Excesses from the right and the left

[DialecticMaterialist]

These two articles remind me of a statement made by RandFan a while ago, namely that there is "BS on both sides, and the biggest BS is to think your side has none."


The first article to mention is The liberal who cried wolf (http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031208.html)


Which is basically about false and exagerated accusations of dishonesty in regards to president Bush.


The second is, The Republican Assault on "political hate speech" (http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031113.html)


About how certain republicans are introducing exagerated charges into their criticisms.


These articles imo, illustrate the wisdom of being skeptical of all sides of an issue, especially those you agree with.

And they should serve to remind us that mere disagreement from either side, left and right, does not make some one "the enemy."

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
These two articles remind me of a statement made by RandFan a while ago, namely that there is "BS on both sides, and the biggest BS is to think your side has none."


The first article to mention is The liberal who cried wolf (http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031208.html)


Which is basically about false and exagerated accusations of dishonesty in regards to president Bush.


The second is, The Republican Assault on "political hate speech" (http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031113.html)


About how certain republicans are introducing exagerated charges into their criticisms.


These articles imo, illustrate the wisdom of being skeptical of all sides of an issue, especially those you agree with.

And they should serve to remind us that mere disagreement from either side, left and right, does not make some one "the enemy."

I think the biggest problem in having a nice debate on this forum is you have to deal with people not questioning the facts but invalidating the facts based on sources. True, if your source on war in Afghanistan is Taliban.com (don't know if that's actually a website) you are probably way off base from the truth. But question the fact because the article is from organization that is part of a group who was in small part funded by X is ridicules. This is why no one can agree on things most of the time here because everyone keeps arguing on why your conclusion of 2+2=4 was from a place funded by an extreme think tank.

[Hexxenhammer]

Doesn't look like anyone cares for your common sense, DM.


Edited to add: Oops! Grammatron does.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

And they should serve to remind us that mere disagreement from either side, left and right, does not make some one "the enemy."

Quite right, and I think there are a lot of posters on this very board (need I name names?) who could stand to learn that.

It seems to me that people seem unable to grasp that you can have a disagreement over politics without being a thug who intends to blow his nose with the Constitution.

[shecky]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


And they should serve to remind us that mere disagreement from either side, left and right, does not make some one "the enemy."

Thank you, DM. This point cannot be emphasized enough.

[EvilYeti]

Great post DL.

I think this is proof positive that you cannot mix skepticism and right or left wing politics. You HAVE to be an independant. Only then can you have the freedom to make judgments on facts, independant of rhetoric and dogma.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Great post DL.

I think this is proof positive that you cannot mix skepticism and right or left wing politics. You HAVE to be an independant. Only then can you have the freedom to make judgments on facts, independant of rhetoric and dogma.

There are quite a few people on this board who throw out skepticism the moment then enter this part of the forum.

I prefer to take a pessimist’s perspective on politics:



1.) Politicians are assumed to be lying until they prove otherwise. What party they are from does not matter. In the absence of proof, what is left is to determine who makes the least bold statements. Less fantastic statements are either more likely to be true or not as damaging when found to be false.

2.) Political philosophies are BS. The are all weak. Attacking one of them does not make the others look better. However, some are worse than others. Concepts such as unseen guiding hands are no better than Social Darwinism or “God is on our side” perspectives.

3.) When looking over a proposed law, assume that the general population is stupid. Only half are below average intelligence, but the top half does not have the same impact as the bottom half. Also, average does not equal smart.

4.) If it looks stupid but it works it is not stupid. (Stolen from Murphy’s law of combat.) Hard to use this idea in practice. What works needs to be defined based on the desired result, not the political philosophy that spawned it.

5.) Any politician who openly supports an amendment to the US constitution without majority support from the public is most likely pandering to special interests and is not serious about changing anything. There are exceptions to this, but they are rare and mostly happen after a crises.

6.) Any time a politician says something that warms your heart, check your wallet.

7.) Appointing a new person to streamline government fails the moment the person starts the job. They just became part of the bureaucracy.

8.) Soundbites are not policy.

9.) Statements that uses any variation on the words “liberal” or “conservative” at the beginning of a sentence will most likely turn out to be a strawman.

10.) If you are sure you are right about an issue, you probably missed something.



(Edited to clean up a sentance in #5.)

[DanishDynamite]

Nice posts, all around.

The main problem with politics, IMO, is that it isn't and can't be scientifically based. It can't be scientifically based because at heart it concerns the question "What is the meaning of life?". And aside from the trivial answer ("To have viable offspring"), no deeper answer can be scientifically derived. Us, the intelligent apes with too much time on our hands, are therefore left floundering.

[jj]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Doesn't look like anyone cares for your common sense, DM.


Edited to add: Oops! Grammatron does.

So do I.

It may seem odd, but speaking as another moderate, albiet a really peeved one, I agree, there's one in every crowd. At least one.

On the other hand, I'm long, long tired of being a QUIET moderate. I'm tired of moderate positions being portrayed as fascist by the left, and pinko by the right, and I'm really tired of the creeps on both sides who insist on vilifying everyone who dares to stand up to their deliberately extortionistic bullying and lying.

For the right, here, it's a game, they don't regard anyone but themselves as human, and so they feel no shame at lying, lying, and lying some more, because, after all, the ends justify the means. Then there's Huziwhatzis, who has, in my opinion, only one foot touching this reality, and that one is in danger of floating away.

[BTox]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Nice posts, all around.

The main problem with politics, IMO, is that it isn't and can't be scientifically based. It can't be scientifically based because at heart it concerns the question "What is the meaning of life?". And aside from the trivial answer ("To have viable offspring"), no deeper answer can be scientifically derived. Us, the intelligent apes with too much time on our hands, are therefore left floundering.

Exactly, which is why I take it all with a large grain of salt. My posts should similarly be recognized for their seasoning. ;)

[Roadtoad]

I would suspect this thread is overdue.

Frankly, I have long ago lost all trust in either the Democreeps or Repulithugs. (Yeah, I know. It's political hate-speech.) Neither side has proven their case, and both sides are willing to co-opt the other's agendae for their own personal gain, the good of the nation be damned. (Yes, I know. This sounds a lot like one of Shanek's rants, but the truth be told, the man is not always wrong. And there are many times when he's dead-on.) Much of what is being proposed has the effect of actually weakening the nation, rather than making things stronger.

Frankly, it's about time we called the both of them on the carpet, and hit them with the facts. Maybe it's not as satisfying as giving out over 550 copies of Final Exit, but it's close.

[jj]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
...Democreeps or Repulithugs. ...
Frankly, it's about time we called the both of them on the carpet, and hit them with the facts.


AMEN, BROTHER ROADTOAD!

And no, I am not being in ANY way sarcastic in this article.

He's hit the railroad spike right on the head.

[TillEulenspiegel]

[Originally posted by Roadtoad
I would suspect this thread is overdue.

Frankly, I have long ago lost all trust in either the Democreeps or Repulithugs. (Yeah, I know. It's political hate-speech.) Neither side has proven their case, and both sides are willing to co-opt the other's agendae for their own personal gain, the good of the nation be damned. (Yes, I know. This sounds a lot like one of Shanek's rants, but the truth be told, the man is not always wrong. And there are many times when he's dead-on.) Much of what is being proposed has the effect of actually weakening the nation, rather than making things stronger.

Frankly, it's about time we called the both of them on the carpet, and hit them with the facts. Maybe it's not as satisfying as giving out over 550 copies of Final Exit, but it's close.

No.no.no.no wait a mo....
You actually seek to deprive the safe haven of acceptable and understood positions held by the vast majority of the populas of the US and replace it with the questionable ideal of "Self-Thought" ?!

What kind of freak are you sir? What kind of world would it be if one arrived at a position by synthesis, rather then accepting the standards of correct thought filtered through the accepted media outlets, who kindly pre-digest concepts like good and evil and war for us??? Shame Sir shame.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
[

No.no.no.no wait a mo....
You actually seek to deprive the safe haven of acceptable and understood positions held by the vast majority of the populas of the US and replace it with the questionable ideal of "Self-Thought" ?!

What kind of freak are you sir? What kind of world would it be if one arrived at a position by synthesis, rather then accepting the standards of correct thought filtered through the accepted media outlets, who kindly pre-digest concepts like good and evil and war for us??? Shame Sir shame.

Wow. How far I've come on this forum. I started out as a questioning Christian, and now, I'm THE ANTICHRIST!

Damn, I'm good!

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
[

No.no.no.no wait a mo....
You actually seek to deprive the safe haven of acceptable and understood positions held by the vast majority of the populas of the US and replace it with the questionable ideal of "Self-Thought" ?!

What kind of freak are you sir? What kind of world would it be if one arrived at a position by synthesis, rather then accepting the standards of correct thought filtered through the accepted media outlets, who kindly pre-digest concepts like good and evil and war for us??? Shame Sir shame.

Thank you Till!


When the sheep fight the cows over the words 'mooo' and 'baaa' then the real politics get swept under the rug.

Great OP DM, but as usual common sense will not get much attention around here. Maybe you should cross post to a more controversial thread!

[Wudang]

2 quotes I have loved for years

"there is no left wing or right wing, there is only up wing and down wing" Bob Dylan

"I am politically non-Euclidian" Illuminatus trilogy?

[The Don]

The call for facts is a complete canard. All "facts" are subject to spin and what people actually want are nicely collated facts on which they can base an opinion or decision.

By chosing what facts to include in a summary, what weighting to give each and whether or not to include a contrary fact (debates on vaccination is a good one here) you are already introducing a bias.

The other thing we are all guilty of here is comparing what has actually happened in the imperfect world to what could have happened in some perfect world of our own devising. An example is welfare; "a left winger" may say "we need higher standards of living for those on welfare" meaning of course the deserving poor and forgetting the enormous amout of fraud which will inevitably result. The right winger may say "welfare is a brake on the economy, it promotes the dependence culture" forgetting that many people lack the resources to get training, obtain childcare or relocate.

The problem is that of you look objectively into any subject it is unbelievably complex and a truly open-minded analyst may end up more confused than they started. Isn't it better to corral a few well-chosen facts into a single coherent opinion.

The final thing in this current rant..... The opinions being offered are purely rhetoric, it's setting a mission statement with which people can choose to agreeor disagree. Like a company's mission statement it is rarely implemented in practice. Let's have these grand statements as a catalyst to argument but let's recognise that actually folowing through is practically impossible

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by The Don
The call for facts is a complete canard. All "facts" are subject to spin and what people actually want are nicely collated facts on which they can base an opinion or decision.

I disagree, as within any construct, there are elements which can be quantified. People can spin all they like, but 2+2 still equals 4, regardless of who's doing the math.

By chosing what facts to include in a summary, what weighting to give each and whether or not to include a contrary fact (debates on vaccination is a good one here) you are already introducing a bias.

True, but at the same time, the bias is quantifiable. You can counter it with better facts, a broader base of information, or even with a better analysis of the facts presented. (Seen this done with Faludi's books. Can't blame folks for not wanting to date her. Yeah, I know, that was gratuitous...)

The other thing we are all guilty of here is comparing what has actually happened in the imperfect world to what could have happened in some perfect world of our own devising. An example is welfare; "a left winger" may say "we need higher standards of living for those on welfare" meaning of course the deserving poor and forgetting the enormous amout of fraud which will inevitably result. The right winger may say "welfare is a brake on the economy, it promotes the dependence culture" forgetting that many people lack the resources to get training, obtain childcare or relocate.

Granted, which is why you take a long, hard look at the facts, and work towards the best, most objective response possible, and try to balance your response.

To use your welfare example, the question becomes: "How do you get the resources (training, child care, relocation) to those who need them, while at the same time controlling costs?" It's a meat-axe refinement, I admit, but perhaps if we saw some of this on a local level, and less emphasis on lower level power brokers using tax money to hold their position in local communities, maybe we'd see some positive change.

The problem is that of you look objectively into any subject it is unbelievably complex and a truly open-minded analyst may end up more confused than they started. Isn't it better to corral a few well-chosen facts into a single coherent opinion.

Ooooh. You mean, use reason!?!?!

The final thing in this current rant..... The opinions being offered are purely rhetoric, it's setting a mission statement with which people can choose to agree or disagree. Like a company's mission statement it is rarely implemented in practice. Let's have these grand statements as a catalyst to argument but let's recognise that actually folowing through is practically impossible

I disagree. I've seen situations where setting such goals have had laudable successes. Granted, this is in commercial applications, and usually in areas where quantification actually works, but it can, and where possible, should be done.

First and foremost, you try to find the areas where you can agree, where you can quantify your results. Begin from there, and start to build results. You can't just say, "Yup, we're gonna look only at the facts." You have to start by building consensus, and when you're dealing with public policy, you have to do it openly. No, you won't get 100% agreement with all parties, but you can work towards it.

[coalesce]

Curious, though, how the ones who polarize the most on this board have not responded to this thread in any way. My feeling on this is the same as everyone else who responded to this post: It's wrong no matter who wears the brown shirts. I tried bringing this point up to Huzington on another thread last week, and he agreed with me to a point. He provided a link from a pro-communist web site that pointed out what an inhuman monster Winston Churchill was, but has yet to respond when I asked him about Stalin and Mao. Pity.

The only thing I can say in his defense is that our disagreement never degenerated into a name-caling pissing contest. I don't mind debating someone who has opposing viewpoints—in fact, I even learn a thing or three when I do. But no one learns when the replies to your posts are simply venomous (I'm thinking of Victor Danilchenko ((sp)) here).

Michael

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by coalesce
Curious, though, how the ones who polarize the most on this board have not responded to this thread in any way. My feeling on this is the same as everyone else who responded to this post: It's wrong no matter who wears the brown shirts. I tried bringing this point up to Huzington on another thread last week, and he agreed with me to a point. He provided a link from a pro-communist web site that pointed out what an inhuman monster Winston Churchill was, but has yet to respond when I asked him about Stalin and Mao. Pity.

The only thing I can say in his defense is that our disagreement never degenerated into a name-caling pissing contest. I don't mind debating someone who has opposing viewpoints—in fact, I even learn a thing or three when I do. But no one learns when the replies to your posts are simply venomous (I'm thinking of Victor Danilchenko ((sp)) here).

Michael

Bro, been there, done that. Know too well what you're referring to. (And yes, thankfully, some of those are now gone. Thanks to Hal's enforcement of the "Jerk" rule.)

If you have any integrity, when you're confronted with evidence of that sort, you answer, and you answer honestly. Sorry that you didn't get what you had a right to expect. But, hell, we're human. We do that.