This Deep Dive examines the concept of "deep disagreement" in political discourse, particularly in relation to the Dark Enlightenment movement, and directly critiques the deep disagreement argument, asserting that it's a false premise used to avoid genuine dialogue, and highlights how the Dark Enlightenment uses this concept to present itself as a radical, "red-pilled" alternative, while actually perpetuating elitist power structures. Th Deep Dive examples a paper by Scott F. Aikin, which provides a more philosophical exploration of deep disagreement, acknowledging its theoretical possibility but arguing for continued optimistic engagement, despite the Dark Enlightenment's self-sealing "red pill" rhetoric. Finally, the conversation turns to a YouGov Data piece that offers empirical evidence of significant bipartisan agreement on numerous policy issues in the U.S., directly challenging the notion that fundamental disagreements make productive argument impossible.