What has happened to us? 9/11, sixteen years on...

[vertical_doug]

Yes, by the masses supporting either team blue or red.

The enforced obedience to leftist orthodoxy scares me waaaay more than any right wing cable infotainment guy when one simply can change the channel.

Folks providing opinions as facts that cite events without providing any situational context or motivations for the action. This is what happens when a persons understanding of a topic ends the moment google results are found that agree with their opinion.

Mid 1980's under Reagan you had the end of the FCC Fairness Doctrine and the advent of cable news. But cable news was not that bad because there was still a limited number of channels.

2010 Citizen United when MONEY=FREE SPEECH and corporations really became the uber citizen who could fund multiple ads, programs, stations whatever on the internet.

I think most people self-segregate, and with social media people were able to just self-reinforce their opinions. When this is coupled with Citizen United who can fund all sorts of targeting (again left and right), you get a dangerous cocktail.

[ides1056]

"The enforced obedience to leftist orthodoxy scares me"

Please give examples, and tell me how?

Enforced by whom, or what?

Give an example of a war started in the USA by the orthodox left, for instance.

[ABiCi]

Yes, by the masses supporting either team blue or red.

The enforced obedience to leftist orthodoxy scares me waaaay more than any right wing cable infotainment guy when one simply can change the channel.

Folks providing opinions as facts that cite events without providing any situational context or motivations for the action. This is what happens when a persons understanding of a topic ends the moment google results are found that agree with their opinion.

Yeah, you wouldn't want to be the kind of person who, when presented with overwhelming, methodical, peer-reviewed information that completely contradicts their opinions, willfully maintains their ignorance...

[Dallas Tex]

Yeah, you wouldn't want to be the kind of person who, when presented with overwhelming, methodical, peer-reviewed information that completely contradicts their opinions, willfully maintains their ignorance...

Some folks would consider it ignorant to reference 'studies' without having a basic knowledge of its funding sources, desired goals of the funding organization, definition of terms, data 'normalization' methods, bias of the organization, bias of the folks that gather the data, bias of the data gathering methods, etc.

Some folks, myself included, consider it a far worse crime to end one's investigation into a topic the moment a link is found that supports your already established opinion. At that point the subjective opinion is driving the process, not the data.

[Dallas Tex]

"The enforced obedience to leftist orthodoxy scares me"

Please give examples, and tell me how?

Enforced by whom, or what?.........

Example, liberal professor Brett Weinstein. Agreed with the liberal orthodoxy philosophy in most areas, but disagreed with one protest method. He & his wife were forced out of their tenured positions and needed police protection to hide from a violent mob enforcing liberal orthodoxy.

[sine]

edit

For which propoganda did he fall?

Sometimes unwritten words have more meaning than written words.

Italy. Do you really think that if the communists achieved power in Italy that they (the communists) would hold free and fair elections.

Do I need to continue.

[ABiCi]

Some folks would consider it ignorant to reference 'studies' without having a basic knowledge of its funding sources, desired goals of the funding organization, definition of terms, data 'normalization' methods, bias of the organization, bias of the folks that gather the data, bias of the data gathering methods, etc.

Some folks, myself included, consider it a far worse crime to end one's investigation into a topic the moment a link is found that supports your already established opinion. At that point the subjective opinion is driving the process, not the data.

I think that just confirms that when it comes to ignorance you definitely fall into the "willful" category.

When the data from the broadest variety of credible and regarded sources all consistently contradict your opinion you incoherently scramble to shoot the messenger rather than acknowledge fault and change your mind.

It is incredibly ironic that you would do this under the guise of an apparently superior rationality, with a greater understanding of social scientific methodology that leading experts across a variety of institutions whose sole purpose is to create meaningful and usable statistics, instead of, as is actually the case, the purely irrational denial that it actually represents.

This is brazen and unrepentant intellectual dishonesty. You might be doing it well enough to fool yourself but I don't think any one else is particularly convinced.

[ABiCi]

edit



Sometimes unwritten words have more meaning than written words.

Italy. Do you really think that if the communists achieved power in Italy that they (the communists) would hold free and fair elections.

Do I need to continue.

Sometimes the only way to save the village is to destroy it, yeah?

[monadnocky]

Some folks would consider it ignorant to reference 'studies' without having a basic knowledge of its funding sources, desired goals of the funding organization, definition of terms, data 'normalization' methods, bias of the organization, bias of the folks that gather the data, bias of the data gathering methods, etc.

Some folks, myself included, consider it a far worse crime to end one's investigation into a topic the moment a link is found that supports your already established opinion. At that point the subjective opinion is driving the process, not the data.

But this is reductio ad absurdum, is it not?
I mean, using your rubric of what constitutes intellectually rigorous research, why not just keep digging until we find some sort of suspicious behavior, somewhere, with someone, at which we can completely consider the data or conclusions to be invalid?

That's the whole point of peer-reviewed research, at least in theory (and usually it works pretty well). These confounds are kept to a minimum. Of course, they will exist in some shape or form, perhaps having an influence on the results (perhaps not). But the epistemological argument you provide above is just kind of.... solipsistic?

[ides1056]

Okay, rather than shout at each other, I would like to propose the following:

Left v Right is a dog and pony show used by those in power against those not in power. People who aggregate power to themselves, by whatever means, are loath to share it, regardless of their ideology. Consider Cromwell, who overthrew Charles 1, beheaded him using specious legal arguments, and then refused to share power with the Levellers.

The Bill of Rights, Constitution, and Declaration of Independence have their roots in the Thirty Years War and the English Civil War.

The dominant dynamic is powerful v powerless, up v down.

I knew before the last election that there are those who are motivated by the desire to have more than others. What I did not know is that there are those who want others to have less. They get off on depriving others, belittling, marginalizing, demonizing those with less power.

[Dallas Tex]

But this is reductio ad absurdum, is it not?
I mean, using your rubric of what constitutes intellectually rigorous research, why not just keep digging until we find some sort of suspicious behavior, somewhere, with someone, at which we can completely consider the data or conclusions to be invalid?

Sure, you could assume all is correct until proven otherwise. I'm more cynical. I don't post many links that strengthen the positions of Right or Left for this reason for this reason.

That's the whole point of peer-reviewed research, at least in theory (and usually it works pretty well). These confounds are kept to a minimum. Of course, they will exist in some shape or form, perhaps having an influence on the results (perhaps not). But the epistemological argument you provide above is just kind of.... solipsistic?

Again, I am cynical. I don't believe that peer-reviewed research, studies, etc. are somehow the only place in our society that are somehow immune to the influence of money. Amazingly money influences areas that i would have never thought possible: Doctor's care decisions, Education, Church, Legal Penalties & Prisons, Drug Research. Why would this somehow be immune?



Also, please note the last 'studies' or 'links' (as I termed in my post) referenced in this thread was www.thirdworldtravler.com ......


Your reply wins the prize for the post with the most words that I had to google for the definition

[monadnocky]

I inherently don't trust anything that even remotely smacks of political as well. In that I am 100% in agreement. I don't have the stomach for it, and the entire political process has become so poisonous, so toxic, that I have just about given up on the entire process. Go despair! I don't even argue politics anymore. I can't stand it.

I am hardly an academic, although I am in that general universe. I've learned to generally trust peer-reviewed research as what it is - bits and pieces of an overall greater truth that comes more and more into focus with every bit of data added. One study - or even a body of work - is not truth but an approximation of truth, a "getting there" approach. I do extend this to other fields because I am aware that this is a shared vision across disciplines. As such, I tend to agree with accumulated bodies of evidence, whether this happens to be regarding global warming or the benefits vs costs of expanded Medicare. Sure, there are confounds and conflicts of interest all around, but I tend to trust the accumulated evidence pointing to what I see as "truth." It's not Truth, but it's the best we can do, given our limitations.

I had this exchange with a student the other day about this very thing. It went something along the lines of:

In a recent issue of the journal X, there is an interesting article on a certain phenomenon Y that appears to provide evidence contrary to our current understanding of the phenomenon.
Journal X is one of the many journals published by the American Psychological Association.
The American Psychological Association is, essentially, a lobbying group for psychologists (they are).
Also, the American Psychological Association was up to some really shady stuff recently in the Iraq war (they were).
Therefore, the results of the article cannot be trusted.

On the face of it, there's nothing wrong with the argument.... how can we trust anything having to do with a lobbying group only after their own self-interests and one that promulgated some pretty terrible stuff only 15 years ago? But we've got to take the article's results on its merits and trust that the researchers aren't engaged in some sort of collusion with the APA (this would be difficult to believe). Their funding source? They don't say in the article (nobody does in basic or applied research) - maybe this makes the study questionable as well?

At some point we have to take data for what they are, and put it into perspective of the greater body of work, for what that is.

I do realize however that you are likely referring to political and perhaps journalistic "studies" and not so much academic work; conceivably, the former would have much less rigor. But it's my general rubric for small-t truth, and at some point, one has to rely on the expertise of others (no matter how critical you are) to understand the world. It's a rubric, a heuristic, that, once eroded, does our society so much harm. And I do think that there is a movement underfoot to distrust expertise. On the "right" (ick, I hate using these words) for instance with climate change, even on the "left" (ick) and all points in between (e.g., vaccines).

[ides1056]

Example, liberal professor Brett Weinstein. Agreed with the liberal orthodoxy philosophy in most areas, but disagreed with one protest method. He & his wife were forced out of their tenured positions and needed police protection to hide from a violent mob enforcing liberal orthodoxy.

Weinstein again experienced controversy when he became the focus of a campus protest at Evergreen State College, where he was teaching biology. His involvement began when he wrote a letter to Evergreen faculty in March of 2017. His letter objected to a change in the College's decades-old tradition of observing a "Day of Absence" during which students and faculty of a minority race would stay home from campus to highlight their contributions to the College.[7] The Day of Absence was inspired by a 1965 play of the same name by Douglas Turner Ward. The play was based on an imaginary Southern town in which all the black people disappear one day. The announced change would flip the traditional event, asking white students and faculty to stay home. Weinstein's letter strongly opposed and criticized the change.

In late May 2017, student protests—focusing in large part on the comments made by Weinstein—disrupted the campus and called for a number of changes to the college. Weinstein claims the college's president refused to allow law enforcement to quell protesters.[8][9] Weinstein also claims campus police told him that they could not protect him and encouraged him to stay off campus. Weinstein then held his biology class in a public park.[10][11] In September of 2017, a settlement was reached in which Weinstein and his wife, professor Heather Heying, resigned and received $500,000 after initially seeking $3.8 million. [12]

He seems to have been more than able to defend himself.

I told a friend who is likely left of me politically that I had told a gay friend after the birth of my son, "you haven't fallen in love with a boy till you've had one." He took exception to this remark. Not PC. After the birth of his son, his one and only child gifted by virtue of modern science, I sent him a one word email: well?

His response was, " I had no idea."

We have more in common than not.

[ides1056]

The Customs and Border Protection agency’s acting commissioner, John Sanders, will step down in early July as the government’s primary border enforcement executive, a federal official said Tuesday, a development that comes as the agency faces continuing public fury over the treatment of detained migrant children.

The news of the resignation came shortly after agency officials disclosed that more than 100 children had been returned to a troubled Border Patrol station in Clint, Tex., a location where a group of lawyers who visited recently said hundreds of minor detainees had been housed for weeks without access to showers, clean clothing, or sufficient food.

Now this guy being run out of town on a rail might be an expression of "liberal orthodoxy" or just fundamental decency.

[theflashunc]

The Customs and Border Protection agency’s acting commissioner, John Sanders, will step down in early July as the government’s primary border enforcement executive, a federal official said Tuesday, a development that comes as the agency faces continuing public fury over the treatment of detained migrant children.

The news of the resignation came shortly after agency officials disclosed that more than 100 children had been returned to a troubled Border Patrol station in Clint, Tex., a location where a group of lawyers who visited recently said hundreds of minor detainees had been housed for weeks without access to showers, clean clothing, or sufficient food.

Now this guy being run out of town on a rail might be an expression of "liberal orthodoxy" or just fundamental decency.

Seven kids died on his watch. The camps are a stain on this nation.

[King Of Dirk]

But, "ceases to be". Really?

Really. Want to survive? Don't pick a fight. The decision is made by the aggressor. It's not the only reason you will never, ever break into Ted Nugent's house, but it's certainly one of them.

[theflashunc]

Really. Want to survive? Don't pick a fight. The decision is made by the aggressor. It's not the only reason you will never, ever break into Ted Nugent's house, but it's certainly one of them.

There is nothing in the President's response that even pretends to adhere to basic just war theory. Shoot down our surveillance robot, and we'll threaten to eliminate your country from existence. Totally rational, proportionate answer to an otherwise minor provocation. Stable leadership at its finest.

This is taking the Bush Doctrine -- already about as wrong-headed a foreign policy approach as one can consider -- and putting it in front of a fun-house mirror to further distort it to horrible ends.

[Scott G.]

I did enjoy Lynn Cheney complaining that the President failed to avenge the death of the robot.
You'd think she wait for her daddy's two wars to be finished before promoting a new war.
When I was young only Democrats started wars,
Mr. Wilson's War, Mr. Roosevelt's War, Mr. Truman's War, Mr. Kennedy's War is how they
were referred to at the country club.

[King Of Dirk]

There is nothing in the President's response that even pretends to adhere to basic just war theory. Shoot down our surveillance robot, and we'll threaten to eliminate your country from existence. Totally rational, proportionate answer to an otherwise minor provocation. Stable leadership at its finest.

This is taking the Bush Doctrine -- already about as wrong-headed a foreign policy approach as one can consider -- and putting it in front of a fun-house mirror to further distort it to horrible ends.

I fear you haven't read the post to which I was replying, nor my first post in this thread (to which BBB was replying). Please give it a try and see if you still think I am suggesting President Trump adheres to (or understands) jus ad bellum or jus in bello.

[Walter Sobchak]

It's not the only reason you will never, ever break into Ted Nugent's house, but it's certainly one of them.

Really good point.

But even more than that, I wouldn’t break into the Gonzo Madman’s house because I might hear him practicing.

Call me risk averse, but that would be awful.