> If you'd rather walk out from a room (or worse), than be able to settle your difference with some other presumably educated people, than this "pragmatic" value sounds like very arguable.

You're talking about ideals. I mean pragmatic in a sense that regardless of opinion, wants, idealization, "reality" has certain characteristic that are apathetic but work and all that matters is that they work. You're a few steps ahead of me if you're already filtering out human beings based on education level or mental capacity.

I'm not sympathizing with world leaders but world leaders walk out the room and room walks out with them. Example, the scientists screaming about climate change and people ignoring them.

>People aren't killing themselves over the different interpretations of quantum mechanics. Or the best music, or the best tastes of ice cream.

>But over us vs them straw men dressed up as "values" by wicked individuals.

It's complicated and it's all tied together. There are principles at play that we must reflect on but must be careful to act on. It's like looking at a mirror. As soon as you try to get closer or move away, whatever you're looking at also changes. This ties to the correlation/correspondence found in theories of truth.

There's truth to saying that life is nasty, brutish, short. An inescapable quality of living.

>Criminalizing "being" (let alone somehow having to discard objective reality in name of any moral consideration) sounds a lot like dogma you know.

In the sense I'm saying it, being has consequences to others. It's not criminalizing being. It's criminalizing taking meaning for granted and instead encouraging sympathizing with others and what meaning means to them. As long as this sympathizing makes for a better community (defined as less suffering, etc).

>They aren't talking about the concept of "not knowing". Like, I don't have an opinion on rocket science, so whatever NASA should do in the next decade is undefined from my pov. And I thus shut up.

>They are talking about handwaving. You build your argument through a crescendo of negative rhetoric.. and then you just move on when instead you should explain the way it actually would not be possible for the original idea to make sense.

Knowing and not knowing are intimately tied. We must have ideals and expectation of what righteous ignorance is (eg, you deciding to stay silent during certain interchanges) and what kind of other ignorance is there. The handwaving is relevant to making the greater concept of "knowing" more impactful. Again the example of climate scientists. Climate scientists are handwaving because the audience is not receptive to their legitimate claim to the kingdom of climate epistemology. The audience is not righteously ignorant. The question is how do we make/encourage better audiences that know when to stay silent.