An actual phone call? Really? In 2016? If I'm going to have a lengthy discussion with someone, I'd rather do it in an environment where I'm not being billed by the minute and in the worst audio quality possible.

Interesting.. I haven't paid for calls to landlines in the UK for at least a decade, and the air interface to my phone has vastly better latency and error tolerance than anything I've ever seen operate over an IP network

Looks like a land line number. Will probably be free to call on most plans.

I had a discussion yesterday at Thanksgiving with my brother-in-law, who is a closet Trump supporter. The reason I don't think Accord will NOT go well: when you discuss things with people for whom facts do not matter, you either get steamrolled or it turns into a yelling match/argument.

Very, very, very few people that hold untrue facts in their mind are open to re-evaluating those facts.

No thank you.

EDIT: added the word "NOT" above.

Ah, yes, those Trump supporters with their "untrue facts" in their heads. Discussions won't work. Re-education camp is probably called for.

Or maybe... just maybe... you're the one with untrue facts in your head, and his true facts collide with your untrue ones?

Unpossible!

Gave you an upvote to help you out of the grey. You didn't state it so eloquently but it's an important point: e40 is making the ridiculous assumption that those who hold a different opinion from him do so for uneducated and unconcievable reasons. He's exactly the sort of person who needs to make this phone call. I hope that comment doesn't stay on top for too long.

Missed the point entirely.

It doesn't matter if it's trump.

Or Hillary.

Or global warming or vaccines or JS or Modi or Putin or any number of things.

Most human beings don't tend to change their opinions when directly engaging in discussions.

The only people who change their positions are people actively trying to change their views.

The real trick to changing an opinions is to stop trying and start listening.

That's anathema to most people.

Wouldn't calling into a service explicitly advertised as a way to talk to someone who disagrees self select people more open to discussion?

"Open to discussion" doesn't mean they'll be more amenable to change their views.

I don't think the GP meant a one-sided generalization at all, and your comment reads as a needless partisan dig.

The charitable way to read the comment is that a particular person he talked to was unconcerned by facts, and that this is a common problem with heated/divisive discussions. (This jives with my experience that most people don't care what's true, they just want to make socially approved noises.)

Yeah, sure, that's possible. You don't know me. I presume you've seen countless interviews with Trump supporters, like I have, where they are given objective truths ("you know Trump said X" for which there is an unedited video of him saying X) and still don't believe them? Because if I held a belief and someone showed me a video like that, I'd question my belief.

"The reason I don't think Accord will NOT go well" = "The reason I think the Accord will go well"

Your statement made more sense before the edit.

Yep, thanks.

Ideally, the point of such a discussion should not be to persuade the other person, nor to be persuaded oneself, but to gain a deeper understanding and respect of the other's position.

I think the website makes it clear that this is for people who are willing to listen to each other. Once that mutual willingness is there, I believe a discussion like this can be very profitable. (Actually, I do not only believe so, I know so from many personal experiences.) Of course you are going to have some bad apples in the lineup who are going to start nasty arguments, but I think the presentation of the website is such that these should be kept to a minimum.

A big thank you to the Accord team from me - in a political age defined increasingly by the demonization of other political/social opinions (something all sides engage in), we desperately need more polite, levelheaded discussions.

My typical argument about Brexit with the leftists goes like this:

ME: British are against the muslim immigration because large percentage of muslims hold these undemocratic antiwestern beliefs: A, B, C, D, and they don't assimilate.

THEM: You're a racist / bigot. Shame! Shame! Shame!

Politics per se shouldn't be discussed on HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).

However, I agree with you that all elements of the political spectrum are engaging in some pretty heavy name calling these days. One reason why Accord's project is so important.

How would the perfect argument go?

I'm thinking of the 2nd person asking questions about the first argument, asking for evidence, facts, definitions etc, in an attempt to understand.

I ask as a British citizen who has failed at all attempts to try to understand the other side (and I could take blame of course. I still seek a solution)

Well, I don't even consider calling names an argument. It's a cop-out, and it usually shows they have nothing else to counter with.

A perfect argument would indeed require both sides to show the evidence, to use logical constructs, to refute the opposing ideas. And some definitely try.

Are you using the US meaning of "leftist" here? The British meaning is a bit different, but you seem to be using the US meaning in a British context.

Yeah, you're correct.

Remind me again which European countries large numbers of Muslims have immigrated to the UK from?

More neutrally, maybe you mean "two people who disagree about the facts won't have a meaningful conversation".

To that extent I wholeheartedly agree. If you can't even agree on the base data, how can you build a conclusion?

But what is a fact, other than a conclusion that appears obvious? The logic by which people have decided what they regard as factual data, upon which they base their arguments, can itself be debated.

"You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into" is a good quote to keep in mind.

re: your edit - don't think it will not go well...

EU and centralization of power seem to be failing people all around. I expected hackers to like decentralization. I get it, you like all the foreign people you meet in London and visa free travel, but that's not all that matters.

I expect hackers to like decentralization where it makes things more efficient, regularity where otherwise things would be a mess, and to severely dislike populism and xenophobic rhetoric.

Sounds cool. But the website says the topic is "A Trump presidency will be good for America". Which is correct?

The Brexit debate was at 1pm-2pm GMT today, we are now currently live with the "A Trump presidency will be good for America" discussion topic. If you are in either the UK or US you can call our local rate numbers on: UK: +44 1327 552 039 US: +1 201 500 3775 to have a discussion with someone with a different perspective and potentially different nationality

I'm curious to know if you see much heavier participation from people with certain viewpoints based on the typical demographics of that viewpoint. @StrikeAnAccord, can you comment on this?

For example, given the demographic information in the 2016 US Elections, I would expect Hilary supporters to have much higher representation in an online/telephonic medium. Is that the case?

Cool idea. As a German, passionate about some opinions: Will you expand to different countries, too?

We'd be really happy for you to join the discourse if you're happy calling an international number for a few minutes. This is in its early stages at the moment, we need to prove that we can get enough users before we can make the investment on international number. Thanks for the feedback!

You might want to mention on your site that calls to US phone numbers from anywhere in the world are free on Google Hangouts (https://hangouts.google.com).

I think the timing is right. After all, before the election, too much of the motivation would be to change each others' minds. It muddles the part where you're calling primarily to understand the other side.

It's like asking someone to self-evaluate when their raise is being decided tomorrow, versus having a raise, and sometime later asking that person to self-evaluate.

> After all, before the election, too much of the motivation would be to change each others' minds

But that's why we argue and debate in the first place. We don't do it AFTER the votes have been called, because it's too late to change anything then.

I'm surprised to find someone of your age on here. Can you go into more detail about what it was like when Hitler was elected?

I highly doubt that he/she is using the word "feels" in a literal sense. I'd love to be proven wrong though!

Thanks for your feedback. We welcome any suggestions you have for improvements.

well this sounds like a terrible idea !