Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Kaitlyn S]

Well, you have done it. I give up. It isn't that I am insulted, my feelings aren't hurt, but it has been years since I have encountered a more unrelentingly unpleasant person. I'm gone, and I suspect it won't be long before you can have this all to yourself. I am not saying you are right, I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying I am done listening to anything that you have to say.

I like most of your posts, Ken, but TBH if I had to think of the most unpleasant person in the Water Cooler, it would not be Jon. While I think he might be abrasive to those who don't agree with him, I get the feeling that he's willing to start an honest conversation about any of the topics he discusses.

[Winstonm]

Well, you have done it. I give up. It isn't that I am insulted, my feelings aren't hurt, but it has been years since I have encountered a more unrelentingly unpleasant person. I'm gone, and I suspect it won't be long before you can have this all to yourself. I am not saying you are right, I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying I am done listening to anything that you have to say.

 

Ken,

 

Now, perhaps, you understand why I initially labeled Trump supporters "stupid". It's not exactly the correct term - but it's close enough.

[PassedOut]

From what I'm reading in this thread, I think some folks believe that All in the Family was a documentary. Let's contrast criminals on a fictional TV show (with a regressive leftist political agenda) with criminals in real life, shall we?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0xsid5I5j0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7zEibNcejA

Chicago police said they are investigating an battery caught on video that stemmed from a traffic-related altercation — not from discussing politics.

 

CLAIM: A white man was beaten by a group of black people for voting Trump.

 

WHAT'S TRUE: Chicago police are investigating a battery incident involving a 50-year-old white male victim who was attacked by five black males and females.

 

WHAT'S FALSE: Police say the incident stemmed from a traffic altercation, not politics.

 

ORIGIN: On 10 November 2016, conspiracy theory web site InfoWars posted a video of a white man being pushed and kicked by a group of younger African-American people. (The article bore the inflammatory headline, "SHOCK VIDEO: BLACK MOB VICIOUSLY BEATS WHITE TRUMP VOTER.")

 

The roughly 30-second video shows an older white man in a blue sweatshirt getting pushed to the ground and kicked by the younger people, while several people can be heard off-camera accusing him of voting for Donald Trump.

 

Chicago police told us that officers responded to a battery call on 9 November 2016 in which the 50-year-old victim reported being battered in a traffic-related altercation involving three unidentified males and two females — one of whom drove away in the man's car.

Bad enough without the deceptive title. The election was November 8th.

[ggwhiz]

Curious how things can go so wrong and so right sooo close together. The female 1/2 of the Snopes founders is also a former Ottawa Bridge player.

[kenberg]

Not for the firt time, but I hope not habitually, I seem to have made myself a topic. Let me try to explain.

 

Sometime back, Cherdano took me to task for something, right mnow I forget what it was, and he said I should read more TNC.

"What's that", I asked.

Ta-Nahisi Coates I learned. So I read some. I wasn't impressed, but I learned a bit.

I had NPR on while riding with Becky and he (TNC, not Cherdano) was being interviewed.

"Who is that?" asked Becky. I explained as best I could in a neutral voice, using the knowledge from BBF that he was a Black Intellectual of note.

"Maybe he writes better than he speaks" said Becky.

 

The point here is not whether I agree with Cherdano or with TNC, it is that I learn something. I don't learn anything from an old "All in the family" clip.

 

I had political discussions in elementary school. I can hardly recall a time when friends and I did not discuss politics. I value such discussion. In 1960, when I first voted, it was by no means a given that I would vote for Kennedy. I had a conservative friend who voted for Kennedy, he regarded Kennedy as a conservative. In a way, he was. "Ask not..." has a conservative ring to it.

 

I think we have some large problems We always do, but maybe this time more so. Just how a person such as myself should look at the Republican dominance is a big question. But I was fine with Eisenhower even though I would have voted for Stevenson. I think the first Bush was quite good. And I voted for the current Republican governor of Maryland. So "Republican" is not really the issue for me. It is Trump. And his friends, and his plans. The country has voted for change, and change we will get. Whether we will like it is another thing entirely.

 

I am still trying to figure out where this leaves me. I am not going to Canada or anywhere else. I need to think this through.

[jonottawa]

So now we're defending the perpetrators of a hate crime because they attacked a man not because he voted for Trump but just because he's white? Is anyone claiming the audio from the video is staged?

 

Please DO watch the longer video. It's obviously more disturbing than the shorter video. The man is dragged away as one of his assailants steals his car at the end of the longer video.

 

I'd like to ask Mike: Does he consider that a hate crime? Or when a group of folks from one ethnic group attacks an individual from another ethnic group because of his race it's only a hate crime if the right races are in the right spots?

 

And look how biased Snopes is: So desperate to downplay this video that they decide to tell you what The Daily Stormer's reaction was.

 

Please Snopes, tell me what David Duke said about this video so I can form my own opinion. Unbelievable. The bias and the subterfuge is palpable. Only cognitive dissonance is preventing you from seeing it.

[mikeh]

I like most of your posts, Ken, but TBH if I had to think of the most unpleasant person in the Water Cooler, it would not be Jon. While I think he might be abrasive to those who don't agree with him, I get the feeling that he's willing to start an honest conversation about any of the topics he discusses.

How ironic that you posted this almost concurrently with the post from PassedOut showing that one of jon's favourite memes is an intentional lie. So jon wants to start an honest conversation by posting one of the more despicable trumpian lies of the immediate post-election period, and you endorse him as an honest person?

 

I frankly don't expect any more of you. Reality is something to which your opinions have at most a fleeting relationship. I know: it is so horribly vicious of me to call you out on your uninformed fantasies. Wouldn't I be so much nicer if only I stroked your ego rather than challenging you when your bigotry surfaces?

 

You see, from my point if view, I'd actually enjoy discussing real issues such as how to deal with discrimination, or how to deal with white people who are denied access to education because of racial discrimination (I have ideas on that, but you probably wouldn't like them), or how to control health care costs while preserving choice, or the merits or demerits of socialism v capitalism (I am not a socialist, btw). I can see any argument against same sex marriage....unfortunately, it is an argument against any state recognition of a religious ceremony and in favour of state recognition of financially-bound relationships between two consenting adults, which sort of spoils it for the homophobic community.

 

I can see rational arguments about how to react to climate change, but since there are no rational arguments for denying that man-influenced climate change is happening, it would be necessary for the debaters to have reality as a starting point, which most republicans and libertarians deny.

 

There are legitimate conservative ideas out there. But neither you nor jon, nor anyone else here seem to know what they are, or how to articulate conservative points of view based on observable facts. Discussions that start with invoking imbecilic right wing memes are not conducive either to respect or to constructive engagement.

 

 

The good news is that, as I predicted, jon's penchant for projection made him unable to resist proving my point :P

[kenberg]

I did not read about whatever attack may have taken place Perhaps it is the same as one i read earlier. Since I am from Minnesota I had read about the demonstrations in Minneapolis. that closed down (briefly I think) the interstate there. The article mentioned an attack on a white guy accused of being a Trump supporter. The guy said he had not voted for Trump. The attackers said that white people voted for trump. he said he was gay and wouldn't vote for Trump. So they attacked him anyway and called him names referring to his gayness.

 

What do you want to know about me in this regard? Do you want to know whether I support this or condemn this? Please. We are wasting time and good space on the forum. I do not favor beating people up. Do I really have to say this?

 

And yes, of course it is irrelevant whether the guy was telling the truth about not voting for Trump. Again, I shouold not have to say this. This is what I find so completely off-putting about the course this thread has taken

[nige1]

I did not read about whatever attack may have taken place Perhaps it is the same as one i read earlier. Since I am from Minnesota I had read about the demonstrations in Minneapolis. that closed down (briefly I think) te interstate there. The article mentioned an attack on a white guy accused of being a Trump supporter. The guy said he had not voted for Trump. The attackers siad that whiite people voted for trump. he said he was gay and wouldn't vote for Trump. So they attacked him anyway and called him names referring to his gayness.

 

What do you want to know about me in this regard? Do you want to know whether I support this or condemn this? Please. We are wasting and good space on the forum. I do not favor beating people up. Do I really have to say this?

 

And yes, of course it is irrelevant whether the guy was telling the truth about not voting for Trump. Again, I shouold not have to say this. This is what I find so completely off-putting about the course this thread has taken

Welcome back, Ken :) Some of us prefer to discuss issues on a basis of fact and reason -- rather than straw-men, impugning motives, and so on. Judged by such criteria, Kaitlyn S and JohOttowa seem more sinned against than sinning -- however controversial their opinions.

[jonottawa]

I think Mike must be used to dealing with really unintelligent juries (forgive me if that's redundant.)

 

He accuses me of something, and then does the old 'oh, he won't know how it applies to him anyway.'

 

And then when I explain to him in a very simple, logical, brief, straightforward way why his argument (which he knew was bogus when he made it) is completely bogus he does the old 'Ha! He proved my point!'

 

Mike, if someone were to accuse you of something, like being a murderer, or a rapist, or a pedophile, or a sociopath or an adulterer and then followed that up with 'oh, he won't know how that applies to him anyway' your denying the accusation wouldn't prove your accuser's point about anything. Though if your accuser crows 'Ha! He proved my point!' it might prove that your accuser argues like a grade-schooler.

 

Either substantiate your accusation that by pointing out kenberg's double standard I am projecting, or withdraw it. Or just keep being intellectually dishonest. Whatever floats your boat.

 

As for the video of the hate crime, whether the man was beaten because he was white, or because he was a Trump supporter, it was an appalling crime and I'm still waiting to hear which motive you think is more plausible.

 

Mike's sophistry is so transparent that it reminds me of:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwdba9C2G14

 

FWIW, here's my favorite piece of sophistry:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PYb_anBMus

[PassedOut]

So now we're defending the perpetrators of a hate crime because they attacked a man not because he voted for Trump but just because he's white? Is anyone claiming the audio from the video is staged?

I said that the event was bad enough without the deceptive title. A hate crime by blacks against whites is just as bad as a hate crime of whites against blacks.

 

The problem I had is that the title was a gratuitous lie, and you posted the video regardless. And the reason I checked at all was because you posted it, and you have shown a habit of posting items that are completely fake or purposely misleading. When I see something like that from you, my reaction is, "What's he trying to pull this time?"

[Kaitlyn S]

 

(talking about cognitive dissonance)

 

Because it doesn't apply to me.

 

I don't think any of us can be sure that it doesn't apply to us. If I had to guess, I think both sides suffer from cognitive dissonance as you described it.

 

It's unlikely that we are right about every point, and it's unlikely that they are right about every point. There are some very smart people on both sides of this article (I'm talking nationally, just not here.)

 

We clearly don't know which issues we are wrong about because if you take them one at a time, we think we're more likely to be right about each one.

 

However, even if we are wrong about one issue, we are indeed suffering from cognitive dissonance - we believe something and it's hard to shake that belief.

 

Look at it this way, take an issue, any issue. One of two things is true - what we believe is right because it is right, or it isn't right and we've been convinced that it is right and are our belief is firmly entrenched. Our beliefs are going to be reinforced by conservative leaning publications, news programs, and websites which will continually "prove" we are right. Their beliefs are going to be reinforced by liberal leaning publications, news programs, and websites which will continually "prove" that they are right. On any issue, only one side (or neither as the truth may lie in the middle) can be right. It would be pompous for us to think that we are right on every single issue. It is equally as pompous for them to think that they are right on every single issue. It is more likely that both sides are suffering from cognitive dissonance. One would have to be arrogant to assume otherwise.

[Kaitlyn S]

You see, from my point if view, I'd actually enjoy discussing real issues such as how to deal with discrimination, or how to deal with white people who are denied access to education because of racial discrimination (I have ideas on that, but you probably wouldn't like them), or how to control health care costs while preserving choice, or the merits or demerits of socialism v capitalism (I am not a socialist, btw).

So would I. Let's do it.

 

It might be delayed a bit because there's something going on in Orlando this week not too far from me.

 

Signed - "I'm all done with tournament bridge" Kaitlyn

[olegru]

I said that the event was bad enough without the deceptive title. A hate crime by blacks against whites is just as bad as a hate crime of whites against blacks.

The problem I had is that the title was a gratuitous lie ...

I don't think it is the worst problem. Titles always design to cause the attention and how much is the distance between reality and the title of that video is not clear. At least it is not clear for me, I saw video without checking the title. It speaks very loud for itself. And another video from Jonathan with girls from California school too.

 

The main problem I see is that, according your source, clear "hate" case was labeled as a road rage and liberals simply ignore it.

 

Now imagine sides were reversed. Would you have any doubts it would be labeled as a "hate" crime?

We would have riots with many cars put in flame; apologies from top officials, and couple of policemen killed by "concerned citizens."

Our statistics manipulated based on political interests. It less and less reflects reality.

Not only from race relationship, take unemployment, for example.

We are basing our opinions and government bases its decisions on the bad data. On the intentionally bad data.

This is the problem I have.

[kenberg]

Ok, so I watched the video. Seems to be along the lines of what the Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported as happening there.

 

I would much rather we did not focus on videos of people being beaten. I assume nobody is on favor of people being beaten.

 

Discussion of hate crimes follows a predictable path. I can imagine the trial. As far as I know, beating someone up for how he voted is not on the hate crimes list, doing so based on ethnicity is. So I am a juror, the attackers are being prosecuted for a hate crime, their defense is that they didn't beat the guy up for ethnic reasons, they beat him up because of how he voted, or how they think he voted. the difference in sentencing is substantial so i have to judge the truth here. It's a lot easier on me the juror if I only have to judge whether they did or did not beat the guy up. We can probably agree the video, if it is authenticated, is strong enough evidence to convict them of the assault. I don't plan to study it in detail but it looked pretty vicious and it involved more than one attacker. Of course if I were the juror I would be prepared to listen to what immediately preceded the attack, but I expect I would find the assailants guilty and if assault comes in degrees I expect I would find them guilty of something severe. although no deadly force was attempted as far as I can see. Based on the video, but only based on that, I would expect the attackers to be convicted of a felony and to serve a term in jail. Maybe six months to a year in jail, enough to get their attention.. This seems about right to me whether it was road rage, or because he voted for Trump, or because he is white, or because anything else. I have no great interest in why they did it. If the injuries are severe, a longer sentence could be right. The guy is going to have some nightmares, at the least.

 

 

Now if evidence were to be produced that the guy who got beaten had, earlier on, instigated this conflict (voting for Trump does not count as instigation, using his car earlier as a weapon would) then I could change my mind.

 

 

I don't like these videos. A person learns to be careful about jumping to conclusions. If I am a juror, it is my obligation to listen to the whole story and then judge. If I am an observer of a ten second video, find it best to avoid judgment. This looks bad, it probably was bad, but I can hold off on drawing a binding conclusion until I see the police report and read the sworn testimony.

 

When I was in high school someone came by to tell me how lucky I was. This older student was going to beat me up, he was known to be quite vicious, but since he was already on probation for auto theft he decided against it. I am in favor of legal consequences for beating people up.

 

As in Duh.

[PassedOut]

I don't think it is the worst problem. Titles always design to cause the attention and how much is the distance between reality and the title of that video is not clear. At least it is not clear for me, I saw video without checking the title. It speaks very loud for itself. And another video from Jonathan with girls from California school too.

 

The main problem I see is that, according your source, clear "hate" case was labeled as a road rage and liberals simply ignore it.

Thanks for posting your reaction.

 

As you can see from my post, I didn't hesitate to call it a hate crime. That might not count because I am a conservative businessman and not a liberal, but most of the liberals I know would not hestitate to call it a hate crime either -- and that includes blacks as well as whites. I don't know everyone's mind, of course, but I can't think of anyone who'd say otherwise.

 

Why do you think that labeling a hate crime as road rage is unacceptable while labeling it as punishment for voting for Trump is acceptable? After all, the crime was actually triggered by a traffic accident.

 

Let me say that I have a close relative in law enforcement and am always concerned for his safety. The dangers are not limited to angry blacks. Well-armed white men belonging to fringe militia groups sincerely believe that the laws don't apply to them and pose dangers to the police also.

 

When you say that liberals "ignore" black on white violence, I'm interested in what not ignoring it means to you. Most of us, conservative and liberals, understand that it's the responsibility of law enforcement to aprehend criminals and to bring them to trial.

 

Now imagine sides were reversed. Would you have any doubts it would be labeled as a "hate" crime?

We would have riots with many cars put in flame; apologies from top officials, and couple of policemen killed by "concerned citizens."

If, in your view, the way for folks not to ignore the crime is to respond like this, I disagree completely.

 

Our statistics manipulated based on political interests. It less and less reflects reality.

Not only from race relationship, take unemployment, for example.

We are basing our opinions and government bases its decisions on the bad data. On the intentionally bad data. This is the problem I have.

You'll have to give me more specifics before I'll be able to understand your last points here. It's certainly true that all politicians spin the data for their own purposes, but the government data these days is voluminous and as accurate as the civil servants working for the government can make it.

[y66]

From A Jolt of Blue-Collar Hope by David Leonhardt:

 

NEW CASTLE, Del. — The nearby factory that made Dodge Durangos closed eight years ago. The General Motors Boxwood Road Plant — open since 1947 — closed the next year. So did the oil refinery in Delaware City.

 

In the span of a year during the financial crisis, once-prosperous northern Delaware had to confront post-industrial devastation.

 

It’s sort of the devastation that now has the country’s attention. Donald Trump won the presidency with huge margins in places left behind. He lost the popular vote, but won 26 of the 30 lowest-income states, including the old powerhouses of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan.

 

These places are stuck in what I call the Great American Stagnation. Tens of millions of people have experienced scant progress for decades. Median net worth is lower than in the 1980s, and middle-aged whites, shockingly, aren’t living as long as they used to. Ending this stagnation is the central political problem of our age: It fuels Trumpian anger and makes every other societal problem harder to solve.

 

I came here to New Castle looking for a jolt of hope after the terribly dispiriting presidential campaign. I came to see one of the more promising attacks on the Great American Stagnation.

It’s sort of the devastation that now has the country’s attention? Indeed. Perhaps we can move the conversation in this direction and toward some of the topics mikeh has suggested. passedout is a Michiganer. Would love to hear more about what's being done up there on this front.

[mikeh]

I don't think any of us can be sure that it doesn't apply to us. If I had to guess, I think both sides suffer from cognitive dissonance as you described it.

 

It's unlikely that we are right about every point, and it's unlikely that they are right about every point. There are some very smart people on both sides of this article (I'm talking nationally, just not here.)

 

We clearly don't know which issues we are wrong about because if you take them one at a time, we think we're more likely to be right about each one.

 

However, even if we are wrong about one issue, we are indeed suffering from cognitive dissonance - we believe something and it's hard to shake that belief.

 

Look at it this way, take an issue, any issue. One of two things is true - what we believe is right because it is right, or it isn't right and we've been convinced that it is right and are our belief is firmly entrenched. Our beliefs are going to be reinforced by conservative leaning publications, news programs, and websites which will continually "prove" we are right. Their beliefs are going to be reinforced by liberal leaning publications, news programs, and websites which will continually "prove" that they are right. On any issue, only one side (or neither as the truth may lie in the middle) can be right. It would be pompous for us to think that we are right on every single issue. It is equally as pompous for them to think that they are right on every single issue. It is more likely that both sides are suffering from cognitive dissonance. One would have to be arrogant to assume otherwise.

We have entirely different perceptions of what separates us, in our approach to these posts.

 

No internet forum post can encompass more than a tiny fraction of what I am about to suggest, and I will have to grossly simplify much.

 

In order to have an intelligent discussion, the speakers need to be able to agree on some underlying reality. All reality is, in a true sense, a question of perception. We perceive the universe through our very narrow senses. As a species, and for those working with such technology, we can perceive aspects of the universe hidden from direct observation. In addition, via media we can learn from others as to what they have perceived. This operates at the level of knowing about viruses, DNA, subatomic particles, exo-planets and the like, but also on more mundane topics such as the number of gun-related deaths in the US each year, or the effect of seatbelts and airbags on the outcome of car crashes, or that ISIS is being slowly forced out of Mosul, or that Russia is bombing civilian areas in Aleppo.

 

Now, the reliability of some of these 'facts' is debatable, and it is true that in some cases the source of the information has an interest in shaping our perception away from objective reality. In the context of my work as a trial lawyer, I tell all my clients that trials are not about reality: they are about perceptions of reality. Put two people in a room for a lengthy discussion, and ask them a week later what was said, and you will almost always hear two different descriptions, even with both being as honest as they can be.

 

So reality is fuzzy in many cases. Having said that, on many issues it is possible to agree on what reality is, at least provisionally. That is the heart of the scientific method. Science can provide 'reality' information, but always on a provisional level. The degree of uncertainty is variable, and can be vanishingly low, but will never be zero.

 

As an example, the theory of evolution is, broadly speaking, as close to a sure thing as anything we can know. The fine details are continuing to be explored, and new ideas are constantly being discussed, debated, discarded, or provisionally adopted as 'true'. But that in broad stokes, life evolved from simple chemical precursors over billions of years is so well demonstrated that no rational person, with any exposure to the field, would argue against it.

 

The same is not quite as true for global warming. The theories haven't been around as long, and the tools for modelling the climate are still relatively new and in need of improvement. The processing power to simulate the climate literally didn't exist a generation ago and is likely still inadequate. The theories that allow reliable prediction are still being developed. However, there is sufficient consensus amongst those with appropriate expertise that any rational person would accept, as provisionally true, that human action is at least a major contributor to a looming catastrophe. Such a person would understand that the available evidence shows that we are right now living through one of the major extinction events in the story of life on earth, and that the pace of extinction is growing and will threaten billions of humans within a couole of generations.

 

What to do about it is a different, albeit related, issue, and one that (unlike the questions of whether global warming is happening and whether human activity is a cause) involves value judgements.

 

It is possible for rational people to argue about what to do about global warming. It is not possible to debate the underlying issue on the basis of your opinion or my opinion. I am not a climate scientist and somehow I get the feeling that you aren't either. So we don't have any intellectual right to argue about whether the overwhelming scientific consensus is 'right'. When more than 98% of those with expertise agree on the big questions, we should provisionally accept that consensus. We can, if we want, cling to a hope that the consensus will be shown to have been mistaken but we shouldn't behave (or vote) on that basis.

 

This gets us back to where you and I differ. You accept as true matters that have absolutely no evidentiary foundation. You repeat right wing memes as facts, and then argue that your belief in them is as worthy of respect and acceptance, as 'right', as my reliance upon peer-reviewed studies on issues such as racial discrimination in rental housing or transportation options.

 

If you want to debate values, that's fine. Your opinions, if based on reality, are worthy of consideration. Your opinions, if based on right wing fantasies masquerading as facts are not. Until you demonstrate an ability and a willingness to identify the difference...to recognize that something is not true simply because you want it to be true....there is no point having a discussion with you. Seriously: when you cannot even tell the difference between bullshit like the socialist professor story and reality, what is the point?

 

You know, one of the major tragedies of our time is the dumbing down of the public. Not that the public was ever, really, not dumbed down, but the advent of politicized reporting (of which Faux News is merely the classic instance, but it has its precursors with Hearst and even earlier), has resulted in the false meme that there are always two sides to everything. Thus Creationism is advanced as a balanced alternative to evolution. Gimme a break. There is a basic difference between belief and knowledge, and until and unless you acknowledge that distinction, we have little to say to each other.

[y66]

fyi Donald Trump at the New York Times live on Twitter

[Kaitlyn S]

...You accept as true matters that have absolutely no evidentiary foundation. You repeat right wing memes as facts, and then argue that your belief in them is as worthy of respect and acceptance, as 'right',,,,

I understand what you are saying, but the timing of your post seems odd. You were responding to a post where I was suggesting to JonOttowa that he may have fallen victim to the cognitive dissonance that he was stating that you had been afflicted with.

[y66]

I understand what you are saying, but the timing of your post seems odd. You were responding to a post where I was suggesting to JonOttowa that he may have fallen victim to the cognitive dissonance that he was stating that you had been afflicted with.

mikeh makes a thoughtful post laying out ground rules for the constructive discussion you say you want and you talk about odd timing and then you throw in other stuff to further distract from the discussion you say you want to have? I'm not sure if we're in dog barking or not barking territory here but the inference is clear: you are not interested in having a serious discussion based on facts.

[y66]

Some perhaps useful advice from David Brooks:

 

It seems like the first thing to do is really learn what this election is teaching us. Second, this seems like a moment for some low-passion wonkery. It’s stupid to react to every Trump tweet outrage with your own predictable howls. It’s silly to treat politics and governance purely on cultural grounds, as a high school popularity contest, where my sort of people denigrates your sort of people.

 

There will be plenty of time to be disgusted with Trump’s bigotry, narcissism and incompetence. It’s tempting to get so caught up in his outrage du jour that you never have to do any self-examination. But let’s be honest: It wouldn’t kill us Trump critics to take a break from our never-ending umbrage to engage in a little listening.

[mikeh]

I understand what you are saying, but the timing of your post seems odd. You were responding to a post where I was suggesting to JonOttowa that he may have fallen victim to the cognitive dissonance that he was stating that you had been afflicted with.

I was responding to your offer to engage in a rational discourse, in which, I assume, you intended to advance your views on issues. However, my opinion of what that meant was informed by the post that I quoted in mine: the post in which you seem to divide views of matters into 'right' and 'wrong', while recognizing that one 'side' may believe their view to be 'right' and the other would disagree.

 

You refer to some 'very smart' people taking opposing sides.

 

My point was that there are matters on which one can legitimately assert that there are different opinions and that such differences are worthy of respect even tho, and maybe especially tho, one may prefer one side to the other, perhaps passionately. But then there are matters where no such respect should be accorded to some 'views'.

 

I cited one's acceptance or rejection of two ideas that are largely, tho not uniformly, rejected by leading republicans in the US: evolutionary theory and global warming. Note that Trump has publicly claimed that global warming is a hoax by the Chinese, altho he lied about that during the 3rd debate. His approach to cabinet selection so far, and his pronouncements on energy (including coal) suggest that he is a denier, or (given who he is) that he doesn't give a damn about anything but himself, and he doesn't see how a global catastrophe can be bad for him. Note that Pence is a Creationist as well as a religious bigot (the two often go hand in hand)

 

I want to know whether you accept that one should generally operate on the basis that a strong scientific consensus ought to give rise to a provisional acceptance of that consensus or whether you believe, as I infer that you do, that a rational person, with no scientific expertise, is entitled to respect for rejecting such a consensus. Ought we to recognize some form of equivalence between carefully researched, peer reviewed investigation by multiple specialist on the one hand, and religious or opportunistic babbling by scientific illiterates on the other?

 

I know where I stand. Where do you stand?

 

I warn you that this is a dangerous path to take, should you agree that one should provisionally accept scientific consensus when such exists. As has been often noted, reality has a liberal bias, and once you start accepting reality over fantasy, your attitides will change, and you will find yourself at odds with many of your friends. I doubt that you will or even can take this path but would be truly delighted if you did.

 

Please note that in no way am I saying that this would result in you agreeing with me on value-based issues. I would respect and appreciate opinions that differed from mine, but that recognized a shared reality based on facts that seem to have been proven, as opposed to merely alleged.

 

Btw, I hope that you understand why I use the word 'provisionally' in the above language. Contrary to many religiously motivated criticisms, science isn't just another religion, with a quantitatively different but qualitatively similar way of viewing the world. Religions teach absolutes, based on revealed knowledge. Science teaches provisional values, based on observation, formulation of hypothesese that explain the observations and (critically and often ignored by the uninformed) efforts to falsify the hypotheses.

 

Thus one of the landmark events of the early 20th century was expensive and time-consuming trips by European and American scientists to travel to locations where they could observe a solar eclipse.

 

Why?

 

Because Einstein had published a theory. An implication of that theory was that light could be bent by solar masses. A solar eclipse offered a chance to see whether what is now known as gravitational lensing existed.

 

Had it not been seen, then the theory would be challenged...it would seem to be inconsistent with the observed universe. So the experiment was intended as an effort to falsify the theory, as much as it was an effort to demonstrate that the theory was correct. In the event, gravgitational lensing was observed, and, within the limits of the available technology, precisely as the theory suggested.

 

Now, that did not 'prove' that the theory was absolutely 'right'. It merely showed that the theory was consistent with the observed universe and thus was entitled to be treated as provisionally correct. Indeed, those satellites that provide us with GPS info and near instantaneous global data transmission are able to do so only because the engineers who specified their orbits and the flow of data, took into account relativity....for satellites in orbit, due to their relative velocity compared to the surface of the earth, time passes at a measurably (tho incredibly tiny) different rate!

 

Thus by relying upon theory, we can manipulate the world.

 

I don't know if you are aware of the LHC at Cern, but I think it was last year when, due to subtle faults in the equipment, they detected readings that, if correct, suggested that some particles were moving at a speed greater than the speed of light. While virtually all physicists whose views I saw were highly skeptical, almost all of those quoted were extremely excited by the mere possibility that the results were genuine. Why? Because such would invalidate key aspects of the prevailing scientific consensus and open up enormous questions. IOW, they saw the existing paaradigms as provisional and capable, at least conceptually, of being falsified by observation. As it happens, the fault was detected, fixed, and the anomalous results disappeared. I mention these stories in an effort to show you why asking you to accept a scientifically demonstrated proposition is different in kind, not mere degree, than asking you to accept a political meme or a religious assertion.

 

No rational person could think that we, as a species, know all the answers. What we ought to aspire towards is the search for the answers, from observation of what is, and not from what was written by ignorant people hundreds or thousands of years ago, or indeed what was written 5 minutes ago on the internet.

 

Our views of what to do in response to reality can and ought to be debated, but not reality itself.

[Kaitlyn S]

I was responding to your offer to engage in a rational discourse, in which, I assume, you intended to advance your views on issues.

I was confused by what was quoted. Sorry! Yes I do want to engage in rational discourse. While I do try to advance my own ideas, I frequently learn new things that changes the way I look at the situation - because while I have opinions on just about every issue that is argued, I'm not 100% married to any of those opinions. I hope the same is true for the people I'm discussing things with but in my experience my views have changed far more frequently than those of the people who I speak with. (Apparently being aware of one's cognitive dissonance is the first step in overcoming it, and most people are not aware of it affecting themselves, while everybody intelligent should be aware of it.)

 

 

However, my opinion of what that meant was informed by the post that I quoted in mine: the post in which you seem to divide views of matters into 'right' and 'wrong', while recognizing that one 'side' may believe their view to be 'right' and the other would disagree.

 

You refer to some 'very smart' people taking opposing sides.

 

My point was that there are matters on which one can legitimately assert that there are different opinions and that such differences are worthy of respect even tho, and maybe especially tho, one may prefer one side to the other, perhaps passionately. But then there are matters where no such respect should be accorded to some 'views'.

I agree with this assessment. There are some matters where fundamental beliefs will never bring the two sides together no matter how much they argue the points, such as the pro-choice/pro-life argument. I am personally pro-choice and thought that my party's obsession with pro-life would cost us the election. But there is no point in arguing this point with fellow conservatives because they think I advocate for murder. So I think that's one of those issues where people have to agree to disagree.

 

There are other issues where one side is clearly right and the other is wrong, but only a limited number of people can know for sure (like whether Hillary was truly hiding something evil by wiping her servers.) We can't know for sure, the only thing that each side can do is present examples of her good character or her bad character to support their side.

 

As I posted elsewhere, I totally expect that Trump will be a terrible president and that Hillary would have been even worse and one of my points will probably be proven, and I'll be slammed for voting for Trump even when I might have been 100% right. However, we will never know and it's probably pointless discussing this issue because (a) it won't matter and (b) it's going to be very hard for either side to prove the other right. However, one side is clearly right - we will never know which but it is certain that one of the following is true: Hillary would have been worse, or Hillary would not have been worse. Although it could be argued what the definition of "worse" is: many Sanders voters might be quite happy with a country that falls under my definition of worse.

 

I cited one's acceptance or rejection of two ideas that are largely, tho not uniformly, rejected by leading republicans in the US: evolutionary theory and global warming. Note that Trump has publicly claimed that global warming is a hoax by the Chinese, altho he lied about that during the 3rd debate. His approach to cabinet selection so far, and his pronouncements on energy (including coal) suggest that he is a denier, or (given who he is) that he doesn't give a damn about anything but himself, and he doesn't see how a global catastrophe can be bad for him. Note that Pence is a Creationist as well as a religious bigot (the two often go hand in hand)

I'm not happy with his Cabinet selections either, especially Banner. Whether I personally like Banner there or not, I think he is adding to the divisiveness in the country by choosing Banner, and if he truly wants to work with Democrats, then this is not the way to show it.

 

I agree that Pence is a scary choice of VP for many people. I would hate to see what would happen to the LGBT community if God forbid, Trump died and put Pence in charge. However, Trump in one of the debates said he didn't agree with Pence on an issue and Trump is the big dog so Pence's ideology might not matter. However, having Banner advising Trump isn't going to be good for minorities or LGBT. I just hope he can use good judgment in choosing when to ignore his advisors when they give him awful advice.

 

But I think there is hope, I think choosing Pence was more a move to help get elected than a serious replacement leader for the country in Trump's mind.

 

Climate change? I'm sitting that one out. I don't know enough and most of the material on the matter neither interests me nor is understandable to me. The only thing I have to say about it is that both sides of scientists should be allowed to speak freely on the subject. I at some point heard that Lynch wanted to arrest climate change denying scientists but that is probably right wing propaganda, but in case it isn't, she shouldn't be allowed to do that. Not only for freedom of speech, but let's let science happen freely and without legal consequences.

 

I want to know whether you accept that one should generally operate on the basis that a strong scientific consensus ought to give rise to a provisional acceptance of that consensus or whether you believe, as I infer that you do, that a rational person, with no scientific expertise, is entitled to respect for rejecting such a consensus. Ought we to recognize some form of equivalence between carefully researched, peer reviewed investigation by multiple specialist on the one hand, and religious or opportunistic babbling by scientific illiterates on the other?

Normally if scientists agree on something, I would rationally go along with it. However, the argument is whether the scientists truly agree or those that disagree are being muffled. Again, I don't know the answer, but conservative (you might say alt-right) sources say that the public is only hearing one side. I believe that there are evil forces in government, on both sides, so while it sounds like a conspiracy theory, I can't discount it as being 100% false. Certainly if the government only gives grants to scientists who have a preconception that man-made climate change is not only real but will have disastrous effects, then there is bias coming from the scientific community. It's not that I don't believe the scientists, it's that I'm not sure I'm not hearing only one side. After all, if I listen to Fox News and Breitbart, wouldn't you say I'm only getting one side of each issue? The same may be true for climate change, except that it's the other side.

 

Am I denying man-made climate change? Not on your life. I don't know enough. What I am sure of is that those scientists that I am allowed to hear from say that it's real. So that says there is at least some chance that it is real and I would be a fool to say that it isn't.

 

I know where I stand. Where do you stand?

 

I warn you that this is a dangerous path to take, should you agree that one should provisionally accept scientific consensus when such exists. As has been often noted, reality has a liberal bias, and once you start accepting reality over fantasy, your attitides will change, and you will find yourself at odds with many of your friends. I doubt that you will or even can take this path but would be truly delighted if you did.

I agree that since we don't know, the safer path is to assume that we can do something about it, as long as the expense isn't so great that other necessary programs will bite the dust. For example, given a choice between funding education or trying to fix the climate change problem, I think we have to fund education. If we are rich enough to do both, fine. However, our country is almost 20 trillion in debt (NOT counting unfunded Social Security and Medicare liabilities) and that works out to be a few hundred thousand for every taxpayer! If you count the unfunded liabilities, each new baby born is a few hundred thousand dollars in debt at birth. At some point, people will stop funding the U.S. government's extravagance. Also, it's a worldwide initiative and much of the world is ignoring the problem. Last I heard, only the USA fulfilled their Kyoto Protocol obligations, so we can pour untold trillions trying to solve the problem but it will do little good if there are countries with 4 times as many people as we have that continue to pollute and are become more industrialized.

 

Please note that in no way am I saying that this would result in you agreeing with me on value-based issues. I would respect and appreciate opinions that differed from mine, but that recognized a shared reality based on facts that seem to have been proven, as opposed to merely alleged.

I don't think you're being unreasonable here.

 

I've got a lot more to respond to here but unfortunately I must get some work done before Orlando.

 

However I think it's possible to have some good discussions. I remember one discussion I had recently on UBI. All the other participants were left-leaning as my fellow conservatives wouldn't touch the subject. However I felt having a conservative in the discussion was valuable to them as I was in a much better position to discuss the political obstacles that they are going to run into (knowing how fellow conservatives might think) and ways to overcome them and have people be happy about it, whereas without me it would have been more of an elitist "We know this is right so we're going to ram it down the Americans' throats."

[Winstonm]

Cognitive dissonance is a feeling that results from personal beliefs conflicting with best known information, i.e., reality; confirmation bias is our way of avoiding cognitive dissonance.

Confirmation bias

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias,[Note 1] is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.[1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

 

It is important to understand our own confirmation bias in order to factor it in to our research. Otherwise, we simply search out quotes to support our position.