Then why is Gary Johnson's Aleppo gaffe headline news?
Because it was astoundingly stupid.
It was a, "Can you believe THIS GUY is running for the White House?" moment. The same reason we know who Joe Exotic is, but the difference is that Gary Johnson was probably going to - and ultimately did - get the third most votes of any candidate. He was never going to win, but he at least big enough to appear on the radar, which made it worse. It became, "Can you believe this idiot even got this close to the White House?"
And it's not like they didn't do this to Trump all of the time. The difference was Trump was able to use all of the media attention to his advantage.
Why did I expect Betsy DeVos to not get through the Senate?
I mean, yes, she is objectively a horrendous choice for the office. Yes, not only is she not qualified, but if you were to design in your mind someone who would be the worst possible pick for the office, she'd either be exactly what you'd imagine or come damn close.
But, why did I expect Republicans to not approve of her?
After all, if qualifications actually mattered, and if anyone were actually going to stand up to Trump about it, then they would have done so by not voting for him.
This is the most rudimentary test of character ever, and ALL BUT TWO Republican senators failed utterly.
So Giuliani has come out saying that Trump approached him telling him he wanted to do a "Muslim ban" and asking how he could do it "legally."
So yeah. I'd like to open up the floor to anyone to try to defend this travel ban. Anyone at all. Bonus points if you can work in how you're protecting things like freedom and American values.
To no one's surprise, took less than a month for a Constitution violation.
I'm not fiddling. I'm asking reasonable questions like "what has he done?" and getting Hitler comps as answers.
Dude, at what point are you going to abandon this facade that you're a libertarian?
I mean, basically, you profess that governments are inherently violent organizations designed to oppress the people, right? That's the whole thing you've been saying up until now?
So you'd think that when the President of the United States has his press secretary openly lie to the American public - about something ridiculously petty I might add - in such an obvious and transparent way, when he commands government organizations to repress any reporting of facts that might contradict this outright lie, and then goes ahead and infringes upon the rights of people, you should probably be concerned, right? Like, logically, someone who fears oppression of the weak against the powerful should be opposed to this *****, right?
But no. You're defending him. You're freaking trying to downplay this.
Tl:Dr, EPA and national park nonsense pushed me over the edge. You know, the person who ACTUALLY decided to give him a chance to see what he'd do.
What did you THINK he would do?
He's doing precisely what he promised to do.
If he focuses on jobs and the economy, however much I disagree with the methods, it may help him.
While I understand this mindset, we should be unnerved by the willingness to overlook erosion of rights and open discrimination against minorities and women in our government in exchange for profit.
Well, people who actually give a ***** about America and understand the gravity of the situation are worried. You do need to qualify that.
I'd also like to add to your list the fact that Donald Trump is convinced that millions of people voted illegally. Because of reasons he does not have to explain to you. So much so that he's going to call for an investigation. Again, he is calling for an investigation of an election HE WON based on NOTHING. All because he can't take the idea that he lost the popular vote to Clinton. Not even Fox News is backing up Trump on this one.
Trump's making prominent Republicans uneasy. Good. Enjoy your Faustian bargain, ********s.
If the topics currently being discussed are making a lot of traction in discussion, I see no reason to close the thread as yet. We can always create a new thread with regards to what Trump does now that he's in office.
On a sidenote, you know what makes me really happy and proud to be an American, or indeed just all around proud to be a human being? The fact that Trump's inauguration crowd is completely dwarfed by the crowd of today's protesters in DC, to say nothing of the protesters worldwide.
I don't know who runs EarthCam, but thanks guys. You made my outlook on this country great again.
And a difference here is quite significant because my larger thesis here is that Trump supporters continued to exist largely because they felt they were not being listened to, they where being dismissed.
Except their actual grievance isn't that they're not being listened to, it's that people aren't agreeing with them.
The complaint that they're being dismissed is merely an extension of that. They see widespread disagreement with their opinions, and, because they don't perceive themselves as being incorrect (which they might if they *thought critically*), they see the widespread disagreement against their arguments as illogical reactions by people who are either blinded by their own biases or groupthink or what-have-you.
The problem is...
we aren't dealing with a group of perfectly rational people, far from it.
Correct, we aren't. Because these people aren't making arguments that are rooted in logic, reason, and facts. They're making arguments backed by bull*****.
So, the correct response is to dismiss these arguments. Arguments backed by nothing factual can be dismissed.
See, this is why *thinking critically* is so important. These people will jump up and down about how their arguments are being dismissed unfairly. They aren't. An argument backed by nothing, with a plethora of evidence against it, can be dismissed, and such dismissal is perfectly fair. They're being dismissed because they are factually incorrect. But, since these people do not perceive themselves as factually incorrect, they will jump to other conclusions as to why they're arguments are being dismissed, namely that people are meanie-heads who are deciding that they're wrong without ever actually listening to them. Because what would be the alternative? Why the alternative would be considering the possibility that...
we aren't dealing with a group of perfectly rational people, far from it.
Which is why we need to think critically about what they're saying. You're saying, "We shouldn't dismiss these people unfairly," but what is your basis for thinking that they are being dismissed unfairly? Because they said so? Well, part of thinking critically is not just taking someone saying something as fact, but instead really looking into whether or not they are actually being dismissed unfairly or do they simply think they are due to irrational reasons. And it's really important to look into that, especially when you yourself seem to think that...
we aren't dealing with a group of perfectly rational people, far from it.
Rrrright.
Nobody wants to be told that they're wrong. No one likes the idea that they might be completely wrong, especially in a way that can cause a lot of harm to a lot of people. That is, in fact, why it's so ******* important to confront people when they're being wrong and tell them why they're wrong.
Also,
and that therefore we should be careful about giving them a chance to prove themselves, at least in so far as their basic intelligence and some amount of basic decency.
This is quite a bit of "pot calling the kettle black," Mr. "we aren't dealing with a group of perfectly rational people, far from it."
You're basically admitting that these people are irrational and wrong. Yet, you object to anyone telling the irrational and wrong people that they're irrational and wrong, even though you not only believe they're irrational and wrong, but also you're SAYING they're irrational and wrong in a public forum where they can clearly read what you are saying.
So it's wrong to confront someone in a debate forum about the lack of objective judgment and rationality exercised in the ideas they're expressing, but it's perfectly fine to say that person has a lack of objective judgment and rationality exercised in the ideas they're expressing behind their back, but also in a manner in which you know they can still hear you? No, that doesn't make sense.
I take issue with you saying they don't think critically, not that they are being irrational,
Critical thinking: "the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment."
Yeah, it does kind of sound like you're saying they're not exercising critical thinking skills, doesn't it?
just as I wouldn't take issue if you had instead said they are bad at critical thinking. It was the specifics that I objected to, as I thought I made clear.
So, in other words, it really is just quibbling over language usage?
Ok, well, thank you for that contribution to the thread. You have a Happy New Year, man.
DJK, what is even the point of this? You outright say that Trump supporters aren't rational. But when I come in saying that they're irrational, you take an issue with it?
Because right now, you're coming off as a person who just wants to get the last word in, but has nothing except quibbling over words to offer. You may have an argument, but you're not demonstrating it.
The problem is, that's not a fact. It's wrong. There aren't masses of people who are incapable of or choosing not to use critical thinking, even if there are such masses of people being fairly limited in critical thinking, there has to be very few not using any. But you choose to portray large numbers of people as completely uncritical. That's not a fair portrayal.
But even more so, you make the problem out to be that people thought they didn't need to act out, that people were complacent.
Because it's only possible to act out when thinking critically... No, obviously that's not true.
The problem was that Trump supporters by and large thought of themselves as some kind of oppressed group
... Ok, and maybe what you might choose to investigate from here, and this might be me just talkin' crazy, is look into WHY they think of themselves as oppressed, and then think critically about that and ask yourself exactly how true their position is.
Bonus points if you in turn consider whether voting for Trump would actually constitute a logical reaction to the position these people find themselves in, but prioritize the first part.
The thing is, even if that's true (and to a significant extent I think it is), it's not going to make things better to say just because it is true.
Why the hell not?
This is perhaps the most baffling takeaway from this election: people who honestly think others are racist, sexist, bigoted, prejudiced to the point where it influences national voting policy and the damn world, but still labor against others pointing it out.
For ****'s sake, when YamahaR1 is running around saying, "Hey, everyone's in an echo chamber," you were nodding and saying, "Oh yeah, that's a great point he's got there." So, you think it's a great point that people insulate themselves from contrary opinions and the negative result of that is that such people never question their own biases, and consequently these biases prevent them from confronting the truth.
AND YET, you're now saying it's not productive to confront people with the truth? Well gee, THAT'S contradictory, now isn't it?
I don't that's a helpful attitude you are expressing there.
It's the attitude that built this ******* country.
You may have learned in social studies class that the Founding Fathers didn't build a democracy, or a kingdom, or a dictatorship. They founded a republic, specifically one built around checks and balances. Did you ever stop to consider why that was? It's because they subscribed to two key concepts:
1. Through intelligent, informed, rational thought, they could build a better society.
2. People cannot be relied upon to behave in intelligent, informed, rational, and benevolent ways.
That second part is important, and they knew this first hand. They understood completely how easily the government could slip into a tyranny that disenfranchises people because they were rebelling against a tyrant who disenfranchised them! Therefore, they didn't put one man in charge, nor did they build a democracy where the majority vote would hold all the power. They deliberately crafted their government so no one person or organization would hold too much power because they knew that human beings cannot be relied upon to make informed, intelligent, rational, benevolent decisions. They formed their government accordingly, making it as difficult as possible for any one person or group to take power, knowing all the while that the possibility of a demagogue taking power was always a risk that needed to be vigilantly watched for.
And that's what we all lost sight of. We were foolish enough to lose sight of just how irrational, illogical, and without judgment people truly are when it comes to matters of the state and individual liberty. We thought that something like President Trump would never happen because we assumed that "these things just don't happen here," that modern America was somehow special and exempt. But we ignored the fact that every single thing that is exceptional about America - and make no mistake, America truly is special - was earned as a result of the decisions, dedication, hard work, and extreme sacrifice of every person who came before us, starting from the Founding Fathers; to the people who nobly sacrificed so much, including the their own lives and the lives of their family members, in order that this nation would be liberated from Great Britain; all the way to the Civil Rights movement and the present day. We forgot just how deeply rooted racism in this country is, because we enjoy all of the benefits of the Civil Rights movement.
We made the mistake of assuming that all of the things we enjoy were things that we could enjoy without ever doing any actual work for them. We assumed that all of the benefits we enjoy from victories of the Founding Fathers, the civil rights movements of the modern day, and everyone in between were the products of battles that had already been fought, not battles that we ourselves needed to continue fighting. And we now see the results of such naive notions.
So no, it is not an unhelpful attitude, it is a ******* fact, and ignoring it is what got us here. Reality is reality, and does not give a ***** about anyone's attempts at denial.
The echo chamber in social media is not smear articles and polling. Its people all nodding their head in agreement on (all of the issues involved) repeating the same views back to each other (echo... echo..) because they've stomped out the opposing view, thus lead to believe nobody like Trump could get elected.
But as stated, you're denying the idea that Trump supporters were in their own echo chamber.
Which is extremely important because...
Because that's racist. And that's sexist. And that's xenophobic.
... Trump is openly all of those things. Trump's statements are openly all of those things. Trump's proposed policies are openly all of those things.
The only way you could miss this is to be in an echo chamber.
We recently had a man open fire in a pizzeria because he believed a trending story on social media about a Democrat-run pedophilia ring - a conspiracy theory which has exactly zero validity and has been outright discredited by major news organizations.
And this is not the only false story that was circulated. This election will be defined by "fake news," which is a term I can't stand, because there's already a word for "fake news." It's "lying." You had deliberate lies all over social media claiming to be news articles, and people believed them despite ample evidence to the contrary. Multiple government agencies have outright stated that the Russians actually ran a propaganda campaign to influence our election, and yet people are still clinging to the validity of blatant lies.
Journalistic bias is absolutely a topic we should always been willing to discuss. But there is a mountain of difference between accusing someone of journalistic bias because they are biased, and dismissing someone due to perceived journalistic bias when they are pointing out actual facts because those facts go against your political views. Donald Trump ran a campaign of falsehoods, lied constantly, and the fact that he won indicates the willingness of people to completely ignore every single media source that told people that Trump was lying.
To clarify: that's not the news media trying to silence anybody. That's the news media actually doing its job.
You talk of being against echo chambers? Donald Trump's victory is the victory of the echo chamber.
That was the best part of the whole election - the revelation of many.
It was certainly eye-opening to see how large of a percentage of our electorate does not have or choose to exercise critical thinking skills, certainly.
But for that portion of the electorate, I fear the revelation has only just begun. Then there are the people who will continue to sing Trump's praises no matter what the man does. I fear no revelation will ever reach them.
It was a, "Can you believe THIS GUY is running for the White House?" moment. The same reason we know who Joe Exotic is, but the difference is that Gary Johnson was probably going to - and ultimately did - get the third most votes of any candidate. He was never going to win, but he at least big enough to appear on the radar, which made it worse. It became, "Can you believe this idiot even got this close to the White House?"
And it's not like they didn't do this to Trump all of the time. The difference was Trump was able to use all of the media attention to his advantage.
Ok, so in a way, it's sort of my fault.
Why did I expect Betsy DeVos to not get through the Senate?
I mean, yes, she is objectively a horrendous choice for the office. Yes, not only is she not qualified, but if you were to design in your mind someone who would be the worst possible pick for the office, she'd either be exactly what you'd imagine or come damn close.
But, why did I expect Republicans to not approve of her?
After all, if qualifications actually mattered, and if anyone were actually going to stand up to Trump about it, then they would have done so by not voting for him.
This is the most rudimentary test of character ever, and ALL BUT TWO Republican senators failed utterly.
So yeah. I'd like to open up the floor to anyone to try to defend this travel ban. Anyone at all. Bonus points if you can work in how you're protecting things like freedom and American values.
To no one's surprise, took less than a month for a Constitution violation.
I mean, basically, you profess that governments are inherently violent organizations designed to oppress the people, right? That's the whole thing you've been saying up until now?
So you'd think that when the President of the United States has his press secretary openly lie to the American public - about something ridiculously petty I might add - in such an obvious and transparent way, when he commands government organizations to repress any reporting of facts that might contradict this outright lie, and then goes ahead and infringes upon the rights of people, you should probably be concerned, right? Like, logically, someone who fears oppression of the weak against the powerful should be opposed to this *****, right?
But no. You're defending him. You're freaking trying to downplay this.
Do you have any principles?
He's doing precisely what he promised to do.
While I understand this mindset, we should be unnerved by the willingness to overlook erosion of rights and open discrimination against minorities and women in our government in exchange for profit.
I'd also like to add to your list the fact that Donald Trump is convinced that millions of people voted illegally. Because of reasons he does not have to explain to you. So much so that he's going to call for an investigation. Again, he is calling for an investigation of an election HE WON based on NOTHING. All because he can't take the idea that he lost the popular vote to Clinton. Not even Fox News is backing up Trump on this one.
Trump's making prominent Republicans uneasy. Good. Enjoy your Faustian bargain, ********s.
On a sidenote, you know what makes me really happy and proud to be an American, or indeed just all around proud to be a human being? The fact that Trump's inauguration crowd is completely dwarfed by the crowd of today's protesters in DC, to say nothing of the protesters worldwide.
I don't know who runs EarthCam, but thanks guys. You made my outlook on this country great again.
The complaint that they're being dismissed is merely an extension of that. They see widespread disagreement with their opinions, and, because they don't perceive themselves as being incorrect (which they might if they *thought critically*), they see the widespread disagreement against their arguments as illogical reactions by people who are either blinded by their own biases or groupthink or what-have-you.
The problem is...
Correct, we aren't. Because these people aren't making arguments that are rooted in logic, reason, and facts. They're making arguments backed by bull*****.
So, the correct response is to dismiss these arguments. Arguments backed by nothing factual can be dismissed.
See, this is why *thinking critically* is so important. These people will jump up and down about how their arguments are being dismissed unfairly. They aren't. An argument backed by nothing, with a plethora of evidence against it, can be dismissed, and such dismissal is perfectly fair. They're being dismissed because they are factually incorrect. But, since these people do not perceive themselves as factually incorrect, they will jump to other conclusions as to why they're arguments are being dismissed, namely that people are meanie-heads who are deciding that they're wrong without ever actually listening to them. Because what would be the alternative? Why the alternative would be considering the possibility that...
Which is why we need to think critically about what they're saying. You're saying, "We shouldn't dismiss these people unfairly," but what is your basis for thinking that they are being dismissed unfairly? Because they said so? Well, part of thinking critically is not just taking someone saying something as fact, but instead really looking into whether or not they are actually being dismissed unfairly or do they simply think they are due to irrational reasons. And it's really important to look into that, especially when you yourself seem to think that...
Rrrright.
Nobody wants to be told that they're wrong. No one likes the idea that they might be completely wrong, especially in a way that can cause a lot of harm to a lot of people. That is, in fact, why it's so ******* important to confront people when they're being wrong and tell them why they're wrong.
Also,
This is quite a bit of "pot calling the kettle black," Mr. "we aren't dealing with a group of perfectly rational people, far from it."
You're basically admitting that these people are irrational and wrong. Yet, you object to anyone telling the irrational and wrong people that they're irrational and wrong, even though you not only believe they're irrational and wrong, but also you're SAYING they're irrational and wrong in a public forum where they can clearly read what you are saying.
So it's wrong to confront someone in a debate forum about the lack of objective judgment and rationality exercised in the ideas they're expressing, but it's perfectly fine to say that person has a lack of objective judgment and rationality exercised in the ideas they're expressing behind their back, but also in a manner in which you know they can still hear you? No, that doesn't make sense.
We're done here.
------
On to an actual substantive debate: Obama is pursuing sanctions against Russia. How do we think the transition of power will affect this?
Yeah, it does kind of sound like you're saying they're not exercising critical thinking skills, doesn't it?
So, in other words, it really is just quibbling over language usage?
Ok, well, thank you for that contribution to the thread. You have a Happy New Year, man.
Because right now, you're coming off as a person who just wants to get the last word in, but has nothing except quibbling over words to offer. You may have an argument, but you're not demonstrating it.
Because it's only possible to act out when thinking critically... No, obviously that's not true.
... Ok, and maybe what you might choose to investigate from here, and this might be me just talkin' crazy, is look into WHY they think of themselves as oppressed, and then think critically about that and ask yourself exactly how true their position is.
Bonus points if you in turn consider whether voting for Trump would actually constitute a logical reaction to the position these people find themselves in, but prioritize the first part.
Why the hell not?
This is perhaps the most baffling takeaway from this election: people who honestly think others are racist, sexist, bigoted, prejudiced to the point where it influences national voting policy and the damn world, but still labor against others pointing it out.
For ****'s sake, when YamahaR1 is running around saying, "Hey, everyone's in an echo chamber," you were nodding and saying, "Oh yeah, that's a great point he's got there." So, you think it's a great point that people insulate themselves from contrary opinions and the negative result of that is that such people never question their own biases, and consequently these biases prevent them from confronting the truth.
AND YET, you're now saying it's not productive to confront people with the truth? Well gee, THAT'S contradictory, now isn't it?
You may have learned in social studies class that the Founding Fathers didn't build a democracy, or a kingdom, or a dictatorship. They founded a republic, specifically one built around checks and balances. Did you ever stop to consider why that was? It's because they subscribed to two key concepts:
1. Through intelligent, informed, rational thought, they could build a better society.
2. People cannot be relied upon to behave in intelligent, informed, rational, and benevolent ways.
That second part is important, and they knew this first hand. They understood completely how easily the government could slip into a tyranny that disenfranchises people because they were rebelling against a tyrant who disenfranchised them! Therefore, they didn't put one man in charge, nor did they build a democracy where the majority vote would hold all the power. They deliberately crafted their government so no one person or organization would hold too much power because they knew that human beings cannot be relied upon to make informed, intelligent, rational, benevolent decisions. They formed their government accordingly, making it as difficult as possible for any one person or group to take power, knowing all the while that the possibility of a demagogue taking power was always a risk that needed to be vigilantly watched for.
And that's what we all lost sight of. We were foolish enough to lose sight of just how irrational, illogical, and without judgment people truly are when it comes to matters of the state and individual liberty. We thought that something like President Trump would never happen because we assumed that "these things just don't happen here," that modern America was somehow special and exempt. But we ignored the fact that every single thing that is exceptional about America - and make no mistake, America truly is special - was earned as a result of the decisions, dedication, hard work, and extreme sacrifice of every person who came before us, starting from the Founding Fathers; to the people who nobly sacrificed so much, including the their own lives and the lives of their family members, in order that this nation would be liberated from Great Britain; all the way to the Civil Rights movement and the present day. We forgot just how deeply rooted racism in this country is, because we enjoy all of the benefits of the Civil Rights movement.
We made the mistake of assuming that all of the things we enjoy were things that we could enjoy without ever doing any actual work for them. We assumed that all of the benefits we enjoy from victories of the Founding Fathers, the civil rights movements of the modern day, and everyone in between were the products of battles that had already been fought, not battles that we ourselves needed to continue fighting. And we now see the results of such naive notions.
So no, it is not an unhelpful attitude, it is a ******* fact, and ignoring it is what got us here. Reality is reality, and does not give a ***** about anyone's attempts at denial.
But as stated, you're denying the idea that Trump supporters were in their own echo chamber.
Which is extremely important because...
... Trump is openly all of those things. Trump's statements are openly all of those things. Trump's proposed policies are openly all of those things.
The only way you could miss this is to be in an echo chamber.
We recently had a man open fire in a pizzeria because he believed a trending story on social media about a Democrat-run pedophilia ring - a conspiracy theory which has exactly zero validity and has been outright discredited by major news organizations.
And this is not the only false story that was circulated. This election will be defined by "fake news," which is a term I can't stand, because there's already a word for "fake news." It's "lying." You had deliberate lies all over social media claiming to be news articles, and people believed them despite ample evidence to the contrary. Multiple government agencies have outright stated that the Russians actually ran a propaganda campaign to influence our election, and yet people are still clinging to the validity of blatant lies.
Journalistic bias is absolutely a topic we should always been willing to discuss. But there is a mountain of difference between accusing someone of journalistic bias because they are biased, and dismissing someone due to perceived journalistic bias when they are pointing out actual facts because those facts go against your political views. Donald Trump ran a campaign of falsehoods, lied constantly, and the fact that he won indicates the willingness of people to completely ignore every single media source that told people that Trump was lying.
To clarify: that's not the news media trying to silence anybody. That's the news media actually doing its job.
You talk of being against echo chambers? Donald Trump's victory is the victory of the echo chamber.
But for that portion of the electorate, I fear the revelation has only just begun. Then there are the people who will continue to sing Trump's praises no matter what the man does. I fear no revelation will ever reach them.