loyalty oath. But he also thinks this particular loyalty oath has a problem: The problem is that “constructive disagreement”, as HxA understands and advocates for it, is inconsistent with open inquiry and undermines viewpoint diversity. That makes the HxA loyalty oath logically self-contradictory and the act of requiring people to take it self-defeating. What does HxA mean by “constructive disagreement”? Veber shares the following, from the organization’s website: The objective of most intellectual exchanges should not be to “win,” but rather to have all parties come away from an encounter with a deeper understanding of our social, aesthetic, and natural worlds. Try to imagine ways of integrating strong parts of an interlocutor’s positions into one’s own. Don’t just criticize, consider viable positive alternatives. Try to work out new possibilities, or practical steps that could be taken to address the problems under consideration. The corollary to this guidance is to avoid sarcasm, contempt, hostility, and snark. Generally target ideas rather than people. Do not attribute negative motives to people you disagree with as an attempt at dismissing or discrediting their views. Avoid hyperbole.. The post Opposing Orthodoxy about Heterodoxy first appeared on Daily Nous.

Opposing Orthodoxy about Heterodoxy “Whenever I see people engaged in philosophical debate or argument, I want to see people trying to win. I like my philosophy adversarial, aggressive, combative, and even hostile. I think there are some good reasons for this approach… but I also think it’s more fun that way. And I’m not the only one. Friedrich Nietzsche once said one of the reasons Socrates was so popular among the high-born youth of Athens was that he introduced them to a new kind of competitive wrestling.” That’s Michael Veber (East Carolina University) in a recent article in Theory and Society about why he won’t be joining Heterodox Academy anytime soon. Why not? For one thing, he doesn’t like “loyalty oaths”: Heterodox Academy (hereinafter, HxA) is an academic advocacy group devoted to promoting open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement in research and education… If you aspire to team up with notable heroes of the campus free speech movement and declare that you too are HxA, you must go online, click a box, and thereby affirm the following statement. “I support open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement”. In other words, you need to take a loyalty oath. But he also thinks this particular loyalty oath has a problem: The problem is that “constructive disagreement”, as HxA understands and advocates for it, is inconsistent with open inquiry and undermines viewpoint diversity. That makes the HxA loyalty oath logically self-contradictory and the act of requiring people to take it self-defeating. What does HxA mean by “constructive disagreement”? Veber shares the following, from the organization’s website: The objective of most intellectual exchanges should not be to “win,” but rather to have all parties come away from an encounter with a deeper understanding of our social, aesthetic, and natural worlds. Try to imagine ways of integrating strong parts of an interlocutor’s positions into one’s own. Don’t just criticize, consider viable positive alternatives. Try to work out new possibilities, or practical steps that could be taken to address the problems under consideration. The corollary to this guidance is to avoid sarcasm, contempt, hostility, and snark. Generally target ideas rather than people. Do not attribute negative motives to people you disagree with as an attempt at dismissing or discrediting their views. Avoid hyperbole.. The post Opposing Orthodoxy about Heterodoxy first appeared on Daily Nous.

Opposing Orthodoxy about Heterodoxy “Whenever I see people engaged in philosophical debate or argument, I want to see people trying to win. I like my philosophy adversarial, aggressive, combative, and even hostile. I think there are some good reasons for this approach… but I also think it’s more fun that way. And I’m not the only one. Friedrich Nietzsche once said one of the reasons Socrates was so popular among the high-born youth of Athens was that he introduced them to a new kind of competitive wrestling.” That’s Michael Veber (East Carolina University) in a recent article in Theory and Society about why he won’t be joining Heterodox Academy anytime soon. Why not? For one thing, he doesn’t like “loyalty oaths”: Heterodox Academy (hereinafter, HxA) is an academic advocacy group devoted to promoting open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement in research and education… If you aspire to team up with notable heroes of the campus free speech movement and declare that you too are HxA, you must go online, click a box, and thereby affirm the following statement. “I support open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement”. In other words, you need to take a loyalty oath. But he also thinks this particular loyalty oath has a problem: The problem is that “constructive disagreement”, as HxA understands and advocates for it, is inconsistent with open inquiry and undermines viewpoint diversity. That makes the HxA loyalty oath logically self-contradictory and the act of requiring people to take it self-defeating. What does HxA mean by “constructive disagreement”? Veber shares the following, from the organization’s website: The objective of most intellectual exchanges should not be to “win,” but rather to have all parties come away from an encounter with a deeper understanding of our social, aesthetic, and natural worlds. Try to imagine ways of integrating strong parts of an interlocutor’s positions into one’s own. Don’t just criticize, consider viable positive alternatives. Try to work out new possibilities, or practical steps that could be taken to address the problems under consideration. The corollary to this guidance is to avoid sarcasm, contempt, hostility, and snark. Generally target ideas rather than people. Do not attribute negative motives to people you disagree with as an attempt at dismissing or discrediting their views. Avoid hyperbole.. The post Opposing Orthodoxy about Heterodoxy first appeared on Daily Nous.

Opposing Orthodoxy about Heterodoxy “Whenever I see people engaged in philosophical debate or argument, I want to see people trying to win. I like my philosophy adversarial, aggressive, combative, and even hostile. I think there are some good reasons for this approach… but I also think it’s more fun that way. And I’m not the only one. Friedrich Nietzsche once said one of the reasons Socrates was so popular among the high-born youth of Athens was that he introduced them to a new kind of competitive wrestling.” That’s Michael Veber (East Carolina University) in a recent article in Theory and Society about why he won’t be joining Heterodox Academy anytime soon. Why not? For one thing, he doesn’t like “loyalty oaths”: Heterodox Academy (hereinafter, HxA) is an academic advocacy group devoted to promoting open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement in research and education… If you aspire to team up with notable heroes of the campus free speech movement and declare that you too are HxA, you must go online, click a box, and thereby affirm the following statement. “I support open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement”. In other words, you need to take a loyalty oath. But he also thinks this particular loyalty oath has a problem: The problem is that “constructive disagreement”, as HxA understands and advocates for it, is inconsistent with open inquiry and undermines viewpoint diversity. That makes the HxA loyalty oath logically self-contradictory and the act of requiring people to take it self-defeating. What does HxA mean by “constructive disagreement”? Veber shares the following, from the organization’s website: The objective of most intellectual exchanges should not be to “win,” but rather to have all parties come away from an encounter with a deeper understanding of our social, aesthetic, and natural worlds. Try to imagine ways of integrating strong parts of an interlocutor’s positions into one’s own. Don’t just criticize, consider viable positive alternatives. Try to work out new possibilities, or practical steps that could be taken to address the problems under consideration. The corollary to this guidance is to avoid sarcasm, contempt, hostility, and snark. Generally target ideas rather than people. Do not attribute negative motives to people you disagree with as an attempt at dismissing or discrediting their views. Avoid hyperbole.. The post Opposing Orthodoxy about Heterodoxy first appeared on Daily Nous.

Opposing Orthodoxy about Heterodoxy “Whenever I see people engaged in philosophical debate or argument, I want to see people trying to win. I like my philosophy adversarial, aggressive, combative, and even hostile. I think there are some good reasons for this approach… but I also think it’s more fun that way. And I’m not the only one. Friedrich Nietzsche once said one of the reasons Socrates was so popular among the high-born youth of Athens was that he introduced them to a new kind of competitive wrestling.” That’s Michael Veber (East Carolina University) in a recent article in Theory and Society about why he won’t be joining Heterodox Academy anytime soon. Why not? For one thing, he doesn’t like “loyalty oaths”: Heterodox Academy (hereinafter, HxA) is an academic advocacy group devoted to promoting open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement in research and education… If you aspire to team up with notable heroes of the campus free speech movement and declare that you too are HxA, you must go online, click a box, and thereby affirm the following statement. “I support open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement”. In other words, you need to take a loyalty oath. But he also thinks this particular loyalty oath has a problem: The problem is that “constructive disagreement”, as HxA understands and advocates for it, is inconsistent with open inquiry and undermines viewpoint diversity. That makes the HxA loyalty oath logically self-contradictory and the act of requiring people to take it self-defeating. What does HxA mean by “constructive disagreement”? Veber shares the following, from the organization’s website: The objective of most intellectual exchanges should not be to “win,” but rather to have all parties come away from an encounter with a deeper understanding of our social, aesthetic, and natural worlds. Try to imagine ways of integrating strong parts of an interlocutor’s positions into one’s own. Don’t just criticize, consider viable positive alternatives. Try to work out new possibilities, or practical steps that could be taken to address the problems under consideration. The corollary to this guidance is to avoid sarcasm, contempt, hostility, and snark. Generally target ideas rather than people. Do not attribute negative motives to people you disagree with as an attempt at dismissing or discrediting their views. Avoid hyperbole.. The post Opposing Orthodoxy about Heterodoxy first appeared on Daily Nous.

Opposing Orthodoxy about Heterodoxy “Whenever I see people engaged in philosophical debate or argument, I want to see people trying to win. I like my philosophy adversarial, aggressive, combative, and even hostile. I think there are some good reasons for this approach… but I also think it’s more fun that way. And I’m not the only one. Friedrich Nietzsche once said one of the reasons Socrates was so popular among the high-born youth of Athens was that he introduced them to a new kind of competitive wrestling.” That’s Michael Veber (East Carolina University) in a recent article in Theory and Society about why he won’t be joining Heterodox Academy anytime soon. Why not? For one thing, he doesn’t like “loyalty oaths”: Heterodox Academy (hereinafter, HxA) is an academic advocacy group devoted to promoting open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement in research and education… If you aspire to team up with notable heroes of the campus free speech movement and declare that you too are HxA, you must go online, click a box, and thereby affirm the following statement. “I support open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement”. In other words, you need to take a loyalty oath. But he also thinks this particular loyalty oath has a problem: The problem is that “constructive disagreement”, as HxA understands and advocates for it, is inconsistent with open inquiry and undermines viewpoint diversity. That makes the HxA loyalty oath logically self-contradictory and the act of requiring people to take it self-defeating. What does HxA mean by “constructive disagreement”? Veber shares the following, from the organization’s website: The objective of most intellectual exchanges should not be to “win,” but rather to have all parties come away from an encounter with a deeper understanding of our social, aesthetic, and natural worlds. Try to imagine ways of integrating strong parts of an interlocutor’s positions into one’s own. Don’t just criticize, consider viable positive alternatives. Try to work out new possibilities, or practical steps that could be taken to address the problems under consideration. The corollary to this guidance is to avoid sarcasm, contempt, hostility, and snark. Generally target ideas rather than people. Do not attribute negative motives to people you disagree with as an attempt at dismissing or discrediting their views. Avoid hyperbole.. The post Opposing Orthodoxy about Heterodoxy first appeared on Daily Nous.

Opposing Orthodoxy about Heterodoxy “Whenever I see people engaged in philosophical debate or argument, I want to see people trying to win. I like my philosophy adversarial, aggressive, combative, and even hostile. I think there are some good reasons for this approach… but I also think it’s more fun that way. And I’m not the only one. Friedrich Nietzsche once said one of the reasons Socrates was so popular among the high-born youth of Athens was that he introduced them to a new kind of competitive wrestling.” That’s Michael Veber (East Carolina University) in a recent article in Theory and Society about why he won’t be joining Heterodox Academy anytime soon. Why not? For one thing, he doesn’t like “loyalty oaths”: Heterodox Academy (hereinafter, HxA) is an academic advocacy group devoted to promoting open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement in research and education… If you aspire to team up with notable heroes of the campus free speech movement and declare that you too are HxA, you must go online, click a box, and thereby affirm the following statement. “I support open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement”. In other words, you need to take a loyalty oath. But he also thinks this particular loyalty oath has a problem: The problem is that “constructive disagreement”, as HxA understands and advocates for it, is inconsistent with open inquiry and undermines viewpoint diversity. That makes the HxA loyalty oath logically self-contradictory and the act of requiring people to take it self-defeating. What does HxA mean by “constructive disagreement”? Veber shares the following, from the organization’s website: The objective of most intellectual exchanges should not be to “win,” but rather to have all parties come away from an encounter with a deeper understanding of our social, aesthetic, and natural worlds. Try to imagine ways of integrating strong parts of an interlocutor’s positions into one’s own. Don’t just criticize, consider viable positive alternatives. Try to work out new possibilities, or practical steps that could be taken to address the problems under consideration. The corollary to this guidance is to avoid sarcasm, contempt, hostility, and snark. Generally target ideas rather than people. Do not attribute negative motives to people you disagree with as an attempt at dismissing or discrediting their views. Avoid hyperbole.. The post Opposing Orthodoxy about Heterodoxy first appeared on Daily Nous.

Opposing Orthodoxy about Heterodoxy “Whenever I see people engaged in philosophical debate or argument, I want to see people trying to win. I like my philosophy adversarial, aggressive, combative, and even hostile. I think there are some good reasons for this approach… but I also think it’s more fun that way. And I’m not the only one. Friedrich Nietzsche once said one of the reasons Socrates was so popular among the high-born youth of Athens was that he introduced them to a new kind of competitive wrestling.” That’s Michael Veber (East Carolina University) in a recent article in Theory and Society about why he won’t be joining Heterodox Academy anytime soon. Why not? For one thing, he doesn’t like “loyalty oaths”: Heterodox Academy (hereinafter, HxA) is an academic advocacy group devoted to promoting open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement in research and education… If you aspire to team up with notable heroes of the campus free speech movement and declare that you too are HxA, you must go online, click a box, and thereby affirm the following statement. “I support open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement”. In other words, you need to take a loyalty oath. But he also thinks this particular loyalty oath has a problem: The problem is that “constructive disagreement”, as HxA understands and advocates for it, is inconsistent with open inquiry and undermines viewpoint diversity. That makes the HxA loyalty oath logically self-contradictory and the act of requiring people to take it self-defeating. What does HxA mean by “constructive disagreement”? Veber shares the following, from the organization’s website: The objective of most intellectual exchanges should not be to “win,” but rather to have all parties come away from an encounter with a deeper understanding of our social, aesthetic, and natural worlds. Try to imagine ways of integrating strong parts of an interlocutor’s positions into one’s own. Don’t just criticize, consider viable positive alternatives. Try to work out new possibilities, or practical steps that could be taken to address the problems under consideration. The corollary to this guidance is to avoid sarcasm, contempt, hostility, and snark. Generally target ideas rather than people. Do not attribute negative motives to people you disagree with as an attempt at dismissing or discrediting their views. Avoid hyperbole.. The post Opposing Orthodoxy about Heterodoxy first appeared on Daily Nous.