> The US has a long history of using the "rational discussion" argument to shut rational people up:

The chancelor in the article you cited is arguing in favor of censorship. I am arguing against it. I don't understand why you think there are similarities, unless you are comparing us because we both use the word rational.

> Also, any sentence with "it should be obvious" raises a red flag with me - usually it is uttered by people don't actually want to reflect on whatever they are asserting to be true.

If you have an actual argument to present I would have happy to "reflect" on it, but this sort of meta-argument usually raises a red flag for me because they are usually made be people who are unwilling to discuss the content of the argument being made.

You're responding to a comment that almost literally says "opposing sides of any discussion always consider themselves the rational half" and you don't see the connection?

You imply that it is obvious to decide who is rational or irrational. It is not - everyone is biased to be blind to their own irrationality.

People are not as rational as they think, and the more someone is in denial of having an irrational side to them, the more irrational their behaviour; people who admit they are wrong more often are the least wrong on average.

Nobody here is claiming that irrationality trumps rationality, so your response is tautological, akin to "obviously the side who is wrong is wrong." It doesn't add anything to the discussion, other than implying that one camp is clearly the irrational one as a counter-argument to the problem that it is hard to decide who is rational and who isn't, without actively trying to overcome your own biases and comfort zones.

First off, when you quote something, please actually quote it, or at least be specific. I had a quite a time trying to figure what "a comment" and "Your statement" were referring to.

> You imply it is obvious to decide who is rational or irrational. It is not - everyone is biased to be blind to their own irrationality.

Yes, that is why having a discussion is important. So that people can be exposed to arguments that challenge their irrationality. It is only obvious that one side is being irrational when they refuse to have a discussion (and by extension refuse to consider the possibility that they are wrong).

> Your statement is tautological, akin to "obviously the side who is wrong is wrong."

And yet some people are still against having the discussion. If you believe that my post is a tautology, then it follows logically that anyone who disagrees with it is trivially wrong.

It's possible to disagree with your post as in "this post adds no information and doesn't make the point that it thinks it makes" in contrast to "this post is logically invalid".