That may be the term but I recall it as a little more closely related to how I phrased it though probably not as clinical.
I don't necessarily think you're guilty of it but I do think the premise you're proposing hints at it.
I wouldn't argue that democracy doesn't requires are shared understanding of the facts. The argument I'm making is that the motivation for people to believe certain things often is the root of the "problem", rather than the existence of things for them to believe.
Notably, I think, The shared understand of "the facts", is a convenient over-simplification. The real world situations where someone has "the facts" wrong, isn't usually a question of fact or fiction really, it's a focus on the emphasis of the narrative being spun. A reading of the same story comes of very different, even with shared facts, depending upon which parts of the story you think are important.
The usual disagreement on a lot of current events isn't what actually happened. Fringe elements will argue the plain facts but the majority of people are disagreeing about why something happened, not what happened.
Nothing to disagree with particularly in what you say. I tend to frame this as divergent values.
Example. 100 illegal immigrants crash a border fence. Someone whose values makes them unbothered by immigration will think: Big deal, it's only 100 people, anyone who worries about that must be racist. The other person will get worked up because even 1 illegal immigrant is an affront to the sanctity of nations and borders. Both sides agree it was 100 people, yet somehow neither can imagine that the other side is sincere in their convictions. This seems quite common.
I don't necessarily think you're guilty of it but I do think the premise you're proposing hints at it.
I wouldn't argue that democracy doesn't requires are shared understanding of the facts. The argument I'm making is that the motivation for people to believe certain things often is the root of the "problem", rather than the existence of things for them to believe.
Notably, I think, The shared understand of "the facts", is a convenient over-simplification. The real world situations where someone has "the facts" wrong, isn't usually a question of fact or fiction really, it's a focus on the emphasis of the narrative being spun. A reading of the same story comes of very different, even with shared facts, depending upon which parts of the story you think are important.
The usual disagreement on a lot of current events isn't what actually happened. Fringe elements will argue the plain facts but the majority of people are disagreeing about why something happened, not what happened.