Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1063394 Posts in 70692 Topics- by 18562 Members - Latest Member: Mikkosh
Jump to:  
The Trombone ForumPractice BreakChit-ChatPurely Politics(Moderators: bhcordova, RedHotMama, BFW) Understanding isn't the problem ...
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 [All]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Understanding isn't the problem ...  (Read 5052 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 17878
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« on: Nov 23, 2016, 05:52AM »

On Rural America: Understanding Isn’t The Problem
 
I haven't formed any definite opinion on this one as yet, other than that for me I need to resist forming an opinion. The piece resonates with me, at least generally (a lot of it doesn't), and I've internalized the distrust of such emotions (subtle as they may be). I'll be very interested in what sober minds in here have to say about it.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
bhcordova
Wielder of the Cat Litter Scoop

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Nacogdoches, TX, USA
Joined: May 18, 2000
Posts: 7014
"Carpe Felix"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: Nov 23, 2016, 07:30AM »

I agree with him about the problems with rural America.  I see them everyday with family and friends.  I disagree with him about the response the Democrats should make.  All-in-all, a well thought out and well written article.
Logged

Billy Cordova, MBA
Forum Administrator
bcordova@tromboneforum.org

Beware the Jabberwock, my son! - Lewis Carroll

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup - Anon.

St. Cecilia, pray for us.
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Online Online

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 49844
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: Nov 23, 2016, 07:37AM »

Very interesting article.  Nice interpretation of "Flyover America", if a bit extreme.  You asked for opinions from "sober minds" and I think you are going to have problems finding any from outside "Coastal America" as he puts it.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
largobone
*
Offline Offline

Location: Iowa
Joined: Jun 2, 2016
Posts: 234

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: Nov 23, 2016, 07:51PM »

Quote
What I understand is rural, Christian, white America is entrenched in fundamentalist belief systems, don’t trust people outside their tribe, have been force fed a diet of misinformation and lies for decades, are unwilling to understand their own situations, truly believe whites are superior to all races.  No amount of understanding is going to change these things or what they believe.  No amount of niceties is going to get them to be introspective.  No economic policy put forth by someone outside their tribe is going to be listened to no matter how beneficial it would be for them.  I understand rural, Christian, white America all too well.  I understand their fears are based on myths and lies.  I understand they feel left behind by a world they don’t understand and don’t really care to.  I understand they are willing to vote against their own interest if they can be convinced it will make sure minorities are harmed more.  I understand their Christian beliefs and morals are truly only extended to fellow white Christians.  I understand them.  I understand they are the problem with progress and will always be because their belief systems are constructed against it.  The problem isn’t a lack of understanding by “coastal elites” of rural, Christian, white America.  The problem is a lack of understanding why rural, Christian, white America believes, votes, behaves the ways it does by rural, Christian, white America.

This whole article was RIDICULOUSLY one-sided. As someone who has spent a lot of time in Rural America himself, you would have to be quite imaginative to find this in 99% of people in small-town America. Or maybe I'm just dense.

-The Educated Conservative
Logged

2013 Yamaha Xeno 882O-Schilke 52
1939/1940 King 2B Liberty-Jupiter 12C
2015 Wessex PE480 Alto-King 12C
ca. 1970's King Duo Gravis-Bach 1-1/4G
1905 Boosey Class A Euph

Des Moines Youth Symphony-3rd/Bass Trombone
bhcordova
Wielder of the Cat Litter Scoop

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Nacogdoches, TX, USA
Joined: May 18, 2000
Posts: 7014
"Carpe Felix"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: Nov 23, 2016, 08:07PM »

Yep.  You are just dense
Logged

Billy Cordova, MBA
Forum Administrator
bcordova@tromboneforum.org

Beware the Jabberwock, my son! - Lewis Carroll

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup - Anon.

St. Cecilia, pray for us.
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Online Online

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 49844
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: Nov 23, 2016, 08:22PM »

This whole article was RIDICULOUSLY one-sided. As someone who has spent a lot of time in Rural America himself, you would have to be quite imaginative to find this in 99% of people in small-town America. Or maybe I'm just dense.

-The Educated Conservative

I will agree that the article is one-sided.  But it does seem to explain the posts I've seen from our most strongly Conservative posters here: Jakeway, Dickerson, Norsworthy, and Badger.  I understand that Norsworthy and Jakeway don't live in "flyover country" -- they have the distinct disadvantage of being Conservatives in a relatively Liberal part of the country which probably galls them deeply.

I would entertain an explanation of exactly why the article writer has his head up his a**.  And not just "I know a Conservative and he's a nice guy" type of argument.  Give me a clear analysis of why you think he's all wet.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
bhcordova
Wielder of the Cat Litter Scoop

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Nacogdoches, TX, USA
Joined: May 18, 2000
Posts: 7014
"Carpe Felix"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: Nov 23, 2016, 08:26PM »

He's not all wet.  He explains it almost exactly right.
Logged

Billy Cordova, MBA
Forum Administrator
bcordova@tromboneforum.org

Beware the Jabberwock, my son! - Lewis Carroll

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup - Anon.

St. Cecilia, pray for us.
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Online Online

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 49844
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: Nov 23, 2016, 08:38PM »

He's not all wet.  He explains it almost exactly right.

Baron wanted to hear from the Conservative side about this article.  I'm really interested in what somebody like Dusty thinks of it.  We can't hear from Norsworthy or Dr. Ronkny since they are barred from this board (although if they send me a letter I'll post it here).  Again, I don't accept "It's bunk" without some kind of explanation comparable to the analysis from the article.  Just rejecting it out of hand supports the writer's supposition.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9007

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: Nov 23, 2016, 09:25PM »

The fact that you admit it's one sided, should put a red flag up for you to see, yet that doesn't even caution you one bit. Why is that?

That entire article is nothing more than a fabrication of someone's imagination. There is no truth there. It's just another attempt to stir up hate. The fact that anyone would spend the time of day reading it is ridiculous.

Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Online Online

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 49844
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: Nov 23, 2016, 10:14PM »

So being one sided your way is fine but being one sided not your way means it's not worth reading?  I think that's the guy's postulate.  Are you trying to prove him right?

I said it was one sided, but it also explained a lot of posts from the Conservatives.  Please prove me wrong.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9007

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: Nov 24, 2016, 05:52AM »

I can't believe that anyone would take that article serious.
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
Russ White

*
Offline Offline

Location: Orange City, Fl
Joined: Feb 27, 2007
Posts: 4974

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: Nov 24, 2016, 06:07AM »

OK, finally had time to read it. Just based on the excerpt Largobone posted the guy hits the nail square on the head. I have lived more than half my life in those flyover states, and I have seen exactly what that paragraph describes with my own eyes and experience. It is absolutely true. The fact than any self-respecting evangelical could vote for Trump after the campaign he ran is further proof of the truth in the article. I think he might be a bit over the top in his attribution of all racism to religion, but it is definitely a factor. The most telling paragraph in the whole article was this one.......

"When a three-thousand-year-old book that was written by uneducated, pre-scientific people, subject to translation innumerable times, edited with political and economic pressures from Popes and kings, is given higher intellectual authority than facts arrived at from a rigorous, self-critical, constantly re-evaluating system that can and does correct mistakes, no amount of understanding, no amount of respect, no amount of evidence is going to change their minds, assuage their fears."
Logged

Better than yesterday, better yet tomorrow.
BillO
Trying to be better.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 1977

View Profile
« Reply #12 on: Nov 24, 2016, 08:13AM »

The fact that anyone would spend the time of day reading it is ridiculous.

Then you are either ridiculous by your own account (because you read it), or you have not read it - either way how can we take your opinion about it seriously?

Dusty, do you even bother to check the logical validity of your statements?
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9007

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: Nov 24, 2016, 08:32AM »

Then you are either ridiculous by your own account (because you read it), or you have not read it - either way how can we take your opinion about it seriously?

Dusty, do you even bother to check the logical validity of your statements?

I don't expect you to take anything I say as serious. Since you take that article as serious reading material, there's not much I could say anyway.

I hope that you and your family have a great Thanksgiving Day today!
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
BillO
Trying to be better.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 1977

View Profile
« Reply #14 on: Nov 24, 2016, 08:36AM »

I hope that you and your family have a great Thanksgiving Day today!

Our Thanksgiving was last month, but thanks for the sentiment.  To your and yours, have a great weekend!
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 17878
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: Nov 24, 2016, 09:14AM »

Baron wanted to hear from the Conservative side about this article.  I'm really interested in what somebody like Dusty thinks of it.

Thanks for that ...
 
How about we keep the focus on the products of sober minds with functional integrity that actually understand the nature of fact--i.e. that don't mistake dogma for fact.
 
Sober, functional minds will produce discourse of value. Minds that don't understand the difference between dogma and fact are only going to hijack the discourse of value with tediously predictable nonsense ... mainly because too many are unable to refrain from going after the low hanging fruit, even if it's rotten.
 
Let's do better than that, at least sometimes. Eh?
 
 --
 
It's been moving along just fine ... carry on.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 17878
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: Nov 24, 2016, 11:56AM »

This whole article was RIDICULOUSLY one-sided. As someone who has spent a lot of time in Rural America himself, you would have to be quite imaginative to find this in 99% of people in small-town America. Or maybe I'm just dense.
 
-The Educated Conservative
Depends upon how you're using 99% there, although one of the key points is also the whole self-awareness schtick--the idea that for the target of the criticism, most or all of that flies under their horribly miscalibrated radar (i.e. "they're" not so good at the self-awareness). But I think what you're on about may distill down to who "they" are exactly--what share of the Trump voting population.
 
I'd say the article is focused on the majority who voted for Trump as measured by volume--as in noise. In the US we have to always keep in mind that even a margin of 5% is considered pretty significant in our elections and our basic sociopolitical divisions, so if we keep that in mind and then recognize we're talking about a Bell curve kind of thing covering most of roughly half of the population (so maybe a quarter of the population at most are in his sights, and the low curve edge of that quarter probably aren't in too deep).
 
But I'm keenly aware that the basic sentiments Forsetti is talking about are quite alive and well here in the Deep Red. It was quite a culture shock for me when I first got out here from CA in the late '80s. I'm not sure if my radar's become miscalibrated somewhat as well over the years, but I think Forsetti is dead on for a significant chunk of the Deep Red population, even if not as big a chunk as he seems to be targeting (I immigrated as a Southern Baptist from a suburb of San Francisco, and after spending some time with about a dozen different Baptist congregations I never got clear of these same basic sentiments, and they were also quite evident in the local free-ranging populace as well--i.e. not just at conservative churches). I'm also not sure he is targeting as big of a chunk as most readers will see (myself included). Focused criticism is often mistakenly perceived as intended for a larger population in a kind of strange mechanism of over-defensiveness by mistaken association.
 
There's definitely truth in what Forsetti's pointing out, but he's targeting a population, not individuals, and when some idea or behavior or linguistic quirk is indicative or even definitive of a given population it doesn't offer a remotely reliable characterization of individuals within that population. So speaking of an entire region of a country is inherently a scatter gun approach, like with stats. And I can't stress enough how evenly divided we are right now in the US, culturally, socially and politically. Even where the voting was decisively red or blue there was rarely huge disparity. That's a key factor in how we end up with candidates who loose the popular vote but win the electorate.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: Nov 24, 2016, 12:44PM »

I have read the article and thought about it with my sober mind.

Rural America does include a lot of non-whites doesn't it? Blacks in the south east and Latinos in the south west. Blacks and Latinos also have sub-groups of people with fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

The author often presumes to speak the minds of millions of other people. I find that arrogant and it makes me wary of how accurately he describes typical views of white, Christian rural-dwelling Americans. I haven't met many such people so I wouldn't know. However, assuming he has made a fair portrayal, there are several good points in the article. A few examples:

Immigrants are not responsible for companies moving their plants overseas. Well, yes... because the workers and the jobs are moving in opposite directions.
Gay people getting married is not a threat to their freedom... ... any more than someone else's heterosexual marriage affects your freedom.
They complain about globalization but line up like everyone else to get the latest Apple product.
They complain about “the little man being run out of business” then turn around and shop at big box stores.

However there are some poor points.

They complain about coastal liberals, but the taxes from California and New York are what covers their [various] subsidies... This is a non sequitur.
Blacks protesting the killing of their unarmed friends and family are [not] a threat. Unless the protests are violent, which several have been, and on quite a large scale.

The author is also critical of supply-side economics but fails to acknowledge that immigration and "Hispanics doing the cheap labor" are an aspect of the policies. They lower barriers to production by increasing labour supply and therefore lowering labour cost.

My greatest criticism is the implication that a large number of people have the "wrong" opinions and beliefs, and that this one group should not be allowed to make or express common cause in (what they think is) their own interest. Obviously, I'm thinking of the 1st Amendment. The tone is again arrogant and supercilious and sneering. Perhaps the author is correct, and his superior beliefs are the right ones. However, people are entitled especially in the USA to hold whatever views they want. This is not a problem, as the author asserts. It is a great triumph, and a treasure that should be defended jealously. It is the very same freedom that the author is enjoying by writing his article, so he is arguing against himself.
Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Online Online

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 49844
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: Nov 24, 2016, 01:08PM »

>>They complain about coastal liberals, but the taxes from California and New York are what covers their [various] subsidies... This is a non sequitur.

I think you don't understand the context of this remark.

We have statistics of how many dollars of Federal spending are returned to states compared to how many dollars of Federal Tax money is collected.  Ideally, each State should get one dollar back for each dollar they send to the Government in taxes.

States in the Northeast and West Coasts get back much less than one dollar for each dollar sent as taxes (I think it's about $0.70).
States in the "flyover" area get much more than one dollar for each dollar contributed (I think it's about $1.25).

So the subsidies provided to the area the writer is evaluating are in part subsidized by the Liberal areas of the Northeast and West.

I agree with your analysis of the tone; it is most definitely condescending toward the people he's describing.  But this type of tone is rampant in American political speech.  Just listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck describe Liberals some time.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 17878
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: Nov 24, 2016, 01:11PM »

I have read the article and thought about it with my sober mind.
Heh ... much appreciated.
 
My greatest criticism is the implication that a large number of people have the "wrong" opinions and beliefs, and that this one group should not be allowed to make or express common cause in (what they think is) their own interest.
Thewhowhatnow?
 
The tone is again arrogant and supercilious  and sneering. Perhaps the author is correct, and his superior beliefs are the right ones. However, people are entitled especially in the USA to hold whatever views they want. This is not a problem, as the author asserts. It is a great triumph, and a treasure that should be defended jealously. It is the very same freedom that the author is enjoying by writing his article, so he is arguing against himself.
I'd say the rest of your criticism of Forsetti's points is entirely valid (though I might take issue with a point or two), but your "greatest criticism" there is a straw man. You seem to be confusing criticism of what Forsetti is arguing are self-defeating and meritless beliefs with suggesting people somehow shouldn't be allowed to have certain beliefs, however that would work. Ironically Forsetti is actually in part making very much the same criticism of popular Southern beliefs you are of his comments.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Burgerbob

*
Offline Offline

Location: Los Angeles
Joined: Aug 12, 2007
Posts: 5240

View Profile
« Reply #20 on: Nov 24, 2016, 01:19PM »

I read this a few days ago.

Having grown up in a flyover state (almost the MOST flyover state, I think), I have to agree with basically all his points. I think he goes a little far in the response, but I agree that meeting halfway with viewpoints that are under- and mis-educated is basically pointless.
Logged

Brasslab 50T3, Greg Glack 1 1/8GM
Bach 42B, Wick 3AL
Conn 6H, King 7MD
Yamaha YEP-842S, Schilke 53/59
Yamaha YBH-301MS, Hammond 12XL
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #21 on: Nov 24, 2016, 03:39PM »

I'd say the rest of your criticism of Forsetti's points is entirely valid (though I might take issue with a point or two), but your "greatest criticism" there is a straw man. You seem to be confusing criticism of what Forsetti is arguing are self-defeating and meritless beliefs with suggesting people somehow shouldn't be allowed to have certain beliefs, however that would work. Ironically Forsetti is actually in part making very much the same criticism of popular Southern beliefs you are of his comments.

Ah yes, I indulged in a long complicated sentence and failed to communicate clearly. I'll split my main criticism into two parts.

1) The author contends that some of the typical beliefs he suggests are incorrect, but doesn't set out clear and systematic refutations.

2) The article asserts that when white, rural-dwelling, Christian Americans want to preserve a shared culture, identify as a homogenous section of US society and pursue what they see as their own interests, this is a problem. Consider the following paraphrases:

[Jewish] America is entrenched in fundamentalist belief systems, [doesn’t] trust people outside [its] tribe, [has] been force fed a diet of misinformation and lies for decades, [is] unwilling to understand [its] own situations, truly [believes] Jews are superior to all races.

No economic policy put forth by someone outside their tribe is going to be listened to no matter how beneficial it would be for [Blacks].

I understand their Muslim beliefs and morals are truly only extended to fellow Muslims.


I think they reveal that the author wishes to express towards white Christians the same bigotry and racism he is criticising. That is what I meant by arguing against himself.
Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Online Online

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 49844
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: Nov 24, 2016, 04:33PM »

I don't think any of us have said he's blameless.  And one can find Liberals who express the same kinds of prejudices.

Tribal identification predates most recorded history so his interpretation isn't terribly radical.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 17878
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: Nov 24, 2016, 04:47PM »

Ah yes, I indulged in a long complicated sentence and failed to communicate clearly. I'll split my main criticism into two parts.
 
1) The author contends that some of the typical beliefs he suggests are incorrect, but doesn't set out clear and systematic refutations.
Hmmm ... closed-mindedness, racism, presumed superiority over other demographics, anger when reality fails to comply with one's dogmas ... do these kinds of traits really require refutations?
 
You may disagree with Forsetti's characterizations, but I'm not sure it's reasonable to argue that the traits he's describing require refutation.
 
2) The article asserts that when white, rural-dwelling, Christian Americans want to preserve a shared culture, identify as a homogenous section of US society and pursue what they see as their own interests, this is a problem.
No, Forsetti points out the problems in how they think and go about pursuing what they think are their own interests but can be demonstrably shown are not (a point that can certainly be challenged). Forsetti isn't suggesting the mere fact that they pursue their own interests is a problem, it's the interests they really pursue and how they pursue them. Again, you're arguing against a straw man here.
 
[Jewish] America is entrenched in fundamentalist belief systems, [doesn’t] trust people outside [its] tribe, [has] been force fed a diet of misinformation and lies for decades, [is] unwilling to understand [its] own situations, truly [believes] Jews are superior to all races.
 
No economic policy put forth by someone outside their tribe is going to be listened to no matter how beneficial it would be for [Blacks].
 
I understand their Muslim beliefs and morals are truly only extended to fellow Muslims.

 
I think they reveal that the author wishes to express towards white Christians the same bigotry and racism he is criticising. That is what I meant by arguing against himself.
So if someone were describing a culture in which these things really are accurate descriptions, is recognizing these things therefore racist? Again, you may disagree with his take, but you're arguing that the mere existence of his take is inherently the same problem as described. If recognizing these traits in a population is itself displaying those same traits, how can anyone ever accept that these negative attributes exist? If we take that thinking and apply it to Nazi Germany and the pre-Civil Rights Movement South, then those who acted against these cultures were the racists and fascists and such because they recognized the fact that these traits and behaviors were a definitive aspect of those societies. Forsetti's saying a lot of the pre-Civil Rights Movement attitudes are still alive and well in fly-over America. If you and he are both right, then only racists and bigots can spot racism and bigotry.
 
I'd also point out the fact that we see the very attitudes described in here, granted they may not all be displayed by Southerners and Midwesterners, but Forsetti's not arguing they're exclusively owned by fly-over America either.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #24 on: Nov 25, 2016, 08:22AM »

Sorry, don't know how to multi-quote.

...closed-mindedness, racism, presumed superiority over other demographics, anger when reality fails to comply with one's dogmas ... do these kinds of traits really require refutations?

Yes. The onus is on the proponent to persuade the audience. Or has a definitive list of good things and bad things been made while I wasn't paying attention?




Forsetti isn't suggesting the mere fact that they pursue their own interests is a problem, it's the interests they really pursue and how they pursue them. Again, you're arguing against a straw man here.

I think you've missed the hidden premises in Forsetti's enthymeme. There are several.

1.  ...they are the problem with [my idea of] progress and will always be because their belief systems are constructed against it.
2. [my idea of] progress is good and should happen
3. anything that impedes progress also causes badness
4. badness should not be caused
5. their belief systems impede progress
6. therefore their belief systems cause badness and should not happen





So if someone were describing a culture in which these things really are accurate descriptions, is recognizing these things therefore racist? Again, you may disagree with his take, but you're arguing that the mere existence of his take is inherently the same problem as described. If recognizing these traits in a population is itself displaying those same traits, how can anyone ever accept that these negative attributes exist? ...If you and he are both right, then only racists and bigots can spot racism and bigotry.

The ifs are the important words there. Forsetti doesn't explore what he means by racism, and the support he gives for his cultural description is mostly anecdotal. Recognising the traits would be objective comment without a value judgement necessarily intended, if it were reasoned and supported with relevant verification. Recognising the traits without reasons or proof is actually not recognition at all: it's an expression of irrational dislike, which would be a manifestation of racism. By extension, I share Forsetti's frustration with the True Believers. Trying to get to the bottom (genuinely, not as a baiting exercise) of what they believe and why never ends well.
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 17878
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: Nov 25, 2016, 09:49AM »

Sorry, don't know how to multi-quote.
 
...closed-mindedness, racism, presumed superiority over other demographics, anger when reality fails to comply with one's dogmas ... do these kinds of traits really require refutations?

Yes. The onus is on the proponent to persuade the audience. Or has a definitive list of good things and bad things been made while I wasn't paying attention?
As I wrote immediately after the quoted bit there:
You may disagree with Forsetti's characterizations, but I'm not sure it's reasonable to argue that the traits he's describing require refutation.
 
Forsetti isn't suggesting the mere fact that they pursue their own interests is a problem, it's the interests they really pursue and how they pursue them. Again, you're arguing against a straw man here.

I think you've missed the hidden premises in Forsetti's enthymeme. There are several.

1.  ...they are the problem with [my idea of] progress and will always be because their belief systems are constructed against it.
2. [my idea of] progress is good and should happen
3. anything that impedes progress also causes badness
4. badness should not be caused
5. their belief systems impede progress
6. therefore their belief systems cause badness and should not happen
You're arguing against definitions of basic terms and concepts now, not the points Forsetti made. This is the nuclear option for avoiding the actual issues. Forsetti's "hidden premises", as you're presenting them, are basically that bad is bad and good is good--that sort of thing. I suspect you're mistaking disagreements with "hidden premises" here. In other words, I suspect that your argument is with his take on fly-over America, not whether the standard definitions of terms should be applied--i.e. that bad is bad (negative, shouldn't be caused) and good is good (positive, should happen).
 
So if someone were describing a culture in which these things really are accurate descriptions, is recognizing these things therefore racist? Again, you may disagree with his take, but you're arguing that the mere existence of his take is inherently the same problem as described. If recognizing these traits in a population is itself displaying those same traits, how can anyone ever accept that these negative attributes exist? ...If you and he are both right, then only racists and bigots can spot racism and bigotry.

The ifs are the important words there. Forsetti doesn't explore what he means by racism, and the support he gives for his cultural description is mostly anecdotal. Recognising the traits would be objective comment without a value judgement necessarily intended, if it were reasoned and supported with relevant verification. Recognising the traits without reasons or proof is actually not recognition at all: it's an expression of irrational dislike, which would be a manifestation of racism. By extension, I share Forsetti's frustration with the True Believers. Trying to get to the bottom (genuinely, not as a baiting exercise) of what they believe and why never ends well.
Again, You may disagree with Forsetti's characterizations, but I'm not sure it's reasonable to argue that the traits he's describing require refutation. You're just stating that disagreement may exist, and complaining that Forsetti hasn't somehow addressed them all (or maybe only yours). The only actual objections you've posted amount to the complaint that Forsetti hasn't proven that bad is bad or good is good. That's just trying to add artificial layers surrounding the alleged disagreement rather than making your case for it. It suggests you don't really have much of anything to support your actual disagreement, so you're resorting to Forsetti hasn't established that bad is bad or that good is good. You're going to need to present your actual disagreement with his points if you want to actually disagree with them rather than to just say that there are disagreements. That's kind of inherent, but disagreements aren't inherently refutations. You can't just skip that whole arguing your case step.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
bhcordova
Wielder of the Cat Litter Scoop

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Nacogdoches, TX, USA
Joined: May 18, 2000
Posts: 7014
"Carpe Felix"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: Nov 25, 2016, 11:36AM »

Since this is an op-ed piece, not a scientific study, there really doesn't need to be any back-up or justification of his points.  This is his opinion based on his experience. 
Logged

Billy Cordova, MBA
Forum Administrator
bcordova@tromboneforum.org

Beware the Jabberwock, my son! - Lewis Carroll

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup - Anon.

St. Cecilia, pray for us.
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #27 on: Nov 25, 2016, 12:19PM »


You may disagree with Forsetti's characterizations, but I'm not sure it's reasonable to argue that the traits he's describing require refutation.
 You're arguing against definitions of basic terms and concepts now, not the points Forsetti made. This is the nuclear option for avoiding the actual issues. Forsetti's "hidden premises", as you're presenting them, are basically that bad is bad and good is good--that sort of thing. I suspect you're mistaking disagreements with "hidden premises" here. In other words, I suspect that your argument is with his take on fly-over America, not whether the standard definitions of terms should be applied--i.e. that bad is bad (negative, shouldn't be caused) and good is good (positive, should happen).
You may disagree with Forsetti's characterizations, but I'm not sure it's reasonable to argue that the traits he's describing require refutation.

You've misunderstood me. My objection is far simpler than the form of the good or the critique of pure reason.

Forsetti said that a group of people believes A, B and C. He also says that A, B and C prevent progress and that therefore the group is a problem.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with his description of A, B and C. The problem is that I don't know what he means by progress. I don't know why or by what mechanism A, B and C prevent it. He hasn't explained (except for a few economic and voting history points, which I thought were the most illuminating bits of the article).

Billy Cordova is right. The article isn't a serious socio-political piece. It's an entertainment piece, a self-deprecating polemic.

And it just occurred to me: is Forsetti including the Amish and the Mennonites in his critique of white, rural, Christian Americans being against progress? These people have their own ideas of what progress (towards their understanding of the meaning of life) is. We don't usually think of these people as being a problem do we?
Logged
largobone
*
Offline Offline

Location: Iowa
Joined: Jun 2, 2016
Posts: 234

View Profile
« Reply #28 on: Nov 25, 2016, 07:53PM »

Having grown up in a flyover state (almost the MOST flyover state, I think)

Nebraska?

I will agree that the article is one-sided.  But it does seem to explain the posts I've seen from our most strongly Conservative posters here: Jakeway, Dickerson, Norsworthy, and Badger.  I understand that Norsworthy and Jakeway don't live in "flyover country" -- they have the distinct disadvantage of being Conservatives in a relatively Liberal part of the country which probably galls them deeply.

I would entertain an explanation of exactly why the article writer has his head up his a**.  And not just "I know a Conservative and he's a nice guy" type of argument.  Give me a clear analysis of why you think he's all wet.

Let me explain my position: I currently live in the suburb of a relatively medium-sized city in the Midwest, so I can realte to people like Norsworthy and Jakeway to some extent. I see it everyday in my classmates, their parents, teachers, etc. and this was evident in our county voting map on the 8th. However, while I live in a suburb, I spend a lot of time visiting rural places (mostly in the Midwest). For example, a majority of the family on my mother's side is from Nebraska, so I'm in Nebraska at least 2 or 3 times per year. This means not only do I meet a lot of family (liberal, conservative, city-dwellers, farmers, you name it), but I've gotten to know a lot of their friends, girlfriends, neighbors, employees, etc. I also have family in Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Texas, and Arkansas as far as I know. Granted, I know most of those aren't the "deep red" as Baron likes to call it, but I feel that I've gotten to know a fair range of people in most of these places.

A majority of my father's immediate family comes from a small town in northern Iowa, made up of mostly farmers, small business owners (including my grandfather and two of my uncles), and the like. After visiting several times every year, every year of my life, I think it's fair to say that I know about 50% of this town. By the way, 99% white and about 50% over the age of 40 as of 2000, and from my experience predominately Christian. The aforementioned relatives are also relatively wealthy; my grandparents own multiple houses (four I believe). Based on the people I know, I see no reason to believe that these people are racist or anti-Muslim, or whatever. My grandfather, for example, probably hires more latinos than anyone else in town for his construction company. Most of the people struggling to get by in this town are also white, not minorities as you might expect. But this is just one town, so  Don't know

Now, just to talk my grandpa up a bit: he dropped out of high school at 17 to marry my grandma (who proceeded to finish high school, but never pursued further education), then began immediately working for a local contractor in town. About 10 years later, he started his own company, which has thrived to this day. According to multiple sources, my grandparents are some of the wealthiest people in the area (can't confirm, they don't like to talk about money). This all just goes to show, my grandfather rose from nothing (in a family of seven kids), with no high school diploma, to build a successful business and succeed despite the modern economy. No amount of hardship can keep you from succeeding, he proved that to me. These are the values I was raised by; he inspired my opinions. Also, he is the perfect example for the stereotypical conservative today, but I can assure you is nothing like the man described in the article.
Logged

2013 Yamaha Xeno 882O-Schilke 52
1939/1940 King 2B Liberty-Jupiter 12C
2015 Wessex PE480 Alto-King 12C
ca. 1970's King Duo Gravis-Bach 1-1/4G
1905 Boosey Class A Euph

Des Moines Youth Symphony-3rd/Bass Trombone
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Online Online

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 49844
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: Nov 25, 2016, 08:37PM »

Well, Burgerbob comes from Wyoming.  Deep red and very Conservative.  Home of Dick Cheney.

As to your story, I think the only kind of business you can succeed at with little education nowadays is Home Construction.  It's a small business and doesn't need support staff like Accountants and Architects nor does it need sophisticated management like Cordova Construction down in Nacogdotches, TX.

Also, at the time your grandfather was learning his trade there was a building boom all over the country.  Try doing that in 2005 and you get overextended, resulting in bankruptcy when the housing prices crash as they did in 2007.  Try building your business in 2010 and it's much harder since there isn't as much real estate sales.

In the "Good Old Days" we had Union jobs in Automotive, Appliance Manufacture (ever hear of a town called Amana?), and many other businesses.  Problem is those jobs that require little education have vanished.  Some have been replaced by robots, and some of the manufacturing has gone to Asia where workers get for a week what someone in Amana would get in an hour.  I think the Trumpians are looking for those high paying, High School education jobs, although they seem to disfavor Unions (who got them those high salaries).  Nowadays to get $25 an hour you need at least a 2 year degree in something like Numerical Control Technology.  I don't like it either, but no President in the last 25 years has had a policy to generate good paying jobs.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 17878
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: Nov 25, 2016, 09:42PM »

You've misunderstood me. My objection is far simpler than the form of the good or the critique of pure reason.
 
Forsetti said that a group of people believes A, B and C. He also says that A, B and C prevent progress and that therefore the group is a problem.
 
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with his description of A, B and C. The problem is that I don't know what he means by progress. I don't know why or by what mechanism A, B and C prevent it. He hasn't explained (except for a few economic and voting history points, which I thought were the most illuminating bits of the article).
I think if you've been paying attention to US politics at all (like his target audience) then you have all of the subtext. That's not to say you should have been, just that if you're very aware of the "culture war" most of this is old hat. In fact even if you're not familiar with the current US culture war these same basic issues, more or less, have been raised between conservatives and liberals for about as long as there have been conservatives and liberals.
 
In the current US culture war "progressive" = liberal. The pattern of history also consistently and overall and on probably all major issues keeps putting progressives on its right side and conservatives on the wrong or anti-progress side. I'm not sure these contentions you're raising are as valid as they may at first seem. That doesn't necessarily mean Forsetti's article is solid either though. It clearly is an opinion piece.
 
Billy Cordova is right. The article isn't a serious socio-political piece. It's an entertainment piece, a self-deprecating polemic.
I'd put it in-between a serious political piece and pure entertainment. It's a step or three above what tends to pass for news on the right, for example--Limbaugh and Hannity et al ...
 
And it just occurred to me: is Forsetti including the Amish and the Mennonites in his critique of white, rural, Christian Americans being against progress? These people have their own ideas of what progress (towards their understanding of the meaning of life) is. We don't usually think of these people as being a problem do we?
No, it's safe to say he's not talking about the Amish or the Mennonites. There aren't many of them for starters, but it's mostly that they don't participate in outside society (i.e. they don't vote), since he was talking about voters and political activities.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
elmsandr

*
Offline Offline

Location: Howell, MI
Joined: Apr 12, 2004
Posts: 3148

View Profile
« Reply #31 on: Nov 26, 2016, 06:05AM »

The Amish and Mennonites also don't try to legislate their beliefs onto others.  They play by the rules they have to and just let the rest go on by them.  Funny, they realize that a gay marriage doesn't do anything to them. They also tend to keep their complaints silent.

Cheers,
Andy
Logged

Andrew Elms
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #32 on: Nov 26, 2016, 06:52AM »

The Amish and Mennonites also don't try to legislate their beliefs onto others.  They play by the rules they have to and just let the rest go on by them.  Funny, they realize that a gay marriage doesn't do anything to them. They also tend to keep their complaints silent.

Cheers,
Andy

I've never met any but I like them already.
Logged
Russ White

*
Offline Offline

Location: Orange City, Fl
Joined: Feb 27, 2007
Posts: 4974

View Profile
« Reply #33 on: Nov 26, 2016, 07:26AM »

Nebraska?

Let me explain my position: I currently live in the suburb of a relatively medium-sized city in the Midwest, so I can realte to people like Norsworthy and Jakeway to some extent. I see it everyday in my classmates, their parents, teachers, etc. and this was evident in our county voting map on the 8th. However, while I live in a suburb, I spend a lot of time visiting rural places (mostly in the Midwest). For example, a majority of the family on my mother's side is from Nebraska, so I'm in Nebraska at least 2 or 3 times per year. This means not only do I meet a lot of family (liberal, conservative, city-dwellers, farmers, you name it), but I've gotten to know a lot of their friends, girlfriends, neighbors, employees, etc. I also have family in Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Texas, and Arkansas as far as I know. Granted, I know most of those aren't the "deep red" as Baron likes to call it, but I feel that I've gotten to know a fair range of people in most of these places.

A majority of my father's immediate family comes from a small town in northern Iowa, made up of mostly farmers, small business owners (including my grandfather and two of my uncles), and the like. After visiting several times every year, every year of my life, I think it's fair to say that I know about 50% of this town. By the way, 99% white and about 50% over the age of 40 as of 2000, and from my experience predominately Christian. The aforementioned relatives are also relatively wealthy; my grandparents own multiple houses (four I believe). Based on the people I know, I see no reason to believe that these people are racist or anti-Muslim, or whatever. My grandfather, for example, probably hires more latinos than anyone else in town for his construction company. Most of the people struggling to get by in this town are also white, not minorities as you might expect. But this is just one town, so  Don't know

Now, just to talk my grandpa up a bit: he dropped out of high school at 17 to marry my grandma (who proceeded to finish high school, but never pursued further education), then began immediately working for a local contractor in town. About 10 years later, he started his own company, which has thrived to this day. According to multiple sources, my grandparents are some of the wealthiest people in the area (can't confirm, they don't like to talk about money). This all just goes to show, my grandfather rose from nothing (in a family of seven kids), with no high school diploma, to build a successful business and succeed despite the modern economy. No amount of hardship can keep you from succeeding, he proved that to me. These are the values I was raised by; he inspired my opinions. Also, he is the perfect example for the stereotypical conservative today, but I can assure you is nothing like the man described in the article.

Being from Iowa, there is a 50/50% chance your grandparents don't fit the model outlined in the article. But, the truth remains that better than 50% of the folks in "flyover" country consistently vote for economic policies which are directly counter to their own interests. Supply-side trickle down policies and corporate friendly tax codes have been the single biggest factor in the stagnation and deterioration of the economies of those red states, and yet they continue to vote in the party for whom those policies are gospel. Add in the "Christian" social aspect, and virtually everything the writer claims is accurate for a majority of the folks outside of urban centers in this country. Understand that is a spectrum. It is less true for some than others, but it is true to some extent for virtually everyone of the folks that voted for Trump to win this election.
Logged

Better than yesterday, better yet tomorrow.
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 17878
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: Nov 26, 2016, 09:51AM »

I was raised in a suburb of San Francisco--left there for the Army already sentimental about missing my homeland. I've lived in CA and GA with a little back and forth, and I've lived in Athens and a rural neighboring town immediately to the North of Athens for the last 19 years.
 
I live in rural GA and work at UGA--a major university in a Deep Blue island in the middle of the Deep Red. My wife is a doctor in a rural area nearby. Next month I'll have spent the same amount of time living in GA as I have CA (as much as I like Athens, I've got to fix that). This has given me a direct, close up view of the contrast between the more urban/suburban life and the more rural angle from a range of subcultures. I've counted among my friends military types of most services from privates to field grade officers, "leg" troops to Rangers to Green Berets, working class, deeply religious, casually religious, non-religious, anti-religious, white and blue collar types, librarians, library paraprofessionals, professors, doctors, lawyers, service and housekeeping industry workers, cops, firefighters, medics, restaurant and bar owners and managers, bartenders, IT pros, CEOs, small business owners, amateur and pro musicians, construction workers, avid sport shooters, mechanics, FedEx drivers, tech school students, university undergrads, grad students, and both cultural outsiders and insiders at all of these socioeconomic levels and stations--black, white, Asian, Indian ...
 
This is the kind of social and cultural diversity you get to enjoy both in a major world cultural center in CA and at a major Southern university in GA, and it's been enlightening in several ways (I'm sure I'm not the only one in here who's had this kind of diverse experience with other humans though). As a white, military-looking type with a construction background, while in the South, until I demonstrate otherwise, I've quite often been presumed to share the basic local sentiments that Forsetti describes (I wouldn't take them to the extent he does though). I take advantage of these sorts of things because I've always enjoyed people in both social and pseudo-academic ways--I'm a huge fan of my fellow humans (even the deeply flawed ones), and I really enjoy studying them (I studied a little psychology and a fair amount of sociology and anthropology in college--at 8 different tech schools, colleges and universities in CA and GA due to my much more mobile early adulthood).
 
My wife was raised mostly in central GA (Fort Valley) and she went to her high school's first integrated prom in the '80s. When visiting Columbus churches shortly after arriving at Ft. Benning, my first permanent duty station, people expressed sentiments in no uncertain terms such as that there'd be quite a strong negative reaction if a black person showed up at the church, and that women need to be treated largely as children by their their Christian boyfriends or husbands (i.e. that the man in the relationship should screen movies for moral content for the woman--that sort of thing ... more false consensus effect by the way). In my Engineering unit my XO (an Army lieutenant in uniform) got the reply "Boy, you'd better just get back in your car and get outta here while you can." when he stopped at a gas station on his way to morning formation trying to make sure he wasn't off course (he was on a long drive from visiting relatives or a friends). When the matter came up later some of my fellow troops thought that was entirely appropriate and were proud to be from Southern communities that would allegedly treat a black man out after dark basically the same.
 
I experienced very similar sentiments when I went through a local EMS program, though medics are some of the finest group of human beings I've ever had the privilege to associate with. The racism they expressed was very shallow--would typically disappear at the slightest hint of seriousness (remnants of Southern socialization). I experience racism and anti-intellectualism and the presumption of Christian superiority most in dealing with locals off campus (and some on campus--i.e. manifestations of Poe's Law in which I thought I was joking quite obviously but perceived as serious by "fellow" believers--generally when dealing with more blue collar/labor staff, but on campus it's relatively rare, regardless)--declarative judgments about The Blacks or The Unchurched and that sort of thing. When I was at Macon College several of the Humanities faculty from local areas discussed these kinds of sentiments in class--it's a big part of Southern literature, most notably William Faulkner and Flannery O'Connor.
 
My sister has lived in the Cincinnati area for most of her life, and she's had some similar experiences with these basic sentiments. She's more upper class though--she was a high level exec at Procter & Gamble until her early pseudo-retirement. We also see these sentiments expressed and discussed and criticized in all forms of art. None of this is new material to anyone, much less anyone at all familiar with US culture. I haven't seen it expressed so directly and frankly (and soberly) as Forsetti has in a while though.
 
These sentiments, usually more subtle and at least I think generally not so extreme, are ubiquitous in my experience of the South, mostly outside of Athens/UGA and a couple of other exceptions, and the racial divisions are still pretty stark. They even showed up among educated Southerners--several my wife's fellow Med School students at Mercer expressed more subtle racism, and a few even stated directly such as that black people aren't trustworthy and are less intelligent (I've generally gotten push back, often forcefully indignant, at least initially, when I make corrections like less educated on average, maybe, but not less intelligent than white people on average). My Southern extended family expresses some of this kind of sentiment even though there's hearteningly obvious internal resistance in the younger generations (as if they're saying what the think they're expected to say but they're uncomfortable with it). The "Greatest Generation" types offer racist sentiments pretty overtly thogh. My step father-in-law still casually used the N word to refer to African Americans while he was still with us. For his age and culture he was pretty progressive about that sort of thing though. He was a good, kind man--I liked him a lot.
 
So I think regarding Forsetti's piece, the real question is how much his depiction actually applies to flyover American culture, and to what extent. Those are quite significant and entirely valid questions and criticisms. But I think arguing that these sentiments aren't actually an issue at all--that they don't represent flyover America at all--is naive and/or denial, perhaps unless in reference to younger generations, in which case I hope the notion it's not very applicable is true. I've definitely seen a much improved attitude about a lot of this develop over the years among the undergrad students we employ in my department at UGA and in what I hear of my coworkers kids and such--good stuff!
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
elmsandr

*
Offline Offline

Location: Howell, MI
Joined: Apr 12, 2004
Posts: 3148

View Profile
« Reply #35 on: Nov 26, 2016, 06:00PM »

I've never met any but I like them already.
They aren't all peaches and ice cream.  They won't own any powered tools, but they are often more than happy to borrow yours on a job and feign ignorance of how to do any maintenance on them.  Recently, they are getting into solar electricity.  Things are a changin everywhere.

Cheers,
Andy
Logged

Andrew Elms
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5179

View Profile
« Reply #36 on: Nov 27, 2016, 06:14PM »

This whole article was RIDICULOUSLY one-sided. As someone who has spent a lot of time in Rural America himself, you would have to be quite imaginative to find this in 99% of people in small-town America. Or maybe I'm just dense.

-The Educated Conservative

99% of anything is hard to find an area, but I can certainly say I have lived in a number of rural areas now where the idea the author discusses was certainly prevalent and a mainstay of the town. Can't say I've been in a place where the author was wrong yet.

The issue I would take with the article is the focus on justification per scripture. To be clear, most of what social conservatives attack is not in scripture... they just want to read it in there. And in truth, many of the attempts and efforts to push their agenda are against scripture. Jesus OFFERED... never forced. And in truth, he was largely killed by those of the same religion who did not like his different takes and new beliefs. And yet, those who claim to follow him do so by violating the very teachings he offered.


Otherwise... I saw a baptist church from Goldsboro, NC send a mission trip to help folks in Forest City, NC. Two weeks later (it was mission trip season), a baptist church in Forest City, NC sent a mission trip to Goldsboro, NC. Neither group knew about the other. They just wanted to help other communities in need, and neither wanted to recognize their own community was in great need. Or if they did... they couldn't find much in them to help in their community on a regular basis. An odd bit of self delusion and familiarity.
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5179

View Profile
« Reply #37 on: Nov 27, 2016, 06:26PM »

Here's a fun map:
http://demographics.coopercenter.org/DotMap/index.html

We just really aren't much of an integrated country.
Logged
Russ White

*
Offline Offline

Location: Orange City, Fl
Joined: Feb 27, 2007
Posts: 4974

View Profile
« Reply #38 on: Nov 27, 2016, 07:46PM »

Here's a fun map:
http://demographics.coopercenter.org/DotMap/index.html

We just really aren't much of an integrated country.

That's freakin' cool!
Logged

Better than yesterday, better yet tomorrow.
Molefsky

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ohio
Joined: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 1134
"Very old photo..."


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: Nov 28, 2016, 05:59AM »

Yep.  You are just dense

Why is this acceptable behavior from a moderator? First thread I read upon returning to the United States after two weeks of thoughtful political discussions with brass players from abroad and this turd of a comment is here, pinched off by someone who is supposed to uphold the TOS of the site. Bravo.
Logged

Molefsky
freelance trombonist
Full-time Environmental Engineering Consultant
Molefsky

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ohio
Joined: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 1134
"Very old photo..."


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: Nov 28, 2016, 06:41AM »

I can identify with some of the article but it's definitely a case of the author generalizing their negative experiences to a larger group of people. I grew up southern baptist; saw the anti-intellectuals described by the author in action. I also come from a family of engineers and professional musicians. We value education and intellect but are rightfully skeptical of some of the same academic overconfidence cited by the people discussed in the piece. I've heard experienced engineers say things similar to "that's your education talking" etc.

Overall I'd say this article's content argues against it's thesis. It's possible that the author is too close to the issue to see how little they actually understand the diversity of rural opinion, or even what religious fundamentalism actually is. Further, the article could be rewritten about urban progressives and ring just as true.
Logged

Molefsky
freelance trombonist
Full-time Environmental Engineering Consultant
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5179

View Profile
« Reply #41 on: Nov 28, 2016, 06:55AM »

Overall I'd say this article's content argues against it's thesis.
In what way?
Logged
Molefsky

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ohio
Joined: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 1134
"Very old photo..."


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: Nov 28, 2016, 07:00AM »

In what way?


Overall I'd say this article's content argues against it's thesis. It's possible that the author is too close to the issue to see how little they actually understand the diversity of rural opinion, or even what religious fundamentalism actually is. Further, the article could be rewritten about urban progressives and ring just as true.
Logged

Molefsky
freelance trombonist
Full-time Environmental Engineering Consultant
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5179

View Profile
« Reply #43 on: Nov 28, 2016, 07:07AM »

So you object on nothing of any real merit or content. Got it.
Logged
Molefsky

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ohio
Joined: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 1134
"Very old photo..."


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: Nov 28, 2016, 07:30AM »

How I've missed you Robert.  :)
Logged

Molefsky
freelance trombonist
Full-time Environmental Engineering Consultant
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 17878
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: Nov 28, 2016, 09:18AM »

I can identify with some of the article but it's definitely a case of the author generalizing their negative experiences to a larger group of people.
In other words, he's talking about a population rather than a few individuals ... that's why he talks in the article about a region, not a few individuals.
 
I grew up southern baptist; saw the anti-intellectuals described by the author in action.
See ... here's the thing. I was raised Southern Baptist as well, but I didn't run into much of the anti-intellectualism or the other nonsense Forsetti describes until the Army put me in Georgia. When I was in CA I was a very active church type dude and went to a number of large/state-wide functions and the like (seriously considered going into ministry). Didn't see that nonsense. Most of it would have been considered a pretty serious social and ethical foul in CA. In GA though ... not so much.
 
I also come from a family of engineers and professional musicians. We value education and intellect ...
I was raised by teachers and college trained amateur musicians.
 
... but are rightfully skeptical of some of the same academic overconfidence cited by the people discussed in the piece. I've heard experienced engineers say things similar to "that's your education talking" etc.
I'm a bit skeptical as to what basis informs you what academic overconfidence is, but the only time I ever heard anyone in my family deride education was Dad making goofy, self-deprecating jokes about public education--saying things like he can't do math because he's a product of public education and such.
 
Overall I'd say this article's content argues against it's thesis.
Or at least its title.
 
It's possible that the author is too close to the issue to see how little they actually understand the diversity of rural opinion, or even what religious fundamentalism actually is.
Or that he's been able to see it more clearly from the outside since he left and gained the calibration of wider experience.
 
Further, the article could be rewritten about urban progressives and ring just as true.
Sure, except that it couldn't ... not without some serious tweaking and making it about pretty completely different issues so it would be the same only in that it would still be sociopolitical criticism.
 
There's plenty to criticize about urban progressives and/or coastal liberals, but probably nothing that's both as easily arguable and as toxic to a healthy society and the social climate as what Forsetti's on about there. There's plenty of room to criticize almost any group of humans, some more some less, and in various different ways. That's definitely not to say all groups are equally worthy of criticism, however. In this case I know the criticism is solid, but there are also different angles and underlying cultural dynamics that may both mitigate responsibility to some extent in at least some cases and offer more insight and understanding. I suspect we agree most on that aspect of what Forsetti actually got wrong, though I kind of doubt our agreement runs very deep. Maybe, maybe not ...
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Molefsky

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ohio
Joined: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 1134
"Very old photo..."


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: Nov 28, 2016, 10:25AM »

In other words, he's talking about a population rather than a few individuals ... that's why he talks in the article about a region, not a few individuals.
Yes, he's talking about individuals and then attempting to generalize this to the region(s)
 See ... here's the thing. I was raised Southern Baptist as well, but I didn't run into much of the anti-intellectualism or the other nonsense Forsetti describes until the Army put me in Georgia. When I was in CA I was a very active church type dude and went to a number of large/state-wide functions and the like (seriously considered going into ministry). Didn't see that nonsense. Most of it would have been considered a pretty serious social and ethical foul in CA. In GA though ... not so much.
Then you simply weren't well educated in your faith. This isn't uncommon. The SBC has clear positions that are not always palatable to all potential membership. Your assessment is like claiming to have been catholic but being unfamiliar with the sacraments; it happens but that doesn't mean they aren't there and important to the faith. I'll remind you that Mike Huckabee is a southern baptist but so was jimmy carter. Can they be generalized? Is one of them a faker?
 I was raised by teachers and college trained amateur musicians.
Neat.
 I'm a bit skeptical as to what basis informs you what academic overconfidence is, but the only time I ever heard anyone in my family deride education was Dad making goofy, self-deprecating jokes about public education--saying things like he can't do math because he's a product of public education and such.
Nobody is "deriding" education in the conversations I described. They're deriding overconfidence in formal education. My father taught at one of the largest schools in the country for over forty years with no college degrees. He was a musician who'd had a pretty excellent career and his professional resume was enough to be hired, at the time. If it had been more recent he wouldn't even be considered. Further, in music, I'm sure most of us have played with musicians with advanced degrees that couldn't hack gigs. This isn't exactly a rare occurrence... That isn't to say that education isn't worthwhile; just that you should have a clear sense of what it means and what it doesn't. Otherwise you're placing confidence in skills you don't necessarily have.

This is very common in my younger left leaning friends who are losing arguments or haven't really tested the foundations of their ideas. They end up citing credentials, figuratively and sometimes literally (cringe) as though that's an argument unto itself. It isn't and they should be embarrassed.

 Or at least its title.
 Or that he's been able to see it more clearly from the outside since he left and gained the calibration of wider experience.
Yes, or not.
 Sure, except that it couldn't ... not without some serious tweaking and making it about pretty completely different issues
exactly, change the issues and it could be written from the other perspective. The anti-intellectualism of the left in this election has been disturbing.
so it would be the same only in that it would still be sociopolitical criticism.
 
There's plenty to criticize about urban progressives and/or coastal liberals, but probably nothing that's both as easily arguable and as toxic to a healthy society and the social climate as what Forsetti's on about there.
Subjective at best. History of the 20th century bears out that left leaning authoritarianism is much more dangerous than whatever threat you're trying to indicate here from the unwashed masses.
There's plenty of room to criticize almost any group of humans, some more some less, and in various different ways. That's definitely not to say all groups are equally worthy of criticism, however. In this case I know the criticism is solid, but there are also different angles and underlying cultural dynamics that may both mitigate responsibility to some extent in at least some cases and offer more insight and understanding. I suspect we agree most on that aspect of what Forsetti actually got wrong, though I kind of doubt our agreement runs very deep. Maybe, maybe not ...
Logged

Molefsky
freelance trombonist
Full-time Environmental Engineering Consultant
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 17878
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: Nov 28, 2016, 11:25AM »

In other words, he's talking about a population rather than a few individuals ... that's why he talks in the article about a region, not a few individuals.
Yes, he's talking about individuals and then attempting to generalize this to the region(s)
He actually did that, in fact. He actually took his experiences with people from the given region along with whatever other information he had which applied, and actually did it, factually. I'm pretty sure he didn't speak with each and every flyover American before he decided he'd found patterns. So it wasn't an attempt to extrapolate, it was simply extrapolation. Just as your critical comments aren't attempted critical comments, they're actual--same for mine, same for Forsetti's. You can decide he (and I) only dealt with anomalies I suppose, but you might want to explain why since this is a discussion and you're not just blocking a "score" or something.
 
We could actually discuss these ideas without turning into some sort of strange and pointless competition too though ... eh? I've already granted that there's plenty room for that--doesn't mean any and all criticism will be presumed solid and won't be questioned though.
 
See ... here's the thing. I was raised Southern Baptist as well, but I didn't run into much of the anti-intellectualism or the other nonsense Forsetti describes until the Army put me in Georgia. When I was in CA I was a very active church type dude and went to a number of large/state-wide functions and the like (seriously considered going into ministry). Didn't see that nonsense. Most of it would have been considered a pretty serious social and ethical foul in CA. In GA though ... not so much.
Then you simply weren't well educated in your faith.
This isn't uncommon. The SBC has clear positions that are not always palatable to all potential membership. Your assessment is like claiming to have been catholic but being unfamiliar with the sacraments; it happens but that doesn't mean they aren't there and important to the faith. I'll remind you that Mike Huckabee is a southern baptist but so was jimmy carter. Can they be generalized? Is one of them a faker?
Thewhowhatnow?
 
I said I witnessed most of the same ugly behavioral patterns Forsetti wrote about. How did you get something about misunderstanding SBC doctrines out of that? You're certainly seem to be presuming much about my assessment, including apparently the subject.
 
I was raised by teachers and college trained amateur musicians.
Neat.
As was the exact same info in your post to which I was responding to point out that we have a lot of common background experiences.
 
I'm a bit skeptical as to what basis informs you what academic overconfidence is, but the only time I ever heard anyone in my family deride education was Dad making goofy, self-deprecating jokes about public education--saying things like he can't do math because he's a product of public education and such.
Nobody is "deriding" education in the conversations I described.
Then what nuance moves your conceptualization of the "anti-intellectualism" you wrote about outside of the range of derision?
 
They're deriding overconfidence in formal education.
You made a distinction between those who are on about the overconfidence and those who were anti-intellectual before. You're now conflating them in my response for some reason. I said I'm skeptical about where you draw this line, not that you draw it, period. Also, skeptical doesn't mean cynical or scandalized or that I reject the notion. That's not what skepticism is about.
 
My father taught at one of the largest schools in the country for over forty years with no college degrees. He was a musician who'd had a pretty excellent career and his professional resume was enough to be hired, at the time. If it had been more recent he wouldn't even be considered. Further, in music, I'm sure most of us have played with musicians with advanced degrees that couldn't hack gigs. This isn't exactly a rare occurrence... That isn't to say that education isn't worthwhile; just that you should have a clear sense of what it means and what it doesn't. Otherwise you're placing confidence in skills you don't necessarily have.
No disagreement there. But I didn't take musical to be the kind of academic skepticism you were talking about. It's certainly not the anti-intellectualism that Forsetti's essay or my comments about it are talking about, at least not directly or primarily. It may be related though--the general anti-intellectual sentiment can certainly spill over into other paradigms ... like music.
 
This is very common in my younger left leaning friends who are losing arguments or haven't really tested the foundations of their ideas. They end up citing credentials, figuratively and sometimes literally (cringe) as though that's an argument unto itself. It isn't and they should be embarrassed.
I get the sense you took my comments to be about your father's lack of formal musical education (which of course I didn't know about until the above reply, and which would have zero effect on what I would think of his talents and skills) ... ?
 
Or at least its title.
 
Or that he's been able to see it more clearly from the outside since he left and gained the calibration of wider experience.
Yes, or not.
Right ... but as I explained there's merit to what he wrote. "Or not" isn't a terribly compelling bit of discussion--certainly not a very compelling argument (or "score" blocker).
 
Sure, except that it couldn't ... not without some serious tweaking and making it about pretty completely different issues
exactly, change the issues and it could be written from the other perspective. The anti-intellectualism of the left in this election has been disturbing.
Such as ... ?

There's plenty to criticize about urban progressives and/or coastal liberals, but probably nothing that's both as easily arguable and as toxic to a healthy society and the social climate as what Forsetti's on about there.
Subjective at best. History of the 20th century bears out that left leaning authoritarianism is much more dangerous than whatever threat you're trying to indicate here from the unwashed masses.
Momentarily granting that for the sake of discussion, how does that history come to bear here exactly?
 
There's plenty of room to criticize almost any group of humans, some more some less, and in various different ways. That's definitely not to say all groups are equally worthy of criticism, however. In this case I know the criticism is solid, but there are also different angles and underlying cultural dynamics that may both mitigate responsibility to some extent in at least some cases and offer more insight and understanding. I suspect we agree most on that aspect of what Forsetti actually got wrong, though I kind of doubt our agreement runs very deep. Maybe, maybe not ...
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Molefsky

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ohio
Joined: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 1134
"Very old photo..."


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: Nov 28, 2016, 11:51AM »

I'm not sure where you're getting this strange competition idea from. I just responded to each of your responses. Some seemed more consequential than others.

The point about generalizing is why i think the piece is flawed. It's one thing to characterize your experiences etc. It's another to pretend that they are THE problem.

You made the claim that you were raised southern baptist but that you didn't see the anti-intellectualism described by the author until you moved to GA. My comment stands.

I mentioned my family only to offer perspective that I respect/value education but that I don't consider skepticism of credential or education to be anti-intellectual. This is why it didn't really make sense for you to respond in kind, given that I assume you don't endorse anti-education viewpoints.

It's not derision, it's caution. Why would an engineer mock someone or ridicule them for seeking knowledge or thinking critically? The derision comes from the "educated" not acknowledging their own shortcomings and arriving at suspect conclusions. To be skeptical of even academia itself as a proving ground of competence is not anti-intellectual.

Quote
I get the sense you took my comments to be about your father's lack of formal musical education (which of course I didn't know about until the above reply, and which would have zero effect on what I would think of his talents and skills) ... ?
Not at all. I just chose to use him as an easy example of credential not being required for competence and to discuss the tactic I described which is related.

Yes there's merit but that doesn't mean it supported his argument. Broken clocks etc.

Quote
Such as ... ?
Criticism of Islam being called "racist" or "xenophobic" and shouting down those who would speak up against fundamental incompatibilities between western and islamic cultures. People who claim statistics are, in and of themselves, racist or bigoted rather than the conclusions drawn from them etc. These are common anti-intellectual tactics I see from the left that have come up repeatedly in the last few years.

Quote
Momentarily granting that for the sake of discussion, how does that history come to bear here exactly?
Sixty million dead in russia, similar scale of death in Maoist China? Take people's guns, other-ize the political opposition and justify violence via social "justice" and moral outrage? Any of that sound familiar? (Just for the record, I'd like to remind everyone that I've never owned slaves and my family wasn't even on this continent before the 20th century. I'd love to stop hearing about how oppressive I've been... yes that's anecdotal and yes it's a conversation I've had repeatedly with musicians since the election.)

Logged

Molefsky
freelance trombonist
Full-time Environmental Engineering Consultant
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 17878
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: Nov 28, 2016, 05:09PM »

Yes there's merit but that doesn't mean it supported his argument. Broken clocks etc.
By all means, feel free to elaborate (see OP).
 
Criticism of Islam being called "racist" or "xenophobic" and shouting down those who would speak up against fundamental incompatibilities between western and islamic cultures. People who claim statistics are, in and of themselves, racist or bigoted rather than the conclusions drawn from them etc. These are common anti-intellectual tactics I see from the left that have come up repeatedly in the last few years.
I agree that all of those can be as you're arguing. I've also seen entirely legitimate and/or obviously valid counter-criticism dismissed under the presumption that any disagreement with these sentiments are just the political correctness on crack you're suggesting. Both are anti-intellectual in some sense, but the latter is also intellectual cowardice.
 
Sixty million dead in russia, similar scale of death in Maoist China?
Pretty sure the coastal liberals/urban progressives relevant to Forsetti's piece didn't do that ...
 
Take people's guns, other-ize the political opposition and justify violence via social "justice" and moral outrage? Any of that sound familiar?
Oh yeah ... the standard delusional fears of far right wing types fabricated to validate the perception of mildly diminished privilege as if it were intense oppression.
 
The striking fragility of dogmatism ...
 
Never mind (re: my first comment up there).
 
Oh well.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
bhcordova
Wielder of the Cat Litter Scoop

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Nacogdoches, TX, USA
Joined: May 18, 2000
Posts: 7014
"Carpe Felix"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #50 on: Nov 29, 2016, 09:52AM »

Strike 2 Molefsky
Logged

Billy Cordova, MBA
Forum Administrator
bcordova@tromboneforum.org

Beware the Jabberwock, my son! - Lewis Carroll

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup - Anon.

St. Cecilia, pray for us.
Russ White

*
Offline Offline

Location: Orange City, Fl
Joined: Feb 27, 2007
Posts: 4974

View Profile
« Reply #51 on: Nov 29, 2016, 10:03AM »


 It's one thing to characterize your experiences etc. It's another to pretend that they are THE problem.


Actually, in my experience, it's not pretending, they ARE THE problem. And, I have an open enough, intellectually capable enough, and well-read enough, mind to grasp that, to a great extent, they ARE THE problem for this country and the world.
Logged

Better than yesterday, better yet tomorrow.
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #52 on: Nov 29, 2016, 10:29AM »

Actually, in my experience, it's not pretending, they ARE THE problem. And, I have an open enough, intellectually capable enough, and well-read enough, mind to grasp that, to a great extent, they ARE THE problem for this country and the world.

Then you'll be intellectually capable enough to tell us who, exactly, are the problem and why?

You sound very sure that your view of the world is correct. How do you reconcile that with your open-mindedness?
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5179

View Profile
« Reply #53 on: Nov 29, 2016, 10:40AM »

You sound very sure that your view of the world is correct. How do you reconcile that with your open-mindedness?

Keeping an open mind means you can't be sure of your view of the world? Odd. I always understood that term to mean that one was receptive to ideas that challenge their view of the world, not that you can't have a view of the world and be open minded at the same time.
Logged
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #54 on: Nov 29, 2016, 11:12AM »

Keeping an open mind means you can't be sure of your view of the world? Odd. I always understood that term to mean that one was receptive to ideas that challenge their view of the world, not that you can't have a view of the world and be open minded at the same time.

Wasn't asking you, but thanks for your contribution.
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5179

View Profile
« Reply #55 on: Nov 29, 2016, 11:20AM »

Wasn't asking you, but thanks for your contribution.
So now comments on open discussion boards are targeted to certain people only? You do have some weird views of the world...
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 17878
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: Nov 29, 2016, 11:29AM »

Wasn't asking you, but thanks for your contribution.

I was going to ask more or less the same thing.
 
Feel free to direct a question to one member in the open forum, but don't expect a problem like this will be ignored by everyone else (or by the person you're directly addressing).
 
Here's a great video on the actual nature of open-mindedness, by the way.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #57 on: Nov 29, 2016, 11:52AM »

So now comments on open discussion boards are targeted to certain people only? You do have some weird views of the world...

I quoted Russ White and addressed a couple of questions to him, specifically, in the second person. It was his opinion I'm interested in.

Since several of you are bursting to share your ideas, do you agree with Russ? Who is "they?" In what ways and for what reasons are "they" the problem?

Most criticism I see from leftists is of poor quality. Essentially, their targets are either nasty (a variety of qualities ending in -ist or -phobe) or stupid (too dull-witted, ignorant or uneducated to appreciate that their views are wrong and the left-wing views are right). I find it a bit Emperor's New Clothes with a bit of No True Scotsman thrown in. Can any of you do better?



Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5179

View Profile
« Reply #58 on: Nov 29, 2016, 01:00PM »

Most criticism I see from leftists is of poor quality. Essentially, their targets are either nasty (a variety of qualities ending in -ist or -phobe) or stupid (too dull-witted, ignorant or uneducated to appreciate that their views are wrong and the left-wing views are right). I find it a bit Emperor's New Clothes with a bit of No True Scotsman thrown in. Can any of you do better?
So you don't a racist can legitimately think less of minorities simply because they are racist? Or that a homophobic person might not think gay people deserve rights, because they don't believe someone can actually be gay? And that's not valid? There must be some other reason?

Interesting.

Why is that?
Logged
usafband1976

*
Offline Offline

Location: Parkersburg, WV
Joined: Mar 15, 2012
Posts: 75

View Profile
« Reply #59 on: Nov 29, 2016, 01:30PM »

This whole article was RIDICULOUSLY one-sided. As someone who has spent a lot of time in Rural America himself, you would have to be quite imaginative to find this in 99% of people in small-town America. Or maybe I'm just dense.

-The Educated Conservative
Thank you, Sir.  I am a conservative also, formed by experience and education.  I've given up trying to explain myself to "liberals"or "progressives. ". I got tired of being treated like I was some *****.  Now, sitting back watching, we'll just have to see how all this plays out. Ahem. 
Logged

"Tongue and blow, kid . . ."
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9007

View Profile
« Reply #60 on: Nov 29, 2016, 01:57PM »

It's fun listening to those that think they understand lecturing those that do.  :D
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5179

View Profile
« Reply #61 on: Nov 29, 2016, 02:19PM »

I've given up trying to explain myself to "liberals"or "progressives. ".

It's fun listening to those that think they understand lecturing those that do.  :D

That's a wonderful illustration of the point the article makes. Spot on, really.
Logged
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #62 on: Nov 29, 2016, 04:41PM »

That's a wonderful illustration of the point the article makes. Spot on, really.

Can't you see that it cuts both ways?
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 17878
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: Nov 29, 2016, 05:09PM »

So I gather we're seeing how we can act out the article rather than considering and discussing it, pro and/or con then?
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #64 on: Nov 29, 2016, 05:33PM »

So you don't a racist can legitimately think less of minorities simply because they are racist? Or that a homophobic person might not think gay people deserve rights, because they don't believe someone can actually be gay? And that's not valid? There must be some other reason?

Interesting.

Why is that?

I don't understand your questions.

In my observation, left wing critics of right wing positions tend not to present reasoned counter arguments. Their criticisms are usually based on right wingers being either nasty (-ist or -phobe) or stupid ("If you were better educated/informed you would agree with me..."). However, I must point out that you get the latter a lot from religious types too, who can of course be left or right wing.

Example is anti-immigration policies criticised primarily for being racist (nasty). Maybe the objections to immigration are economic or other factors. How about discussing those? An example from the other direction would be a right-winger criticising a supporter of redistributive tax policies for being a thief, rather than explaining why the policies are ineffective or wrong in principle - and why those principles are valid etc etc.

As someone mentioned above, the problem is that gap between is and should in supervenient descriptive ethics. So I'm trying to solicit reasons instead of adjectives about what you think is wrong or bad.
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5179

View Profile
« Reply #65 on: Nov 29, 2016, 05:59PM »

Can't you see that it cuts both ways?

Sure. Animosity breeds animosity. But equally? Nope.

In my observation, left wing critics of right wing positions tend not to present reasoned counter arguments. Their criticisms are usually based on right wingers being either nasty (-ist or -phobe) or stupid ("If you were better educated/informed you would agree with me..."). However, I must point out that you get the latter a lot from religious types too, who can of course be left or right wing.
Well, you seem to start off with the premise that criticizing right wings as nasty or stupid is not valid. Attacking people who are gay, simply for being gay and living their own lives, comes across are pretty nasty. And that's not so much from me, but my gay aunt and her longtime girlfriend, now wife - though not for conservatives attempting to force their religion on government actions to try to prohibit it.

And stupid? Often seems to most apt term who vote against themselves and their interests while proclaiming that those some votes will do things like "make america great again". Or to quote a friend, "this is the most excited I've ever seen a bunch of rednecks about electing a well-heeled yankee". All while believing he's one of them? Yeah, that's stupid.

Now, while these may not be the nicest criticisms or PC or comprehensive... that doesn't mean they aren't true.

Some people are stupid. Some are nasty. And while they voters for both parties fall into those categories, they tend to fall into one more than the other. And well, in the US, the "conservative" party is home to such as the KKK, america's largest homegrown terrorist group, as well as other racist groups and supporting racist tendencies, as well as garnering much more of the uneducated vote - an action that often results in poor people voting for handouts for rich at their own expense.

I'm not saying there are comprehensive or valid in all cases, but simply that just because you don't like a term or even find it offensive does not make that term invalid.
Logged
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9537

View Profile
« Reply #66 on: Nov 29, 2016, 09:42PM »

It's fun listening to those that think they understand lecturing those that do.  :D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #67 on: Nov 30, 2016, 04:42AM »

Sure. Animosity breeds animosity. But equally? Nope.
Well, you seem to start off with the premise that criticizing right wings as nasty or stupid is not valid. Attacking people who are gay, simply for being gay and living their own lives, comes across are pretty nasty. And that's not so much from me, but my gay aunt and her longtime girlfriend, now wife - though not for conservatives attempting to force their religion on government actions to try to prohibit it.

And stupid? Often seems to most apt term who vote against themselves and their interests while proclaiming that those some votes will do things like "make america great again". Or to quote a friend, "this is the most excited I've ever seen a bunch of rednecks about electing a well-heeled yankee". All while believing he's one of them? Yeah, that's stupid.

Now, while these may not be the nicest criticisms or PC or comprehensive... that doesn't mean they aren't true.

Some people are stupid. Some are nasty. And while they voters for both parties fall into those categories, they tend to fall into one more than the other. And well, in the US, the "conservative" party is home to such as the KKK, america's largest homegrown terrorist group, as well as other racist groups and supporting racist tendencies, as well as garnering much more of the uneducated vote - an action that often results in poor people voting for handouts for rich at their own expense.

I'm not saying there are comprehensive or valid in all cases, but simply that just because you don't like a term or even find it offensive does not make that term invalid.

Criticism of people's opinions as nasty or stupid is a valid expression of personal preference, yes. It's not a valid counter argument because it addresses the character of the proponent, not the substance of the argument. People have different ideas of what is nasty, good or bad, stupid or right or wrong. Christian fundamentalists think your aunt is wicked for her homosexuality just the same as she (I assume) thinks they're horrible for being anti-gay. So who, if anyone, is right? Let's talk about why we think what we think and what reasons we have for disagreeing. Name-calling - from either side - doesn't help.

Regarding people voting against their own best interests, don't you mean people voting against what leftists think are their best interests? The best interests here are primarily economic, right? So could you give an explanation? What makes you think the rednecks are wrong in their ideas of how to improve the country? We probably agree that it's foolish to take a politician's policy promises and public image at face value. In the article from the OP, I found the discussions of historical voting patterns and economic causes and effects the best and most illuminating parts of the piece. That's because they were reasoned discourse, not supercilious mockery.
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 17878
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: Nov 30, 2016, 05:40AM »

Criticism of people's opinions as nasty or stupid is a valid expression of personal preference, yes. It's not a valid counter argument because it addresses the character of the proponent, not the substance of the argument.
Character that undermines credibility is relevant to whatever the topic may be, however, and is entirely valid to argue. It's just not an argument in-and-of-itself. It can be a sound reason to cast greater doubt the validity of arguments or facts. This is basic street survival, and it's entirely sound reasoning. When someone has a well established and reliable pattern of demonstrating, for just a random example of course, that they can't recognize when a given news story affirms their position or challenges it (or even flat out refutes it), and apparently assumes which based upon the source and the headline, that person's take on any given new story is inherently suspect. If someone were to post an article and distort quotes in their comments (as in change them when posting them as excerpts), you wouldn't just ignore that for subsequent posts. When someone demonstrates an utter lack of understanding regarding epistemology and how to recognize and vet facts and reasoning by using inconsistent, conflicting and often contradictory reasoning obviously based upon whatever conclusions the person prefers based upon ideology, that person has no credibility--there's no integrity in such a person's thinking processes. As far as critical thinking is concerned, it ain't hapnin' there. Such a person's argumentation generally amounts to saying nothing more than this is what I want to believe, because even if that does happen to line up with the facts, it's a blind squirrel kind of proposition. It's not that such a mentality is an indicator that the conclusions are wrong, it's that they indicate absolutely nothing about the veracity of the conclusions, only that the source wants to believe they're right. IOW such a person's word means nothing. You don't just ignore all of these kinds of things ... particularly in the context of choosing a high level leader.
 
People have different ideas of what is nasty, good or bad, stupid or right or wrong.
Different doesn't mean equal. Saying I have an opinion is not saying I have an idea of significant merit, nor is it saying I have an idea that warrants respect and consideration. Seems pretty much everyone understands that, but the character of the understanding (and its source) comes out in how consistently and equitably the concept is actually applied.
 
Christian fundamentalists think your aunt is wicked for her homosexuality just the same as she (I assume) thinks they're horrible for being anti-gay.
There are significantly different tendencies on that count though, which you seem to be equating here despite what we see in the real world--you're ignoring offense and defense as if you were a rabid anti-gun type who won't accept the concept of self-defense as soon as guns are entered into the equation (never mind that the gun is a different, completely separate variable--granted a rather significant variable). There's truth in what you're saying, but you seem to be putting a lot of English on it, as the cool tennis and ping-pong kids say.
 
Fundamentalists may think your aunt is wicked and still care for her and even love her, but that's a helluva lot less likely with some Fundamentalists than it is with others. The same is true for assessing the character of Fundamentalists. You can't just decide that since both conditions exist on both sides of the equation, they're equal, and the inequalities there are the issue.
 
This is where we separate the men from the boys and the women from the girls--can you subordinate your personal sentiments to facts and evidence and sound processes of thinking? If you can't manage your biases reasonably well, especially if you deny them or defend them because "everyone's biased" as if that somehow makes bias non-biasing or validates it (that would be a situational ethics kind of thing, which the worst violators of this aspect of intellectual integrity so ironically consider wicked), then you're a boy or a girl. Men and women learn that their sensibilities and ideologies and wishes and desires aren't binding on reality. Boys and girls tend to have trouble with that fact.
 
So who, if anyone, is right? Let's talk about why we think what we think and what reasons we have for disagreeing. Name-calling - from either side - doesn't help.
Can't argue with that! I'm glad to see it--hopefully we're on the same sheet of music here. It would be really nice to have more rational representation to cut through all the noise we get in here on the conservative side (mostly from a very small, single digit number of prolific posters).
 
Regarding people voting against their own best interests, don't you mean people voting against what leftists think are their best interests?
Is that a reaction or a response?
 
I'd like to know what you have to say about that if it's latter ... not interested at all though, if it's the former. This is a significant area of misunderstanding between "flyover Americans" and "liberal elitists".
 
The best interests here are primarily economic, right?
That would be precisely the wrong angle to take to understand or defend the misunderstanding here. Hopefully that's your end point.
 
So could you give an explanation? What makes you think the rednecks are wrong in their ideas of how to improve the country? We probably agree that it's foolish to take a politician's policy promises and public image at face value. In the article from the OP, I found the discussions of historical voting patterns and economic causes and effects the best and most illuminating parts of the piece. That's because they were reasoned discourse, not supercilious mockery.
Good questions. It's heading toward the real issue, which is that there's not only disagreement on what conditions are best, but more importantly disagreement on which are higher or lower priorities. Linguistics are pretty huge here too--significant cultural differences in how conservatives and liberals tend to use language to express ideas (maybe more accurately, how more vs less educated types tend to use language and what informs them in that regard).
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5179

View Profile
« Reply #69 on: Nov 30, 2016, 05:49AM »

Criticism of people's opinions as nasty or stupid is a valid expression of personal preference, yes. It's not a valid counter argument because it addresses the character of the proponent, not the substance of the argument.
Sometimes, that really is the substances as well.

Regarding people voting against their own best interests, don't you mean people voting against what leftists think are their best interests?
No, I don't.

The best interests here are primarily economic, right? So could you give an explanation? What makes you think the rednecks are wrong in their ideas of how to improve the country?
This isn't a matter of what I think or don't think. Simply a matter of someone's priorities and the results of them pushing for them.

For example, republicans in NC have talked about the need to improve the quality of the public education system. Ok, so what have they done about it?

For elementary schools, studies quite clearly show that smaller class sizes and more individual attention are critical components to building a solid foundation for kids that keeps them in school longer, and more engaged while they are there.
What the NC state government did was eliminate almost all teacher assistants in those classrooms, and eliminate class size caps. So where some of the most effective/efficient class sizes may number in the upper teens, current elementary class sizes can go over 30 without problem. And they do. With half of the number of adults in the room.

Studies also clearly show that experience matters in teachers, and on average teachers who are halfway through their career or more are much more effective than those in the first half.
So what did the state govt do? They structured the pay scale to favor younger teachers. Once they hit 20 years, the pay plateaus for 10 years and they barely see any rise - even for cost of living. Once they hit 30 years experience, there is no more increase at all. This is a push intended to get the more veteran teachers out of the system so they do not collect their pensions or retirement benefits.

Teachers are in demand in the US in general, with more positions open than teachers to fill them. NC especially has this problem.
So what did they do? There was a rather successful teaching scholarship program in the state. Payed for tuition at a state college in exchange for 3-5 years of teaching commitment after graduation. Included extra mentoring and work with future teachers plus the commitment to get them through the roughest years... and it worked. Quite well. Lower turnover rates, lower drop out rates, and encouraged and provided for a number of new and decent teachers.

They cut it. With a dearth of teachers currently, there is no recruitment program or encouragement at all now. Enrollment in teacher degree programs is down 30% in just a few years time. It is now common for the larger school districts to start the year will over a hundred teaching vacancies, and the forecast is only to get worse.

Studies show clearly that continuing education is a beneficial thing, and helps performance in the classroom.
So what did the state govt do? They cut incentives and funding for teachers to get seek it on their own, though things like advanced degrees. In the past, a school district may help pay for a teacher to get a masters degree, and upon completion, that teacher would get a pay raise. Now, a teacher may go for an advanced degree on their own, and upon completion all they receive is debt.

Charter schools are experimental places with looser regulations to allow for greater freedom of ideas and approaches. But like many experiments, while some succeed, they also have a high failure rate. And total cost is generally higher overall.
In order to "reduce costs" these more expensive options were pushed to number well past what could be supervised. They were also promised to increased quality and results, despite having a so-so average performance and higher failure rate.

And on and on this goes. The system is being impacted negatively in a number of demonstrable ways by changes intended to improve it. And rather than correct course or try something else, the response is to double down.


Kinda like how these same people pushed for tax cuts. except the tax cut was only for the top 5% of the population, and the rest generally received tax increases. So... while they push for lower taxes, they actually increased what they pay. Oops. In response, they want more tax cuts.

That is working against your own interests. When you want one thing, but push for the opposite, and when it fails... continuing to push harder rather than differently. And that is not a matter of opinion. It's a pretty clear pattern of what many GOP voters say they want and what GOP policies actually do. Trump was elected by the "white (used to be) working class" to push for an improved economic situation for them. None of his policies at this point would do that. Many do however increase their plight.
Logged
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9007

View Profile
« Reply #70 on: Nov 30, 2016, 06:33AM »

Teaser:

Ten Reasons Left-Wingers Cut Trump Voters from Their Lives

Many Hillary Clinton voters have ceased communicating with friends, and even family members, who voted for Donald Trump. It is so common that the New York Times published a front-page article on the subject headlined “Political Divide Splits Relationships — and Thanksgiving, Too.” The article begins with three stories: Matthew Horn, a software engineer from Boulder, Colo., canceled Christmas plans with his family in Texas. Nancy Sundin, a social worker in Spokane, Wash., has called off Thanksgiving with her mother and brother. Ruth Dorancy, a software designer in Chicago, decided to move her wedding so that her fiancé’s grandmother and aunt, strong Trump supporters from Florida, could not attend. The Times acknowledges that this phenomenon is one-sided, saying, “Democrats have dug in their heels, and in some cases are refusing to sit across the table from relatives who voted for President-elect Donald J. Trump.”

All of this raises an obvious question: Why is this phenomenon of cutting off contact with friends and relatives so one-sided? Why don’t we hear about conservatives shunning friends and relatives who supported Hillary Clinton? After all, almost every conservative considered Clinton to be ethically and morally challenged. And most believed that another four years of left-wing rule would complete what Barack Obama promised he would do in 2008 if he were elected president — fundamentally transform the United States of America.

If you're interested in reading the entire article, click on this link:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442538/why-left-wingers-cut-ties-trump-voters



Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5179

View Profile
« Reply #71 on: Nov 30, 2016, 06:43AM »

All of this raises an obvious question: Why is this phenomenon of cutting off contact with friends and relatives so one-sided?
It isn't.

Why don’t we hear about conservatives shunning friends and relatives who supported Hillary Clinton?
Because the current media environment is targeted like never before, so people may only be exposed to information they want, how they want it, unless they actively seek a wider viewpoint. For example, the times story does not actually say what your national review story says it does. But it suits the audience of the national review. Better just to look up the referenced story. But how many national review readers would actually do that? Not so many...
Logged
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9007

View Profile
« Reply #72 on: Nov 30, 2016, 07:10AM »

Why the Democrats Can't Stop Calling the GOP Racists
By Karin McQuillan

President Obama, Democrat politicians and the mainstream media are still calling Trump KKK.  They’re tarring his team as anti-Semites and racists.  The electoral map would stop any normal politicians in their tracks, but Democrat hate speech is only getting louder and more hysterical.  A major course correction is not going to happen for three reasons:

1. Democrat leadership;

2. Democrat donors;

3.  Democrat voting blocks.

There is no force in the party that wants to change.



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/11/why_the_democrats_cant_stop_calling_the_gop_racists.html#ixzz4RVNYwq92
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
elmsandr

*
Offline Offline

Location: Howell, MI
Joined: Apr 12, 2004
Posts: 3148

View Profile
« Reply #73 on: Nov 30, 2016, 07:33AM »

Why the Democrats Can't Stop Calling the GOP Racists
By Karin McQuillan

President Obama, Democrat politicians and the mainstream media are still calling Trump KKK.  They’re tarring his team as anti-Semites and racists.  The electoral map would stop any normal politicians in their tracks, but Democrat hate speech is only getting louder and more hysterical.  A major course correction is not going to happen for three reasons:

1. Democrat leadership;

2. Democrat donors;

3.  Democrat voting blocks.

There is no force in the party that wants to change.



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/11/why_the_democrats_cant_stop_calling_the_gop_racists.html#ixzz4RVNYwq92
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Stop, yaknow, gerrymandering districts based on race and selecting people who lament the Voting Rights Act and they will stop being called racists.

Funny thing, continuing to turn a blind eye to the racism in the system will continue to get those acts labelled appropriately.  I've noted before that I don't think that labeling a person 'racist' is particularly useful.  Too binary. There are actions that should more appropriately be labelled.

While I'm at it, what the Dems are really missing is looking at their own racist tendencies.  Gets too bogged down in trying to call some folks racist while not noting their own failures. Bernie lamented that the 'establishment' failed to reach out to the white working class like Trump did.  What about his own, even grander failure to reach the black working class?  Or even acknowledge that a black working class exists?

Cheers,
Andy
Logged

Andrew Elms
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #74 on: Nov 30, 2016, 08:54AM »

Regarding people voting against their own best interests, don't you mean people voting against what leftists think are their best interests?

Is that a reaction or a response?
 
I'd like to know what you have to say about that if it's latter ... not interested at all though, if it's the former. This is a significant area of misunderstanding between "flyover Americans" and "liberal elitists".


I'm not sure what distinction you have in mind between reaction and response. Remember that I'm not primarily an English-speaker please so give me a chance.

When a left-winger says that right-wingers vote against their own interests, his observation might be made with reference to what he thinks other people's best interests are. He might be wrong. Different people have all sorts of ideas about their interests, according to their own priorities and their idea of the good life, which is not at all a settled question. I am very wary of overriding people's personal choices "for their own good" because "we know better." I've seen it personally in communist Eastern Europe and I wouldn't recommend it to Americans.

Racism is a good example. Legislating against it doesn't eradicate racism. But if we talk it through dispassionately, we can discover whether there are any real objections there. Often there are genuine concerns, actually shared by a variety of races, like competition for jobs and housing. They're just not identified or expressed very well and come out in the form of blaming "them." I don't believe that people genuinely hate others purely and solely because of skin colour. Sometimes, it's a persona adopted to reinforce identity as a Good Confederate or a Proud Black Panther or whatever, and not really a proper conviction at all. Other times, usually after some prompting, "racist" people can give concrete reasons why they dislike aspects of behaviour that are typical of cultures other than their own. And fair enough, I suppose. Get the actual issue out in the open and then we can see what we can do about it.

Anyway, that conversation is a prerequisite to formulating effective policies to address citizen's concerns. So I think the solution is almost always more freedom, not less.

Thank you BOB for a very excellent post about education policy. This is exactly the kind of stuff that SHOULD be the majority of political discussion: specific details of policies, their effects, rationale, costs and benefits etc. Does anyone else have similar examples of criticism, from either side?
Logged
Doghouse Dan

*
Offline Offline

Location: Winchendon, MA
Joined: Apr 21, 2003
Posts: 567

View Profile
« Reply #75 on: Nov 30, 2016, 10:03AM »


I don't believe that people genuinely hate others purely and solely because of skin colour.

Trust me, there are people that do hate others based on skin color. I have met some.
Logged

Dan Walker
I'm warning you - I have a trombone and I'm not afraid to use it...
bhcordova
Wielder of the Cat Litter Scoop

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Nacogdoches, TX, USA
Joined: May 18, 2000
Posts: 7014
"Carpe Felix"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #76 on: Nov 30, 2016, 11:27AM »

Many people I know don't hate individual Blacks, but despise the group as a whole.  It goes back to the British and their conviction that the White race was destined to rule and that 'coloreds', i.e. everyone else, were lesser races.
Logged

Billy Cordova, MBA
Forum Administrator
bcordova@tromboneforum.org

Beware the Jabberwock, my son! - Lewis Carroll

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup - Anon.

St. Cecilia, pray for us.
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Online Online

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 49844
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: Nov 30, 2016, 11:58AM »

Sonic, maybe you can relate to a more local comparison.  How many of your countrymen have problems with people of different religions; Jews and Roma (and now Muslims)?  It wasn't that long ago that such people were rounded up and exterminated.  Maybe some of your countrymen are considering that for the Syrian, Somali, or Afghani refugees?
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #78 on: Nov 30, 2016, 02:21PM »

Sonic, maybe you can relate to a more local comparison.  How many of your countrymen have problems with people of different religions; Jews and Roma (and now Muslims)?  It wasn't that long ago that such people were rounded up and exterminated.  Maybe some of your countrymen are considering that for the Syrian, Somali, or Afghani refugees?

A very small minority (the kind who celebrate Hitler's birthday) thinks like that. They're viewed as ridiculous or mentally deranged by most others, and are a bit of an embarrassment.

Almost no one has a problem with bona fide refugees. Who knows when the boot will be on the other foot? However, most of the newcomers are either not genuine refugees or not entitled to claim political/humanitarian asylum. The main problem is that they've travelled through several safe countries where they should have claimed, such as Turkey, Bulgaria and Serbia. Instead, they continue northeastwards to countries that offer a much more generous welfare package. Austria, Germany, Sweden and the UK are favoured destinations. Many also think it odd that almost all the immigrants are men in their 20s fleeing beheading but leaving behind wives and children. Would any of you do that if you were in genuine mortal fear? I would carry my family (or indeed anyone else) on my back until my last breath.

I don't fault them for moving countries to seek a better life: I have done the same. But I obeyed the rules when I came to exercise my Free Movement of Labour, one of the central principles of the EU. The key thing is that it's Free Movement of Labour. It applies to working people. My immigration and residency entitlements arise from working. I have almost no access to social insurance until I've paid tax for several years. If I don't work, there's no help for me. In contrast, let's take a refugee in Austria as an example. He will receive around €900 per month, plus an accommodation allowance, plus clothing allowance, free toiletries, a year-long free language course and free university study. No one gives a Slovakian immigrant a €12000 welcome subsidy to help him settle. He has to save up for himself. No one teaches an Italian immigrant the language. You have to teach yourself or take lessons at your own expense. If a Romanian immigrant wants to take a university course, he has to pay. So it's a pretty good deal for those granted refugee status despite not legally being entitled to it due to not having claimed in the first safe country they reached (that was perfectly safe but didn't offer them €900 per month gratis). Austria has about 50000 refugees. Germany has about 1.3million, each receiving a similar financial welcome package, so it's a huge cost.

So perhaps you can understand that there is a clear source of resentment towards government policies that allow this great difference of treatment. There's also a resentment towards people who are seen as gaming the system. It's not race- or religion-based: in Europe there is a general dislike of welfare cheats of any origin and a strong sense of social contract. There is also generally a positive attitude to immigrants who come to work and enter into the spirit of the host country. Like I said, I don't fault them for seeking a better life. But they should come in through the proper immigration channels, work permit, visa application etc and play by the same rules as everyone else OR claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, again according to the rules.

In addition, there is often tension caused by differences in cultural norms. Sometimes these are minor things we can forgive because people are strangers. Other times, there are transgressions of cross-cultural values, some of which I have witnessed personally but would prefer not to go into detail about. I don't think refugees should get a free pass for behaviour such as the mass sexual assaults in Köln and I don't think anyone should try to excuse that kind of behaviour as in any way acceptable by anyone in any country. If I grossly violated cultural norms in Iran or Saudi Arabia or Japan or Sri Lanka I'm sure I would make myself very unpopular too. Anyway, the negative judgements are as a rule based on behaviour, not on skin tone or religion.

I should also mention that we have another war right on our eastern border, in Ukraine. There's no flood of Ukrainian male refugees in their 20s ACROSS safe Poland to seek refuge in Germany. Not sure why. Perhaps they prefer, because of a stronger sense of nationality, to fight for their country and families. Perhaps they prefer to earn their own living and self-respect rather than take free handouts.
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5179

View Profile
« Reply #79 on: Nov 30, 2016, 02:25PM »

A very small minority (the kind who celebrate Hitler's birthday) thinks like that. They're viewed as ridiculous or mentally deranged by most others, and are a bit of an embarrassment.

Many in the US thought that too... until this last election cycle.
Logged
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9537

View Profile
« Reply #80 on: Nov 30, 2016, 06:29PM »

Criticism of people's opinions as nasty or stupid is a valid expression of personal preference, yes. It's not a valid counter argument because it addresses the character of the proponent, not the substance of the argument. P

Whoa, Nellie!

That doesn't even make sense. In the first sentence, you're describing criticism of someone's opinions. In the second sentence, you're saying it's addressing his character. Criticizing someone's opinions is not the same as addressing his character, so you veered off the road before you even started.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #81 on: Dec 01, 2016, 04:18AM »

Whoa, Nellie!

That doesn't even make sense. In the first sentence, you're describing criticism of someone's opinions. In the second sentence, you're saying it's addressing his character. Criticizing someone's opinions is not the same as addressing his character, so you veered off the road before you even started.

Ah you're right. I miswrote it.

The criticism often takes the form of dismissing people's opinions by imputing -ism or -phobia to the person. The implication is that the opinions held by an -ist or -phobe are necessarily and automatically wrong.

Trump - Let's stop illegal immigration.
Lefty - That's a terrible idea.... because... you're just a racist.

It works the other way around too.

Hillary - Let's invest in infrastructure.
Righty - What rubbish... because... you're a criminal.

The reasons given by Lefty and Righty might or might not be true but they're irrelevant. They do nothing to explore the pros and cons of the suggested policies. It's just ad hominem noise-making. I much prefer detailed discussion of the implications of various public policies, like BOB did with NY education on the previous page. Government, rather than politics. Hitler and Stalin had policy successes too... The beneficial effects for Germans and Soviets were no less because of the characters of the two men.
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5179

View Profile
« Reply #82 on: Dec 01, 2016, 05:23AM »

The reasons given by Lefty and Righty might or might not be true but they're irrelevant. They do nothing to explore the pros and cons of the suggested policies. It's just ad hominem noise-making.

Quite wrong.

Trump's anti-illegal immigration policy... does not focus on illegal immigrants. It focuses on latinos, specifically mexicans. There is no problem or target of his attacks against chinease, or indian, or european immigrants.

Just like he focuses his anti-refuge talk against muslims.

To call his policies racist is true.

And that is very much relevant.

Because at the most basic level, whether a policy is good or bad is a question of values and morals and a judgement call. When people call a policy racist, it is in turn expressing why they feel it is wrong. Some things, such as the GOP economic platform... they promise one thing, but the results are others. Other policies violate core values.

Both are incredibly relevant.
Logged
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #83 on: Dec 01, 2016, 08:06AM »

Because at the most basic level, whether a policy is good or bad is a question of values and morals and a judgement call.


We can judge goodness or badness of a policy by two methods. Firstly, deontologically, deriving the goodness or badness from an intrinsic quality of the policy and without reference to what the results might be. Secondly, teleologically, according to felicific calculus.

Sometimes the two methods produce different results of what is right or good. Deporting only Mexican illegal immigrants would be bad by deon because the policy rule is not universal. But if it produced overall positive effects, it would be "good" teleologically.

One problem with deon is that they must be very carefully derived otherwise we get a confusion between human and civil rights. In addition, sometimes the deontological approach produces negative real-world results with only the consolation of standing by one's principle, like Kant's murderer at the door. For some, that's ok. For others, not.

Telos are difficult to judge because we can't really see into the future, especially with complex situations. And what we categorise as a positive or negative outcome depends on how we judge, across what geographic and temporal scope, what we include or exclude etc etc. Tyranny of the majority is also a risk, and I believe it was a worry of the American Founding Fathers.

I'm not trying to trick anyone here, and I certainly don't have any definitive answers of my own. I just want to get beyond boo-hurrah.

Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5179

View Profile
« Reply #84 on: Dec 01, 2016, 08:24AM »

We can judge goodness or badness of a policy by two methods. Firstly, deontologically, deriving the goodness or badness from an intrinsic quality of the policy and without reference to what the results might be. Secondly, teleologically, according to felicific calculus.
You CAN judge policy by those two methods, but they are certainly not full or complete ways... Such as, what happens when a law is written with purpose to do one thing, but pushed under guise of another? Many anti-abortion health bills for example have nothing to do with a woman's health, despite focusing on health related aspects and policies, but everything to do with limiting access to legal abortions.

In which case, if passed, it does exactly what is intended, and not, at the same time.
Logged
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #85 on: Dec 01, 2016, 10:29AM »

You CAN judge policy by those two methods, but they are certainly not full or complete ways... Such as, what happens when a law is written with purpose to do one thing, but pushed under guise of another? Many anti-abortion health bills for example have nothing to do with a woman's health, despite focusing on health related aspects and policies, but everything to do with limiting access to legal abortions.

In which case, if passed, it does exactly what is intended, and not, at the same time.

Of course they're not full or complete ways. They're just attempts to give some guidance in the puzzle of how we should live.

In the abortion example you gave, you can apply deontological or teleological ethics quite usefully if it's the legislation itself that is the issue. A moral assessment of any deceitful motive is another question. The deontological discussion would explore notions of two competing rights: that of the foetus to survive and that of the mother's self-determination. Teleologically, we would attempt to assess the sum of pros and cons for allowing and for prohibiting abortion. Whichever "scores" highest become the policy.

I've been bereaved of a child, so I have extra sympathy with those who say that pre-natal life is precious and should not be extinguished by another person. I think we all agree morally and medically that abortion not a great deal of fun and is something to be avoided if possible. But I also recognise that my personal abhorrence is not adequate justification for a universal rule. On the other hand, freedom and self determination is, like life, an essential quality of human being. I find the idea of society overriding a person's medical consent and personal autonomy as horrific as the idea of slicing an unborn baby to pieces. Imagine a society where you are forced, by some governmental authority that claims it knows best, to have or not have medical treatment against your wishes, for your own good. It's a horrible nightmare. But mostly, I exercise caution from my own ignorance. I'm not sufficiently convinced that I know for sure what is wrong and right, enough to prohibit women from having an abortion. So I leave them to make their own moral choices, with which I can disagree but not make for them.
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5179

View Profile
« Reply #86 on: Dec 01, 2016, 11:18AM »

In the abortion example you gave, you can apply deontological or teleological ethics quite usefully if it's the legislation itself that is the issue. A moral assessment of any deceitful motive is another question. The deontological discussion would explore notions of two competing rights: that of the foetus to survive and that of the mother's self-determination. Teleologically, we would attempt to assess the sum of pros and cons for allowing and for prohibiting abortion. Whichever "scores" highest become the policy.

Nope. The highest court has already deemed that women have a unquestioned legal right to abortion prior to viability. And these restrictions are in place across the board and impacting areas well before viability.

And per the use? Kinda depends whether you're look at stated or intended impact.

In the end, a racist piece of legislation can be said to be detrimental for, well, being racist. You haven't shown how that's not a viable reason to reject the legislation.
Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Online Online

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 49844
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #87 on: Dec 01, 2016, 11:22AM »

The issue I find with abortion in particular, is that the people who are so avidly anti-abortion are the same ones who don't want to support the unwanted child after birth, and who will spend huge sums of money on incarcerating the child if it grows up to be antisocial.

It's a funny situation.  They want to defund Planned Parenthood because a few percent of their total expenditures go to abortions while the overwhelming budget is for things like prenatal care, women's health screenings, etc.

And my condolences on your lost child.  I'm certain you aren't one to have an abortion unless the pregnancy was a health problem for the mother.

One issue you need to come to grips with is that we have a President Elect who is a pathological liar so anything he says can be "walked back" instantly.  He will also deny to the death that he said things we have proof positive that he said.

Another issue is that his party, the Republicans, are still the "Party of the Rich" and their policies are geared toward the moneyed classes even though they claim that they are for the working classes.  And they have lied to the Working Classes enough that they have brainwashed them; or maybe they have tarred the Democrats enough that they destroyed their reputation.

It reminds me of Southern Whites of the middle 1900s.  They were probably as poor or poorer than their Black neighbors, but didn't want the Blacks to get any help to move ahead.  Probably a fear that if the Blacks got ahead on the social ladder they would be left behind.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9537

View Profile
« Reply #88 on: Dec 01, 2016, 11:39AM »


We can judge goodness or badness of a policy by two methods. Firstly, deontologically, deriving the goodness or badness from an intrinsic quality of the policy and without reference to what the results might be. Secondly, teleologically, according to felicific calculus.

Sometimes the two methods produce different results of what is right or good. Deporting only Mexican illegal immigrants would be bad by deon because the policy rule is not universal. But if it produced overall positive effects, it would be "good" teleologically.

I hadn't heard of those two words before and I appreciate learning them. In broad strokes, you're talking about principle vs. pragmatism.

I can see where different countries would fall onto different spots on the deon-teleo continuum. For instance, Candadians have a reputation for placing a high value on fairness. They apparently don't mind long waits for non-emergency procedures as long as everyone else waits the same amount of time (I'll anticipate some blowback from our Canadian correspondents).

Quote
One problem with deon is that they must be very carefully derived otherwise we get a confusion between human and civil rights.

Can you elaborate on that?

Quote
In addition, sometimes the deontological approach produces negative real-world results with only the consolation of standing by one's principle, like Kant's murderer at the door. For some, that's ok. For others, not.
The barest exposition of that difference is in foreign policy--Kissinger vs. Carter, for instance. The blur between the two may come from the apparent truth that principle has practical benefits--the fullness of time has shown that realpolitik has some long-term disadvantages. Carter was criticized for compromising our short-term national interests in service of a more moralistic foreign policy, but as a practical matter, an ongoing 'Carteristic' policy might have prevented some of the calamity that has befallen us because of resentment of our self-serving policies in the Mideast.

What you're placing below the line is motivation--calling out a proposal as being motivated by racism, for instance. That comes close to making sense, but ignores a couple of things. Noticing the motivation behind a policy serves as warning for future proposals that might have the same motivation, which will have a cumulative deleterious effect that isn't readily detectable in the individual policy changes. I think it's worthwhile to notice that the 'legalistic' explanation of anti-immigration sentiment clashes with the fact that we're always talking about Mexicans and not Canadians or Irishmen, because if we have one policy proposal after another that shares that motivation, Mexicans' rights might be steadily eroded.

The other factor is that policy is cultural, not just technocratic. The KKK marchers celebrating Donald Trump's ascent aren't responding deontologically or teleologically--they're responding directly to Trump's perceived motivation in his proposals. Same with the woman in the viral video taunting black store employees by saying she voted for Trump. This cultural effect has everything to do with motivation, outside of the fairness or results of the policy. In other words, you could produce a policy that's completely fair in its terms, and produces an ostensibly salutary result, but if the motivation behind it is immoral it will produce undesirable cultural artifacts.

Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #89 on: Dec 01, 2016, 11:48AM »

Nope. The highest court has already deemed that women have a unquestioned legal right to abortion prior to viability. And these restrictions are in place across the board and impacting areas well before viability.

And per the use? Kinda depends whether you're look at stated or intended impact.

In the end, a racist piece of legislation can be said to be detrimental for, well, being racist. You haven't shown how that's not a viable reason to reject the legislation.

I've no idea what you're trying to convey with your first two paragraphs.

If you judge legislation by its effects, then any intrinsic qualities you impute to it are not reasons to reject it. Here are some examples. A prohibition on a court witness covering the face while testifying discriminates against muslim women who want to wear a veil. But we can also judge the policy by the (assumed or actual) helpful effect of bare-facedness in the pursuit of justice. Secondly, various affirmative action policies discriminate against (usually) ethnic majorities or women. But we also judge the policy by the (assumed or actual) helpful effect of having more ethnic minorities or women in certain jobs. Lastly, apparently young black men commit a large proportion of the gun crime in America. A prohibition on gun possession by this group targets and discriminates against them on racial, age and sex grounds. But we can also judge the policy by the effect it would have to disarm the group with the highest incidence of gun crime.
Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Online Online

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 49844
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #90 on: Dec 01, 2016, 12:08PM »

You just ran into one of the dichotomies of US jurisprudence.  It's true that Blacks commit more of the gun crime in this country, but we also have a Constitutional right for all citizens to carry arms.  So trying to limit Black ownership of guns is something that is unlawful, even if it would reduce gun crime by a significant amount.

There are some nuances here that may be beyond your experience.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9537

View Profile
« Reply #91 on: Dec 01, 2016, 12:18PM »

You just ran into one of the dichotomies of US jurisprudence.  It's true that Blacks commit more of the gun crime in this country, but we also have a Constitutional right for all citizens to carry arms.  So trying to limit Black ownership of guns is something that is unlawful, even if it would reduce gun crime by a significant amount.

There are some nuances here that may be beyond your experience.

I don't think he's making a legalistic argument to begin with, BG--just an illustration of principle.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #92 on: Dec 01, 2016, 12:22PM »

One problem with deon is that they must be very carefully derived otherwise we get a confusion between human and civil rights.

Can you elaborate on that?

I'll try. Human rights are essential qualities of human being, without which we are not human or less than human. The first and most important is life: the "being" of human being. If you're not alive, you're not being and therefore not a human being. When I think about what other qualities there are, I can think of very few. Freedom of thought and conscience is something that all humans share. Freedom of expression is an essential quality of being human. We choose to go this way or that, speak or stay silent (but then I wonder if that makes people in a coma less than human). Physical integrity is perhaps another: we think of our state of being as partly corporeal and never accept violations against our will (but what about that coma patient again, he's a nuisance isn't he?). But does a right or entitlement necessarily arise from these essential qualities? If so, why and how? Tricky. For me, it depends a lot on what you think about the concept of humanity and whether you have faith and hope in people.

Civil rights are entitlements we invent and bestow upon each other as a society. You'll often hear people say that housing is a human right, or education, or voting or even internet access. But none of these is an essential element of the human condition, so lacking them does not diminish one's human status. A wild man who lives in the woods is still human.

The most important difference between deon and telos is where the goodness/badness is located. Deontological ethics has the good/bad in the action itself. Telos places the good/bad in the consequences.

Good point about motivation giving a clue to future actions.
Logged
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #93 on: Dec 01, 2016, 12:29PM »

You just ran into one of the dichotomies of US jurisprudence.  It's true that Blacks commit more of the gun crime in this country, but we also have a Constitutional right for all citizens to carry arms.  So trying to limit Black ownership of guns is something that is unlawful, even if it would reduce gun crime by a significant amount.


That is exactly the point (Piano Man is right).

Do you choose what's right based on principle regardless of the consequences, or on the consequences regardless of the principle? If anyone's unfamiliar with this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem please have a read. It's a classic illustration. What interests me the most is how and why people switch between the two systems.

Could we productively discuss any of this with Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton or KKK members or homies in the hood? Actually I think yes, because most people find it interesting and it gets people thinking.
Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Online Online

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 49844
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #94 on: Dec 01, 2016, 12:37PM »

We have a long history of Principles trumping consequences.  For example, some crowded cities want to limit the ownership of firearms, but we have group that will resist that based on our Second Amendment (right to bear arms).  In fact, you will find some people blatantly carrying arms in crowded places just to "tweak" everybody else's nose.

We have had rational pieces of legislation overturned on appeal based on some primal right that might be abridged.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5179

View Profile
« Reply #95 on: Dec 01, 2016, 12:43PM »

I've no idea what you're trying to convey with your first two paragraphs.
Ever heard of the difference of the letter of the law vs the intent of the law? So things, like prohibiting abortion and discrimination against a particular group are against the law, and yet we still have a number of laws which try to skirt by because the letter of the law is within legal purview but the actual impact and intent of the law it to do they very things they cannot do. They use the law to get around the law, so to speak.

These... don't really fit nicely in your dichotomy of how to view laws/policy... because they attempt to to something they can't by ways which they can.

And thus we get most of the racist laws in the US.

In the old south, a number used to call them "jim crow laws". These prevented blacks from exercising their constitution right to vote through more insidious constitutionally allowed measures. Currently, many of our drug laws and such also target minorities in a major way that they do not hit white folk in the same, despite similar rates of use.
Logged
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #96 on: Dec 01, 2016, 01:00PM »

Ever heard of the difference of the letter of the law vs the intent of the law? So things, like prohibiting abortion and discrimination against a particular group are against the law, and yet we still have a number of laws which try to skirt by because the letter of the law is within legal purview but the actual impact and intent of the law it to do they very things they cannot do. They use the law to get around the law, so to speak.

These... don't really fit nicely in your dichotomy of how to view laws/policy... because they attempt to to something they can't by ways which they can.

And thus we get most of the racist laws in the US.

In the old south, a number used to call them "jim crow laws". These prevented blacks from exercising their constitution right to vote through more insidious constitutionally allowed measures. Currently, many of our drug laws and such also target minorities in a major way that they do not hit white folk in the same, despite similar rates of use.

Yes, I see. Like the old voter registration requirements, something about presenting father's and grandfather's birth certificates? Of course, many southern black voters in the late 1800s could do no such thing. The modern equivalent is, I think, the requirement for a photocard driver's licence when voting. This excludes anyone too poor to afford driving lessons from voting. Sneaky. However, I still think we can assess whether a policy violates a principle de facto. Likewise, if there are observable effects of a policy, we can collate and assess them as felicific or not. So I'm not sure why you think such laws are immune from judgement against principle or on results.

How do your drug laws target non-whites more than whites, if rates of use are similar?
Logged
bhcordova
Wielder of the Cat Litter Scoop

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Nacogdoches, TX, USA
Joined: May 18, 2000
Posts: 7014
"Carpe Felix"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #97 on: Dec 01, 2016, 01:15PM »

It is not the drug laws themselves, but the implementation.  Black men are more likely to receive a harsher penalty for the same crime than white men. 

Voter ID laws as written place a severe hardship on minorities, the elderly, and students.  The supposed intent is to prevent voter fraud, which sound like a noble idea.  The effect is to disenfranchise those unable to get or afford a valid ID (note - some of these laws do not allow school ID's, even though many are from state supported colleges and universities.)
Logged

Billy Cordova, MBA
Forum Administrator
bcordova@tromboneforum.org

Beware the Jabberwock, my son! - Lewis Carroll

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup - Anon.

St. Cecilia, pray for us.
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #98 on: Dec 01, 2016, 01:24PM »

It is not the drug laws themselves, but the implementation.  Black men are more likely to receive a harsher penalty for the same crime than white men. 

Voter ID laws as written place a severe hardship on minorities, the elderly, and students.  The supposed intent is to prevent voter fraud, which sound like a noble idea.  The effect is to disenfranchise those unable to get or afford a valid ID (note - some of these laws do not allow school ID's, even though many are from state supported colleges and universities.)

So the problem with racial discrimination is not in the drugs laws (necessarily) but a lack of sentencing structure/guidelines?

The voter ID rules just sound like bad policy. Is it really beyond the world's leading superpower to come up with a method of ID confirmation that everyone can participate in? If the policies are an attempt to manipulate voting demographics to the benefit of one party or the other, I'm no less exasperated. Why not put all that effort instead into formulating policies that a majority will vote for and win on merit? You know, like that democracy thing.
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5179

View Profile
« Reply #99 on: Dec 01, 2016, 01:38PM »

It is not the drug laws themselves, but the implementation.  Black men are more likely to receive a harsher penalty for the same crime than white men.
Both if I remember correctly. Yes, enforce is a major issue... but I seem to remember major discrepancies between crack and cocaine sentencing guidelines despite basically being the same drug. The other bug difference, blacks primarily use one form, while whites use another.
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5179

View Profile
« Reply #100 on: Dec 01, 2016, 01:39PM »

Why not put all that effort instead into formulating policies that a majority will vote for and win on merit? You know, like that democracy thing.
Because if they can't win fairly, well, they still want to win :)

And well, if you're dealing with a party that doesn't value the minority vote anyhow, or thinks of them as lesser people... what is disenfranchising their vote?
Logged
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9007

View Profile
« Reply #101 on: Dec 01, 2016, 02:24PM »

Is it a valid proposition that only citizens can vote in an election?

If so, how best that the state can confirm that the voter is indeed a citizen?

How best can the state confirm that the voter is actually who he claims to be at the poll, and not claiming to be another person? Or a dead person?

How best can the state confirm that the voter at the poll hasn't voted at another polling station?

These are just a few questions, if you are really interested in doing away with voter fraud.

 
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #102 on: Dec 01, 2016, 02:52PM »

Is it a valid proposition that only citizens can vote in an election?

If so, how best that the state can confirm that the voter is indeed a citizen?

How best can the state confirm that the voter is actually who he claims to be at the poll, and not claiming to be another person? Or a dead person?

How best can the state confirm that the voter at the poll hasn't voted at another polling station?

These are just a few questions, if you are really interested in doing away with voter fraud.

 

National ID cards?

Fingerprints scanners linked to a database?

Microchips   under   the   skin...?
Logged
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9007

View Profile
« Reply #103 on: Dec 01, 2016, 04:29PM »

National ID cards?

Fingerprints scanners linked to a database?

Microchips   under   the   skin...?

You didn't answer my first question.
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #104 on: Dec 01, 2016, 04:42PM »

Well, you could say that only citizens can vote. In some elections in some jurisdictions, it's residents who can vote. And sometimes it's only resident citizens.

Anyway, I agree that there needs to be a way of verifying voter identity and thereby eligibility. This is to avoid ineligible people voting and multiple voting.

Many of the ways one would maintain a register of who people are and where they live give rise to Big Brother fears. So it needs a carefully thought-out solution, not the obviously crap one with driver's licences.

Most political parties say they want more people to vote. Is it true? Not sure.
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5179

View Profile
« Reply #105 on: Dec 01, 2016, 06:13PM »

Is it a valid proposition that only citizens can vote in an election?
Depends. What are you proposing?

If so, how best that the state can confirm that the voter is indeed a citizen? 
How about a social security number. It's a unique federal ID given to each person used for government identification purposes. And since citizenship is a federal level thing... sounds like a good fit.

How best can the state confirm that the voter is actually who he claims to be at the poll, and not claiming to be another person? Or a dead person?
I would expect they could tell fairly easily that a voter is not a dead person. You do have to be alive to vote.

How best can the state confirm that the voter at the poll hasn't voted at another polling station?
Easiest way... a voting database to capture the social security numbers of those who have voted. Would you like to enter your social security number into a database, accessible by poll workers all over the state at the same time?

The tighter you wish to make it for people who have never met you to validate you are who you are, the more you give up of your own security and information.

These are just a few questions, if you are really interested in doing away with voter fraud.
Security is little more than an exercise of making something inaccessible. The higher the security, the less accessible. For both you... and the state... also makes it more centralized and simpler to compromise.

How many voters are you willing to prevent from exercising their constitutional rights in order to "do away with voter fraud"? Are you willing to be turned away yourself?
Logged
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9007

View Profile
« Reply #106 on: Dec 01, 2016, 07:04PM »

When a non citizen votes, a citizen's vote is disenfranchised.
Same for local elections, as residents vs non residents is the same issue.

Do we want our elections to be the actual voice of our citizens, or, would we rather have no checks whatsoever, and just go with the luck of the draw?

Ok, so you guys don't like photo IDs, so what is your solution?
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
elmsandr

*
Offline Offline

Location: Howell, MI
Joined: Apr 12, 2004
Posts: 3148

View Profile
« Reply #107 on: Dec 01, 2016, 07:34PM »

When a non citizen votes, a citizen's vote is disenfranchised.
Same for local elections, as residents vs non residents is the same issue.

Do we want our elections to be the actual voice of our citizens, or, would we rather have no checks whatsoever, and just go with the luck of the draw?

Ok, so you guys don't like photo IDs, so what is your solution?
I believe I have commented this on your straw man a few dozen times.  Fund a state agency and make it their responsibility to get every registered voter their ID for free.  If your goal is really to eliminate fraud this would work pretty well.

Funny, the party you generally support does not seem to want to prevent fraud, just prevent some folks from voting.

Cheers,
Andy
Logged

Andrew Elms
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5179

View Profile
« Reply #108 on: Dec 01, 2016, 07:59PM »

When a non citizen votes, a citizen's vote is disenfranchised.
Same for local elections, as residents vs non residents is the same issue.

Do we want our elections to be the actual voice of our citizens, or, would we rather have no checks whatsoever, and just go with the luck of the draw?

Ok, so you guys don't like photo IDs, so what is your solution?
So you don't like SS# then, I take it?

Because I'm curious... voting is on the state level and citizenship is on the federal. How would you mix those two? Certainly not with a state ID...

And how many people is it worthwhile to stop from voting legally in order to stop an illegal vote? 0? 1:1? 5:1? 10:1? what?
Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Online Online

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 49844
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #109 on: Dec 01, 2016, 08:17PM »

So you don't like SS# then, I take it?

Because I'm curious... voting is on the state level and citizenship is on the federal. How would you mix those two? Certainly not with a state ID...

And how many people is it worthwhile to stop from voting legally in order to stop an illegal vote? 0? 1:1? 5:1? 10:1? what?

A non-citizen and even an illegal alien can get a Social Security card.  It's a prerequisite for most jobs.

One way to prevent non-citizens from voting is to have a vetted voter registry.  People can apply for voter cards when they apply for Driver Licenses, but the application needs some proof of citizenship.  Note that here, where we have last second registration, the ballots of these last second registrant are sequestered pending proof that they are legit.

Dickerson, the amount of verified voter fraud is somewhere around 50 in a billion.  In fact, the last person trying to vote twice was voting for Trump.

I don't see any way an organized group of fraudulent voters can manage to swing a race -- the logistics are very much against them.  If you filled a bus with bogus voters, that's around 54.  How many races were lost by 54 votes?  Even congressional races where the number of voters is smaller.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5179

View Profile
« Reply #110 on: Dec 01, 2016, 10:53PM »

A non-citizen and even an illegal alien can get a Social Security card.  It's a prerequisite for most jobs.
Sure, though at a federal level it should be noted whether the person assigned a social security number is eligible to vote or not. ie. Everyone who can vote has a social security number, though not everyone who has a social security number can vote. So... leave it up the the feds to provide access to a database to validate the number.

One way to prevent non-citizens from voting is to have a vetted voter registry.  People can apply for voter cards when they apply for Driver Licenses, but the application needs some proof of citizenship.
  Except proof of citizenship is easy to forge and hard to verify.

Note that here, where we have last second registration, the ballots of these last second registrant are sequestered pending proof that they are legit.
And the vast majority as simply thrown out without any proof whether they are legit or not.
Logged
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9007

View Profile
« Reply #111 on: Dec 02, 2016, 05:24AM »


Dickerson, the amount of verified voter fraud is somewhere around 50 in a billion.  In fact, the last person trying to vote twice was voting for Trump.


You make good points, however, you follow up with bogus statistics that are reported by the favorite fake news sites like mediamatters and dailykos. YouBad.

Here from a different source:

"Yet in spite of all this, a report by the Brennan Center at New York University claims voter fraud is a myth. It argues that North Carolina, which passed comprehensive measures to prevent voter fraud, “failed to identify even a single individual who has ever been charged with committing in-person voter fraud in North Carolina.” However, this faulty reasoning does not point to the lack of in-person voter fraud, but rather to lack of enforcement mechanisms to identify and prosecute in-person voter fraud.

The science of criminal justice tells us that many crimes go unreported, and the more “victimless” the crime, the more this happens. The fact is, a person attempting to commit voter fraud is very unlikely to be caught, which increases the incentive to commit the crime."

That's why were having this discussion. As you guys admit, finding a solution is complex, yet, the left is quick to point out that the most effective, photoID, is racist.




Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
bhcordova
Wielder of the Cat Litter Scoop

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Nacogdoches, TX, USA
Joined: May 18, 2000
Posts: 7014
"Carpe Felix"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #112 on: Dec 02, 2016, 06:29AM »

Is it a valid proposition that only citizens can vote in an election?

If so, how best that the state can confirm that the voter is indeed a citizen?

How best can the state confirm that the voter is actually who he claims to be at the poll, and not claiming to be another person? Or a dead person?

How best can the state confirm that the voter at the poll hasn't voted at another polling station?

These are just a few questions, if you are really interested in doing away with voter fraud.

 

But what about those people who vote by mail?  What guarantee is there that the person the ballot was sent to is the person who voted?
Logged

Billy Cordova, MBA
Forum Administrator
bcordova@tromboneforum.org

Beware the Jabberwock, my son! - Lewis Carroll

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup - Anon.

St. Cecilia, pray for us.
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5179

View Profile
« Reply #113 on: Dec 02, 2016, 06:33AM »

As you guys admit, finding a solution is complex, yet, the left is quick to point out that the most effective, photoID, is racist.
Ummm.... photo ID is far from the most effective.

After all, what's to stop those with two homes in two states from simply getting a photo ID in one state and a drivers' license in the other and then voting in both?

Or do you only care about stopping the few fraudulent votes from poor people and not also the rich?
Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Online Online

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 49844
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #114 on: Dec 02, 2016, 07:26AM »

You can ponder every conceivable way to vote fraudulently, but I haven't seen any massive evidence within the last 50 years.  Agreed that there were times when the local party bosses or the KKK would truck in voters to throw an election; usually a local election; but massive voter fraud is really unlikely.  Every time they try to find the "3 million illegal voters" Trump keeps saying, they come up with nothing.  Is this going to be the new "Benghazi"?
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9007

View Profile
« Reply #115 on: Dec 02, 2016, 07:29AM »

But what about those people who vote by mail?  What guarantee is there that the person the ballot was sent to is the person who voted?

Exactly.
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9007

View Profile
« Reply #116 on: Dec 02, 2016, 07:30AM »

Ummm.... photo ID is far from the most effective.


Then, what is more effective?
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9007

View Profile
« Reply #117 on: Dec 02, 2016, 07:34AM »

You can ponder every conceivable way to vote fraudulently, but I haven't seen any massive evidence within the last 50 years.  Agreed that there were times when the local party bosses or the KKK would truck in voters to throw an election;

Jim O'keefe and WikiLeaks has provided videos of groups like Accorn, and whatever name they use now, and other leftists bussing in illegal voters to throw elections. Now, they describe they use taxis and not busses because it's easier to conceal.

As long as illegal voting throws elections for liberals, then people will say only 50 in a billion. LOL!
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
Doghouse Dan

*
Offline Offline

Location: Winchendon, MA
Joined: Apr 21, 2003
Posts: 567

View Profile
« Reply #118 on: Dec 02, 2016, 08:22AM »

ddickerson,

Can you describe the actual process by which these illegals cast their vote?  More than generic "they bring in busloads"?  How does a busload of illegal voters actually get away with it? 
Logged

Dan Walker
I'm warning you - I have a trombone and I'm not afraid to use it...
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5179

View Profile
« Reply #119 on: Dec 02, 2016, 08:36AM »

Then, what is more effective?
Well, if you need photo ID's to tell, and that eliminates the mail vote... and that's fine... and it eliminates the vote that doesn't have those IDs or ready access to get them... and that's fine... why not just continue that push? If you don't want a single fraudulent vote, stop everyone from voting. :)

Otherwise, you've yet to show any numbers saying they are even high enough to threaten results, much less change them. And as much as people like the current NC governor try to say bad votes are there (cause well, he lost), they've found a few votes that were mistakenly cast... not so much illegally... and those are single digits.

Meanwhile, you're running around complaining about fire hazard in a rain forest, and seem blind to the fact that your methods would disenfranchise 1000x's more legal votes than illegal ones it would stop.
Logged
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9007

View Profile
« Reply #120 on: Dec 02, 2016, 09:07AM »

Well, if you need photo ID's to tell, and that eliminates the mail vote... and that's fine... and it eliminates the vote that doesn't have those IDs or ready access to get them... and that's fine... why not just continue that push? If you don't want a single fraudulent vote, stop everyone from voting. :)

Otherwise, you've yet to show any numbers saying they are even high enough to threaten results, much less change them. And as much as people like the current NC governor try to say bad votes are there (cause well, he lost), they've found a few votes that were mistakenly cast... not so much illegally... and those are single digits.

Meanwhile, you're running around complaining about fire hazard in a rain forest, and seem blind to the fact that your methods would disenfranchise 1000x's more legal votes than illegal ones it would stop.

How does a photo ID dis-enfranchise voters today? Everything we do today requires photo ID as well as credit cards, etc. Try going to a bank and open an account. Every illegal vote also did-enfranchises voters. We're mainly speaking regarding presidential elections that occur every four years, and is one of the most important principles that our country relies on, so it's important that we get it right.

If you feel there are special voting blocks that have a hard time obtaining a photo ID, do something about it, instead of killing the system, and let voter fraud run rampant. Are there organizations help these people obtain photo IDs? Registering voters on the same day is totally ridiculous too. You have 4 years between these elections, so help them get their photoIDs now for the 2020 election.

Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9007

View Profile
« Reply #121 on: Dec 02, 2016, 09:11AM »

ddickerson,

Can you describe the actual process by which these illegals cast their vote?  More than generic "they bring in busloads"?  How does a busload of illegal voters actually get away with it? 



"We manipulated the vote with money and action, not with laws,” Democratic operative Scott Foval explains in the video.

Foval, who was fired from Americans United for Change after O’Keefe exposed him in the first video Monday, explains how Democrats have been manipulating voter turnout for “years.”

“We’ve been bussing people in to deal with you f*****g ******** for fifty years, and we’re not going to stop now, we’re just going to find a different way of doing it."

Here is the link:
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/10/rigged-election-democrat-operative-admits-massive-voter-fraud


Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
Doghouse Dan

*
Offline Offline

Location: Winchendon, MA
Joined: Apr 21, 2003
Posts: 567

View Profile
« Reply #122 on: Dec 02, 2016, 09:20AM »

According to my source the O'Keefe videos are dishonestly edited, and in my opinion are B.S.

Quote
Logged

Dan Walker
I'm warning you - I have a trombone and I'm not afraid to use it...
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9007

View Profile
« Reply #123 on: Dec 02, 2016, 09:26AM »

According to my source the O'Keefe videos are dishonestly edited, and in my opinion are B.S.


That's the problem. It doesn't matter whether or not, one presents evidence, when you're convinced nothing will change your mind, nothing does.

To accept as fact that voter fraud doesn't exist like Bruce does, is totally without merit. To claim that the videos were edited to make the principals say something else, is also without merit.

Good luck with that.

Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
Doghouse Dan

*
Offline Offline

Location: Winchendon, MA
Joined: Apr 21, 2003
Posts: 567

View Profile
« Reply #124 on: Dec 02, 2016, 09:53AM »

Did you follow my link and read the article?  I followed your link.
Logged

Dan Walker
I'm warning you - I have a trombone and I'm not afraid to use it...
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 17878
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #125 on: Dec 02, 2016, 10:08AM »

Another clear winner for IPotD (just above--skip over one, obviously)!
 
Technically it's not irony, but that works better. An accurate description might run afoul of the TOU as interpreted by TPTB.
 
Pretty striking sometimes though.
 
It's really not a fair contest in here.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #126 on: Dec 02, 2016, 11:32AM »

...your methods would disenfranchise 1000x's more legal votes than illegal ones it would stop.

That's a very good point.

Anyway, if people not eligible to vote can nevertheless obtain a driver's licence or a social security number, then presenting one as proof of identity does nothing to stop ineligible people from voting. But it does stop people who can't afford a driving licence (or can't get one because they're medically disqualified) from voting, which shouldn't be the intent. What is necessary is a national database of eligible voters against which proof of identity can be checked. But then people worry about Big Brother.

In many European countries, Non-EU citizen students (or "students") can work part-time and are issued a social insurance number for that purpose. Because of data protection legislation, tax authorities cannot cross check a social insurance number against records from the immigration department and vice versa. So "students" who overstay their student visas continue to work illegally but cannot easily be discovered.
Logged
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #127 on: Dec 02, 2016, 11:57AM »



If you feel there are special voting blocks that have a hard time obtaining a photo ID, do something about it, instead of killing the system, and let voter fraud run rampant. Are there organizations help these people obtain photo IDs? Registering voters on the same day is totally ridiculous too. You have 4 years between these elections, so help them get their photoIDs now for the 2020 election.



That's a good point too. It's not difficult for Town Hall to make sure everyone who wants a form of official photo ID (and is entitled to it...) can have one.

If transport is provided for ELIGIBLE VOTERS to attend polling, well that's fine, especially considering US geography. But I think doing this on a partisan basis is not ok. Again, Town Hall should be making arrangements to facilitate voting for everyone who wants to. I wish politicians would stop spending their effort on chicanery and cheating the system and put it into actual politics.
Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Online Online

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 49844
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #128 on: Dec 02, 2016, 12:18PM »

We do have the very types of transport you think aren't OK.  My wife worked for the Hillary Clinton campaign and she ferried voters to the polls.  Mostly people known to the Clinton campaign who needed transportation.  If someone she transported voted for Trump, she really didn't care.  But she wouldn't have known in advance.

This is called "get out the vote".  The people transported to the polls still had to be registered voters or register "on the spot" where their ballots were sequestered until their eligibility could be verified.

One note about mail-in.  We don't have mail-in but we do have absentee voting.  The ballot must be put in a blank envelope and that placed in a second envelope with the voter's name on it.  When the ballot gets to the Polls, the name is checked off the voter registry before the inner envelope is given to the counters.  The counters have no idea who sent the ballot, and the people validating the ballot have no idea who was voted for.

I don't think there is any way to prevent somebody using a mail-in ballot and voting for somebody who has died but not been purged from the voter rolls.  But this can't be a significant number of ballots...
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5179

View Profile
« Reply #129 on: Dec 02, 2016, 01:56PM »

How does a photo ID dis-enfranchise voters today?Everything we do today requires photo ID as well as credit cards, etc. Try going to a bank and open an account.
I believe a court case in your home state in 2011 answered that pretty well. Especially when they identified over 600,000 citizens in the state who did not meet the necessary requirements. Guess you don't care about THEIR votes.

They pushed ahead anyhow, and in 2013 it was ruled as a discriminatory poll tax on voters... kinda like the old Jim Crow days.

And upon even MORE pushing, it was still declared void, having a "discriminatory effect".

And this was per one of the most conservative judicial circuits in the country.

But then... when these efforts are pushed by older white folk, and the actions discriminate against younger and minority populations who generally vote the other way... hmmmm... seems a bit sketchy. Also sketchy, "government ids" needed for voting often aren't limited to ones with pictures, but also seem to often include other government licenses that GOP voters typically have in greater number - in Texas, a concealed carry permit - in North Carolina, a hunting license. And so they go. Really not much of a hidden agenda there.

Every illegal vote also did-enfranchises voters.
You know what really disenfranchises legal votes? Disenfranchising legal voters and not allowing them to exercise their constitutional duty and rights. Odd how you don't seem to care about that.
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5179

View Profile
« Reply #130 on: Dec 02, 2016, 02:18PM »

That's a good point too. It's not difficult for Town Hall to make sure everyone who wants a form of official photo ID (and is entitled to it...) can have one.
Sure. Have places to get government issued IDs available to within easy reach of the general population - as nearby as a post office - with long hours of service, and offer services to come around to those who can't, and make them at no charge to the citizen.

Unfortunately, in places like DD's Texas, those living outside of the major population areas may have to travel a long way to get an id, they need more papers in order to get that ID, the hours are limited, and they have a charge. Which them pushing for requring IDs, and making it no easier to obtain the IDs, and making them only available at cost...

Well, back when, southern state like Texas had a "poll tax" to vote, ie, you had to pay to vote. This was intended to limit the ability of poor and minorities to vote and it was quite effective. It was ruled unconstitutional. And in truth, I can't think of a single other basic constitutional right or duty which requires money or an ID in order to exercise said right.
Logged
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #131 on: Dec 02, 2016, 02:51PM »

I can't think of a single other basic constitutional right or duty which requires money or an ID in order to exercise said right.

2nd Amendment?
Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Online Online

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 49844
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #132 on: Dec 02, 2016, 03:48PM »

2nd Amendment?

We don't license firearms universally, and while you have the right to bear arms you aren't given one.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9537

View Profile
« Reply #133 on: Dec 02, 2016, 03:51PM »

When a non citizen votes, a citizen's vote is disenfranchised.
Same for local elections, as residents vs non residents is the same issue.

You've made that argument before, and it's not valid. You voted for Trump. If an ineligible person also votes for Trump, how does that disenfranchise you?
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9537

View Profile
« Reply #134 on: Dec 02, 2016, 03:53PM »

2nd Amendment?

Nope. I have an unregistered gun that I didn't pay a dime for.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9007

View Profile
« Reply #135 on: Dec 02, 2016, 04:11PM »

You've made that argument before, and it's not valid. You voted for Trump. If an ineligible person also votes for Trump, how does that disenfranchise you?

If an ineligible person votes for Trump that disenfranchises a person that voted for Hillary.
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9007

View Profile
« Reply #136 on: Dec 02, 2016, 04:21PM »

Did you follow my link and read the article?  I followed your link.

Yeah I did, and I've read it before. Of course, the leftists will do everything they can to discredit Jim O'Keefe.

But if you couple the emails that have been exposed by WikiLeaks, these kind of operations that O'Keefe exposed have been corroborated in the leaked emails.

Several years ago O'Keefe video taped him and others not being vetted at all at the polling station. He was ineligible to vote in that particular locale, but the people working didn't pay any attention at all. See, counting just those that get caught, and using that as evidence that voter fraud doesn't exist is a non logical conclusion. At this particular voting station, thousands could have passed through and never get caught. In fact, if everybody that tried to vote illegally got caught, then there wouldn't be a voter fraud issue, now would there?   
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
Doghouse Dan

*
Offline Offline

Location: Winchendon, MA
Joined: Apr 21, 2003
Posts: 567

View Profile
« Reply #137 on: Dec 02, 2016, 04:34PM »

Could you direct me to those emails?  I'd be interested in seeing, and you could save me a lot of search time.

Thanks
Logged

Dan Walker
I'm warning you - I have a trombone and I'm not afraid to use it...
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Online Online

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 49844
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #138 on: Dec 02, 2016, 04:57PM »

I've been voting since you had to be 21 to vote and in two different locatoins.

In both those locations, if I wasn't on the voter rolls, I couldn't cast an instant vote.  In my first location, Brooklyn NY, I would be turned away.  Here in New Hampshire you post a provisional ballot and they vet you after the fact.

No doubt if you looked hard enough you could find a polling place where you might be able to sneak in a vote, but it doesn't take a lot of effort to prevent it.  Even without ID,
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9007

View Profile
« Reply #139 on: Dec 02, 2016, 05:01PM »

Could you direct me to those emails?  I'd be interested in seeing, and you could save me a lot of search time.

Thanks

I'm sorry but that was weeks ago and I don't save links. It would take me some time too.
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9007

View Profile
« Reply #140 on: Dec 02, 2016, 05:16PM »

Could you direct me to those emails?  I'd be interested in seeing, and you could save me a lot of search time.

Thanks

Teaser:

WIKILEAKS: Podesta Says It’s OK for Illegals to Vote With Driver’s License….

In the latest Wikileaks Podesta documents John Podesta actually says it is OK for illegals to vote if they have a driver’s license.

Trump says the system is rigged.
Then we see this email the next day.

John Podesta: I think Teddy’s idea scratches the itch, is pretty safe and uncomplicated.
On the picture ID, the one thing I have thought of in that space is that if you show up on Election Day with a drivers license with a picture, attest that you are a citizen, you have a right to vote in Federal elections.

NOTE: Illegals obtaining driver licenses in 11 states right now

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/wikileaks-podesta-says-ok-illegals-vote-drivers-licence/


Teaser:

An email sent around the 2015 Colorado caucuses by John Podesta discuss the possibility of voter fraud with two Coloradans supporting Clinton and their concern about people who may be voting illegally.

http://usherald.com/caught-red-handed-new-wikileaks-email-shows-obama-directed-voter-fraud-scheme/

Teaser:

EMAILS: Clinton Allies ‘Believe The Obama Forces’ Committed Voter Fraud In ’08



http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/15/emails-clinton-allies-believe-the-obama-forces-committed-voter-fraud-in-08/#ixzz4RjXBLFHe


Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
Burgerbob

*
Offline Offline

Location: Los Angeles
Joined: Aug 12, 2007
Posts: 5240

View Profile
« Reply #141 on: Dec 02, 2016, 05:19PM »

I don't see how any of that is relevant. You have to use a SSN now as it is.
Logged

Brasslab 50T3, Greg Glack 1 1/8GM
Bach 42B, Wick 3AL
Conn 6H, King 7MD
Yamaha YEP-842S, Schilke 53/59
Yamaha YBH-301MS, Hammond 12XL
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Online Online

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 49844
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #142 on: Dec 02, 2016, 05:44PM »

78 dead voters still on the rolls.  And Trump lost Colorado by...?

I don't doubt that dead voters are still on the rolls.  Also, the people casting votes for them are probably family members, since the ballots are sent to an address that is probably owned by one of the descendants.  It's likely that they also voted much the way the decedents would have voted.  Still.  78 voters out of how many million in Colorado?
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9537

View Profile
« Reply #143 on: Dec 02, 2016, 06:00PM »

If an ineligible person votes for Trump that disenfranchises a person that voted for Hillary.

No it doesn't.

You could just as well say that an illegally cast vote for Trump improves your franchise, because your vote gets counted twice, as to say it disenfranchises an opposing vote. Neither proposition makes logical sense.

The Hillary voter's vote is still counted. The entire effect of an improperly cast vote is the effect of that vote being counted--there's no additional effect of disenfranchising an opposing vote.

Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9007

View Profile
« Reply #144 on: Dec 02, 2016, 07:15PM »

No it doesn't.

You could just as well say that an illegally cast vote for Trump improves your franchise, because your vote gets counted twice, as to say it disenfranchises an opposing vote. Neither proposition makes logical sense.

The Hillary voter's vote is still counted. The entire effect of an improperly cast vote is the effect of that vote being counted--there's no additional effect of disenfranchising an opposing vote.



Not true of course. The results of elections is not necessarily the vote count, but the difference.

IOW, if a politician wins by 10 votes, it totals could have been 50,110 vs 50,100 or it could have been 25110 vs 25100.

The actual vote totals don't matter, it's the difference that makes the winners and losers.

So, the more ineligibles you can throw in the mix, the more voters are disenfranchised.

Look, this is very simple stuff here, I don't know why you're having so much trouble with it.  Don't know

Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9007

View Profile
« Reply #145 on: Dec 02, 2016, 07:16PM »

I don't see how any of that is relevant. You have to use a SSN now as it is.

SSN can be harvested as well.
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Online Online

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 49844
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #146 on: Dec 02, 2016, 07:31PM »

SSN can be harvested as well.

Are you implying some activity by the Trump campaign? Evil

You can pile up all kinds of chicanery, but I don't see that it can amount to more than a few hundred votes.  Only ONE state came even close to that margin: Michigan.  And they were not part of Trump's initial Electoral win.

Most of the analysts I have been listening to say in order to throw an election you need to operate elsewhere: voter rolls (and you have to get people to vote for any extra names; although purging particular [Latino] voters might work for Trump), or in the compilation and reporting.  Getting voting machines to miscount is a problem since each municipality has its own machines and you'd have to corrupt enough in several key states.

I really think Trump is blowing smoke when he claims that he lost the popular vote because of rigged voting.  Besides, he comes off as a sore winner.  It's not enough that he won; he had to win everything.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 17878
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #147 on: Dec 02, 2016, 07:31PM »

To borrow from the finest example I've ever seen of a mind completely hijacked by dogma:
This is the problem. It doesn't matter if anyone provides evidence that any rational adult can understand refutes the dogma of a True Believer. When you're convinced nothing can change your mind, nothing does.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9007

View Profile
« Reply #148 on: Dec 02, 2016, 08:44PM »

Are you implying some activity by the Trump campaign? Evil

You can pile up all kinds of chicanery, but I don't see that it can amount to more than a few hundred votes.  Only ONE state came even close to that margin: Michigan.  And they were not part of Trump's initial Electoral win.

Most of the analysts I have been listening to say in order to throw an election you need to operate elsewhere: voter rolls (and you have to get people to vote for any extra names; although purging particular [Latino] voters might work for Trump), or in the compilation and reporting.  Getting voting machines to miscount is a problem since each municipality has its own machines and you'd have to corrupt enough in several key states.

I really think Trump is blowing smoke when he claims that he lost the popular vote because of rigged voting.  Besides, he comes off as a sore winner.  It's not enough that he won; he had to win everything.

It's been shown how easy it is for an ineligible to vote with a fake drivers license and get away with it. Add the fact that California alone has around 800,000 illegals with drivers licenses that were issued by California. 10 other states also issues drivers licenses to illegals. It's not that far a stretch.

Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
BillO
Trying to be better.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 1977

View Profile
« Reply #149 on: Dec 02, 2016, 09:13PM »

It's been shown how easy it is for an ineligible to vote with a fake drivers license and get away with it. Add the fact that California alone has around 800,000 illegals with drivers licenses that were issued by California. 10 other states also issues drivers licenses to illegals. It's not that far a stretch.


Gag me with a spoon!
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #150 on: Dec 03, 2016, 02:50AM »

Well... perhaps residents of the USA who pay tax against a social security number should be allowed to vote and have a say in the government they are paying for. No taxation without representation, as we've all heard before.

Logged
Doghouse Dan

*
Offline Offline

Location: Winchendon, MA
Joined: Apr 21, 2003
Posts: 567

View Profile
« Reply #151 on: Dec 03, 2016, 07:01AM »

Teaser:

WIKILEAKS: Podesta Says It’s OK for Illegals to Vote With Driver’s License….

In the latest Wikileaks Podesta documents John Podesta actually says it is OK for illegals to vote if they have a driver’s license.

Trump says the system is rigged.
Then we see this email the next day.

John Podesta: I think Teddy’s idea scratches the itch, is pretty safe and uncomplicated.
On the picture ID, the one thing I have thought of in that space is that if you show up on Election Day with a drivers license with a picture, attest that you are a citizen, you have a right to vote in Federal elections.

NOTE: Illegals obtaining driver licenses in 11 states right now

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/wikileaks-podesta-says-ok-illegals-vote-drivers-licence/


Teaser:

An email sent around the 2015 Colorado caucuses by John Podesta discuss the possibility of voter fraud with two Coloradans supporting Clinton and their concern about people who may be voting illegally.

http://usherald.com/caught-red-handed-new-wikileaks-email-shows-obama-directed-voter-fraud-scheme/

Teaser:

EMAILS: Clinton Allies ‘Believe The Obama Forces’ Committed Voter Fraud In ’08



http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/15/emails-clinton-allies-believe-the-obama-forces-committed-voter-fraud-in-08/#ixzz4RjXBLFHe




Thanks for pointing me to those articles.

Regarding the first, without knowing the context, you really can't jump to the conlusion stated in the headline.  Do you have more info on that?  Can you tell me who Teddy is, and what his idea was?  What is the itch to which Podesta is referring?  Where does he mention illegals?


Regarding the second and third links, they are essentially duplicates "reporting" on the same email fragment.  Does saying the same thing twice make it doubly true? 

I am always suspicious of articles with headlines not supported by the content.  The email excerpt discussing voter fraud in Colorado has a guy talking about other guys who think maybe Obama gamed the vote. I really don't think that can be interpreted "caught-red-handed-new-wikileaks-email-shows-obama-directed-voter-fraud-scheme"?

I not saying that there aren't questions raised, but these sources really are doing your viewpoint any favors.
Logged

Dan Walker
I'm warning you - I have a trombone and I'm not afraid to use it...
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9007

View Profile
« Reply #152 on: Dec 03, 2016, 12:33PM »

"If a state really wanted to demonstrate that its count on Election Day was absolutely correct, the first thing it would need to prove is that everyone who voted was eligible to vote.  So take a look at the Wisconsin Voter Registration Application form and notice that they do not require a registrant’s full Social Security Number – only the last four digits.  (That is not unique to Wisconsin, by the way.)  But Wisconsin doesn’t even require those four digits if one has a driver’s license.  So how easy is it to get a driver’s license in Wisconsin?"



http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/12/the_neverending_story_of_election_recounts.html#ixzz4RoEQHpkm
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Online Online

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 49844
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #153 on: Dec 03, 2016, 01:29PM »

Did you look at the WHOLE Wisconsin form?

Line 9 states: "Are you a citizen of the United States of America?"

If you answer "yes" and are not a citizen, that is Perjury and you can be put in prison.

When I got my New York State Voter Registration (back in the late Pre-Cambrian Era) I had to provide my birth certificate (they did not keep it) as proof.  I guess Wisconsin will accept you at your word.  Personally, I like the idea of some kind of proof of citizenship required when registering to vote.  A Naturalization Certificate, Birth Certificate, or even a Passport (they don't issue those to non-Citizens).  To identify myself when going to vote (assuming the Poll worker doesn't know me personally) a picture ID with my name on it should be sufficient.  But I'm not on the Rolls unless I've registered.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 17878
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #154 on: Dec 05, 2016, 07:38PM »

Is it Post-Ideological, or more like Post-Rational?
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9537

View Profile
« Reply #155 on: Dec 05, 2016, 10:33PM »

Not true of course. The results of elections is not necessarily the vote count, but the difference.

IOW, if a politician wins by 10 votes, it totals could have been 50,110 vs 50,100 or it could have been 25110 vs 25100.

The actual vote totals don't matter, it's the difference that makes the winners and losers.

So, the more ineligibles you can throw in the mix, the more voters are disenfranchised.

Look, this is very simple stuff here, I don't know why you're having so much trouble with it.  Don't know

It's simple, but you have it wrong. You're implying that there's an additional 'disenfranchisement' effect other than the improper vote being counted, and there is not. In a previous post, you explicated this, counting the total miscast votes (you said 30 million) and doubling it to count the 'disenfranchised voters'. A couple of us ran proofs that showed you wrong, and you let it go for awhile but now you've forgotten and are picking it up again.

If you don't understand why you're wrong, you're the only one here who doesn't. If you'd like, I'll rerun the proof. The entire swing of the election results caused by improper votes is the margin between the candidates in the improper votes cast. Nothing else. I can prove it.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5179

View Profile
« Reply #156 on: Dec 09, 2016, 03:20PM »

It's been shown how easy it is for an ineligible to vote with a fake drivers license and get away with it.
Which mostly shows how little requiring a drivers license does, rather than how helpful it is....
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 17878
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #157 on: Dec 17, 2016, 09:28AM »

This is an explanation of why so many are so angry right now and why it's such a serious problem, and recognizing that fact and appreciating the implications is probably a pretty solid litmus test of how clear one is of being or becoming part of the problem.
 
The Straw Vulcan
 
Some subcultures seem to have lost their Type 2 reasoning almost altogether (it's that elitist and educated and liberal thinking which is so often so hostile to their views ... never mind why), and many of them seem to see Type 2 reasoning as Type 1, probably because they don't understand it, but it's ironic that they attack the Type 2 reasoning as Type 1 while Type 1 reasoning is what they're relying on, which is probably why they project so much--they recognize the problematic emotionalism going on and interpret their opposition as the source because it's the only perception that both accounts for the emotionalism they actually are perceiving and aligns with their distorted viewpoint. Since they've had to become very good at compartmentalizing or otherwise reconciling this Alt-World in which they live, this is less of a challenge than it would be for most of us. Projection can often be pretty obvious, sometimes strikingly so.
 
More from Julia Galef (from Skepticon 5).
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 17878
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #158 on: Dec 19, 2016, 08:41AM »

From the LA Times:
 
Some Truths About Trump’s Tweets?
A new poll says two-thirds of American voters call Trump’s tweets “reckless and distracting” compared with 1 in 5 who found them “effective and informative.” As Cathleen Decker writes in an analysis, Trump’s tweets aren’t just polarizing [speaking of useful idiots]: The ones in which he makes provably false claims — such as saying the Obama administration had not raised alarm about Russian interference in the presidential election before Nov. 8 — can undermine the trust-based relationship with the country any president needs.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #159 on: Dec 19, 2016, 11:14AM »

From the LA Times:
 
Some Truths About Trump’s Tweets?
A new poll says two-thirds of American voters call Trump’s tweets “reckless and distracting” compared with 1 in 5 who found them “effective and informative.” As Cathleen Decker writes in an analysis, Trump’s tweets aren’t just polarizing [speaking of useful idiots]: The ones in which he makes provably false claims — such as saying the Obama administration had not raised alarm about Russian interference in the presidential election before Nov. 8 — can undermine the trust-based relationship with the country any president needs.

Are Americans so superficial these days? Do you people really listen to what politicians say and form judgements about them from the image they try to spin?

Does no one pay attention to what policies are actually enacted and then assess what effects they have? Actions speak louder than words, as the saying goes.
Logged
elmsandr

*
Offline Offline

Location: Howell, MI
Joined: Apr 12, 2004
Posts: 3148

View Profile
« Reply #160 on: Dec 19, 2016, 11:27AM »

Are Americans so superficial these days? Do you people really listen to what politicians say and form judgements about them from the image they try to spin?

Does no one pay attention to what policies are actually enacted and then assess what effects they have? Actions speak louder than words, as the saying goes.
Except, words matter.  If you haven't noticed, the Chinese tend to take words about Taiwan and the South China Sea pretty seriously.  Like, willing to shoot people seriously.  Ari Fleischer (W's press secretary) noted that he was always careful to say the government ON Taiwan, not government OF Taiwan.  There was also a small list of sentences that he noted that was always a part of any official discussion with Chinese officials.  Words matter in diplomacy.  Actions matter, too, but words can provoke actions.

Cheers,
Andy
Logged

Andrew Elms
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9537

View Profile
« Reply #161 on: Dec 19, 2016, 12:31PM »

Are Americans so superficial these days? Do you people really listen to what politicians say and form judgements about them from the image they try to spin?

Does no one pay attention to what policies are actually enacted and then assess what effects they have? Actions speak louder than words, as the saying goes.

I don't think there's anything 'superficial' about that at all. Are Europeans so superficial they don't care what policies their leaders propose? 'Just wait and see what happens', without weighing in, is not a good guide to action in either life or in statecraft.

When Trump proposes policies it's not reasonable to just assume he doesn't intend to enact them, or at least it shouldn't be. Trump's tweets are announcements from the President-elect and it matters what is in them. I don't think we want a president who announces policy then his supporters immediately say, "He's just talking, he won't do any of that stuff," yet that's a common defense of Trump.

Our relationship with China is very complicated, both militarily and with respect to trade. China owns a great deal of our current debt. Trump is not just making provocative tweets. He's proposed trade policies that would amount to a trade war with the Chinese. He's explicitly announced that he doesn't feel bound by the 'one-China' policy that goes back through decades of GOP and Dem administrations. He's appointed people to key positions that seem friendly to Russia and antagonistic to China. He inserted himself inappropriately into the drone controversy while a diplomatic solution was being arrived at.

It matters what he says. "Don't listen to him, he's just talking" is a terrible thing to have to say about a new president. He needs to start taking this stuff seriously.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #162 on: Dec 19, 2016, 03:03PM »

So you think that when Donald Trump (who is now, apparently, a politician) says something, that's what he intends to do?

Doesn't Donald Trump come out with a load of stuff just to win popularity? I think I remember you posting something to that effect.

Which is it? And if you re-read the sentences substituting the name of another politician, how would you answer?

I don't speak for my continent, only for myself, but I don't give a damn what my politicians propose. It's all a load of talk that makes no difference to my life UNTIL a policy is enacted. Then I'm in a position to assess and make a judgement. But I understand that Americans are much more concerned with image, presentation and what looks good on a TV or other screen.
Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Online Online

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 49844
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #163 on: Dec 19, 2016, 03:18PM »

We choose our leader based on what his/her policies are.  If the candidate is a consistent liar (or even worse, and inconsistent liar) how are we to decide whom we want to follow?

The people all over the world also listen to our American politicians and choose their actions based on what he says.

If Trump is crowing about building a wall to keep out illegal Mexican immigrants (regardless of whether this is sensible policy) or to deport EVERY illegal Mexican immigrant do you think he's going to be friendly to Mexico?  Or if he says he will "bomb the **** out of ISIS will this be pouring balm on the wounds of the Middle East?  Or if he says he's going to "bring home manufacturing jobs" this will make China feel comfortable?

I feel that Trump will say anything to close a deal and do whatever he wants afterward.  This is a reason I didn't support him -- he has no morals and no consistency.  I also don't think he's as smart as he thinks he is; especially in World Affairs (even though a few of his wives were the result of World Affairs ;-) ).
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9537

View Profile
« Reply #164 on: Dec 19, 2016, 03:35PM »

So you think that when Donald Trump (who is now, apparently, a politician) says something, that's what he intends to do?

Doesn't Donald Trump come out with a load of stuff just to win popularity? I think I remember you posting something to that effect.

Which is it? And if you re-read the sentences substituting the name of another politician, how would you answer?

I don't speak for my continent, only for myself, but I don't give a damn what my politicians propose. It's all a load of talk that makes no difference to my life UNTIL a policy is enacted. Then I'm in a position to assess and make a judgement. But I understand that Americans are much more concerned with image, presentation and what looks good on a TV or other screen.

You're trying to be high and mighty here, but you're missing the point. If you're going to argue with something you think I said earlier, and claim I'm being inconsistent, quote the post instead of making it up. I promise I'll afford you the same courtesy. I'll agree or argue with things you actually said.

Donald Trump's proposals are what people are reacting to, not some insubstantial 'image'. If the president-elect proposes to do something stupid, it's reasonable to react by saying, "That's not a good idea. I hope we don't do that", rather than saying, "I trust you that you're lying about it", (as you propose), or "I'll just wait for the actual action and react then" which you're also proposing. That's how democracy works--proposals are made and discussed, then decisions are made and policies are implemented afterward. You seem to think that we're duty bound to remain silent, wait for the bad policy to be implemented, and criticize it afterward. Worked great for the Germans, right?

You're pretending that responding to the substance of political proposals is being 'concerned with image'. When the president-elect proposes to abandon the one-China policy, or weaken NATO, or give the Ukraine to Russia, that's not 'image', it's substance.

It makes some sense to add a grain of salt to the things that both party candidates say during the primary campaign, but the campaign is over--Trump was elected, and he's no longer campaigning (or at least he's supposed to be creating a government, though he seems to have already lost interest in the project).

You're implying that we should give him the benefit of the doubt and trust that whatever he says now is a lie.

Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #165 on: Dec 19, 2016, 03:38PM »


If Trump is crowing about building a wall to keep out illegal Mexican immigrants (regardless of whether this is sensible policy) or to deport EVERY illegal Mexican immigrant do you think he's going to be friendly to Mexico?  Or if he says he will "bomb the **** out of ISIS will this be pouring balm on the wounds of the Middle East?  Or if he says he's going to "bring home manufacturing jobs" this will make China feel comfortable?

I feel that Trump will say anything to close a deal and do whatever he wants afterward. 

So you too disbelieve what he says, yet believe he will enact his policy statements? Someone on here (was it you?) told me that American elections are very little to do with policies and more to do with voter self-identification as Democrat or Republican, candidate image and public perception. I don't remember Barrack Obama talking about policies very much, but he was very stylish.

Personally, I agree with your second bit. Donald Trump will say anything to get the result he wants and then please himself afterwards. This is not unusual for people in politics and it does not necessarily mean he will govern badly.
Logged
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9537

View Profile
« Reply #166 on: Dec 19, 2016, 03:44PM »

So you too disbelieve what he says, yet believe he will enact his policy statements? Someone on here (was it you?) told me that American elections are very little to do with policies and more to do with voter self-identification as Democrat or Republican, candidate image and public perception. I don't remember Barrack Obama talking about policies very much, but he was very stylish.

Personally, I agree with your second bit. Donald Trump will say anything to get the result he wants and then please himself afterwards. This is not unusual for people in politics and it does not necessarily mean he will govern badly.

So how do you propose to run a democracy? The new leader says, "This is what I'm going to do" and if anyone criticizes it, or discusses it, or objects to it, they're basing it on 'image' rather than substance? We have to wait to see if he's lying before we even comment?

I don't think there's the tiniest inconsistency or hypocrisy in acknowledging that Trump is completely full of ****, while still endeavoring to steer him away from his worst ideas.

There's no question that Trump is not a man of conviction, and that he says a lot of stuff he doesn't mean. Nonetheless, his lack of expertise requires people to react. Saying "That's a bad idea--don't do it" isn't inconsistent or hypocritical when dealing with an unqualified and dishonest leader--it's a necessary part of the process. I think you misunderstand how democracy works. We sort of kick things around a little over here, and so far they don't put us in camps for it.

I think you're explicating the Central European concept of democracy--keep your mouth shut and hope they don't really do it, and don't respond until it's "action" instead of "words". We all saw how that worked out for you all.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 453

View Profile
« Reply #167 on: Dec 19, 2016, 03:53PM »

I think you misunderstand how democracy works. We sort of kick things around a little over here, and so far they don't put us in camps for it.

A failed attempt at humour, or a successful attempt at being a distasteful boor. Maybe I'm too "high and mighty" to understand your quaint New World turns of phrase.

Anyway, you're still saying you distrust what Donald Trump says, but you form your opinions of his forthcoming presidency based on the very same things you are distrustful about. Have a lie down and think about it.
Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Online Online

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 49844
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #168 on: Dec 19, 2016, 04:19PM »

Sometimes I wonder if you really want to understand American politics or just enjoy being a troll with intentional misunderstanding.

There is a lot of context in American history that is different from where you are (your IP says Austria).

We don't elect a Parliament that elects the Prime Minister.  In that case you vote in a guy who thinks like you and he tries to do the horse trading to get a good leader.

Our Founding Fathers considered such a system and decided that it would be better if the common people elected state legislatures and the state legislatures elected the President (via the Electoral College).  Candidates were chosen by the people who knew who was whom and were less likely to be swayed by a demagogue.  Then we had a change in heart to go to universal (initially manhood) suffrage so we elected the President directly.  But the politicos in the back rooms still chose the candidates to make sure that for the most part qualified people were running.

Then we decided to have the populace choose the candidates via open primaries.  And here comes Demagogue Trump.

Somebody who negotiated real estate deals with him said after he left a session he'd count his fingers to make sure they were all there.  Trump is a shark.  But so is Putin and so Wen Jiabao.  But compared to them Trump is a Remora -- a parasite rather than a predator.

This campaign more than any I can remember was about personality rather than policies.  It was one of the dirtiest ever.  Mud slung back and forth about how each lied, cheated, ignored laws, etc.  And somehow Trump managed to convince enough people that Clinton wasn't as trustworthy as he is.

So here he is, and all we can do is to try to call him out when he is lying hoping that he may go the honorable route. 

It's going to be an interesting 4 years, if we aren't reduced to a pile of radioactive rubble before then (or die from environmental poisoning).  Also, the Trump organization's wall building expertise may come in handy over the next 40 years building a sea retaining wall on the Atlantic, Pacific, and Caribbean coasts.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9007

View Profile
« Reply #169 on: Dec 19, 2016, 04:33PM »

Sometimes I wonder if you really want to understand American politics or just enjoy being a troll with intentional misunderstanding.


Why does it always come down to name calling when you disagree?

Most politicians don't follow up their campaign promises with action. He (SS)is just saying let's see if his walk matches his talk, before sticking your head in the commode.

Now, admittedly, Trump in his 'thank you' tours, is doubling down on his campaign promises, instead of notching the expectations down a bit. For me, that is a good thing. For leftist liberals, that's a bad thing.

Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Online Online

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 49844
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #170 on: Dec 19, 2016, 04:37PM »

Why does it always come down to name calling when you disagree?

...

Funny, I could probably call you out on the same thing, but I won't. :-P :-P  You just double down on your ideology regardless of whether it applies or not.

Actually, I'm more afraid of the radioactive rubble than anything else.  The question is whether the delivery systems will be Russian missiles, Chinese missiles, North Korean missiles, or an ISIS suicide bomber.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9007

View Profile
« Reply #171 on: Dec 19, 2016, 04:47PM »

You just double down on your ideology regardless of whether it applies or not.


As opposed to you guys doubling down 70,000 X 70,000 times, no matter the facts.
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9537

View Profile
« Reply #172 on: Dec 19, 2016, 06:27PM »

As opposed to you guys doubling down 70,000 X 70,000 times, no matter the facts.

There's no 'you guys'. There are lots of smart people. Some of them are very conservative. Some of them are very liberal. Some of them are somewhere in between. They don't all agree with one another, or form some particular group. What they have in common is that they disagree with you, because they're smart.

Maybe you should change it to 'you smart guys', because that seems to be what mixes you all up.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9537

View Profile
« Reply #173 on: Dec 19, 2016, 06:36PM »

A failed attempt at humour, or a successful attempt at being a distasteful boor. Maybe I'm too "high and mighty" to understand your quaint New World turns of phrase.

Anyway, you're still saying you distrust what Donald Trump says, but you form your opinions of his forthcoming presidency based on the very same things you are distrustful about. Have a lie down and think about it.

Let me sum up your thesis, and see if it makes sense even to you:

1) Trump's critics acknowledge that it's impossible to tell whether he means what he's saying, therefore it's somehow inconsistent and hypocritical to point out when he's proposing something stupid or destructive, because he might not mean it!

2) Let's not discuss ideas until they become action, because actions count more than words! We'll wait until the mistake is made, then complain about it! What business of ours is it in the meantime?

Now let's apply that to actual history:

Hitler's all talk. He won't round up the Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals and torture them to death. Besides, actions speak louder than words! We'll wait for there to be actions!


How'd that work out for you, buddy? Maybe Americans are smarter than you give us credit for. Maybe you can return the favor and save us from our follies, but then how would you? You apparently have not learned from your own. I bet you root for the wrong guys when you watch "Sound of Music".
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9537

View Profile
« Reply #174 on: Dec 19, 2016, 06:42PM »

Sonic Silver is brilliant. He says as long as we're sure Trump's a liar, why should we care what he says? I mean, really, really brilliant.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9537

View Profile
« Reply #175 on: Dec 19, 2016, 06:49PM »

Most politicians don't follow up their campaign promises with action. He (SS)is just saying let's see if his walk matches his talk, before sticking your head in the commode.

So you're saying a citizen doesn't have a right to comment on the proposals made on the leader whose salary we pay, because he might not actually do them? People aren't 'sticking their heads in a commode', just exercising their right to oppose some dunderhead proposing to screw up our country.

At least he's not poisoning his critics like his buddy Putin, as far as I know. If he proposes to do so, I won't wait for it to be a fait accompli before I disagree with it.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
Russ White

*
Offline Offline

Location: Orange City, Fl
Joined: Feb 27, 2007
Posts: 4974

View Profile
« Reply #176 on: Dec 19, 2016, 06:52PM »

He's appointed most of his cabinet. There is massive amout of action taken there tto vehemently disagree with.
Logged

Better than yesterday, better yet tomorrow.
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9537

View Profile
« Reply #177 on: Dec 19, 2016, 07:02PM »

He's appointed most of his cabinet. There is massive amout of action taken there tto vehemently disagree with.

Well, exactly. Sonic Silver wants us to wait until he invades Poland before we raise a peep. I pay the guy's damn salary, so I'll speak up. He's picked his team and he's told us what he's going to do, so if that's not what we want, now's the time to speak.

The whole DDickerson and SonicSilver argument is "You know he's a liar, so what are you complaining about?" I expect no better from DDickerson, but SonicSilver has shown occasional glints of rationality.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9537

View Profile
« Reply #178 on: Dec 19, 2016, 07:06PM »

Now, admittedly, Trump in his 'thank you' tours, is doubling down on his campaign promises, instead of notching the expectations down a bit. For me, that is a good thing. For leftist liberals, that's a bad thing.

The fact that he's having 'thank you tours', instead of creating a government, should give you pause, but it doesn't even slightly surprise me that it doesn't.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
bhcordova
Wielder of the Cat Litter Scoop

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Nacogdoches, TX, USA
Joined: May 18, 2000
Posts: 7014
"Carpe Felix"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #179 on: Dec 19, 2016, 07:11PM »

PM, strike one (all strikes re-set at the end of the election)
Logged

Billy Cordova, MBA
Forum Administrator
bcordova@tromboneforum.org

Beware the Jabberwock, my son! - Lewis Carroll

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup - Anon.

St. Cecilia, pray for us.
elmsandr

*
Offline Offline

Location: Howell, MI
Joined: Apr 12, 2004
Posts: 3148

View Profile
« Reply #180 on: Dec 20, 2016, 05:53AM »

...
Most politicians don't follow up their campaign promises with action. He (SS)is just saying let's see if his walk matches his talk, before sticking your head in the commode.
...

Funny, that actually isn't quite true.  Most politicians do try to enact their campaign promises and are pretty good at it by most measurements.  Of course, this is a measure of most politicians who are smart enough not to be too specific so that general action in that area can be scored as a positive.  Trump is not even close there...  How could one score whether or not we are "so sick of winning all the time"?

Cheers,
Andy
Logged

Andrew Elms
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Online Online

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 49844
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #181 on: Dec 20, 2016, 07:13AM »

For the last 8 years Politifact has been rating some 500 campaign promises from Obama on something called the Obamameter.  To date he has just under 50% kept, and 25% each Broken and Compromised.  Starting next month the Obamameter gets replaced by the Trumpometer.

Of course Dusty is looking at only one promise and it didn't go his way, so Obama is a lousy President. :-P
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
slide advantage
*
*
Online Online

Location:
Joined: Apr 18, 2016
Posts: 475

View Profile WWW
« Reply #182 on: Mar 09, 2017, 06:53PM »

I can't believe that anyone would take that article serious.

I'm not surprised you dismiss it wholesale.

Born and raised in Texas, I see a lot of what is described in this article....in my immediate family, some of which who swear they aren't racist  - because they have some blacks who they work with. But their attitudes and beliefs are transparently obvious.

They are mostly Church of Christ two or three times a week service attendees, yet they hate and fear anyone who isn't Christian. And many of their actions and statements are hardly 'Christ-like'

I love them, but they have their collective heads up their a**.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 [All]   Go Up
Print
Jump to: