American Politics

[ninjabot]

If it was that simple, people would never be misled.

It is that simple. People are misled because they forsake their skepticism and willingness to verify the claims of the news sources they're relying on for other reasons like

1: Confirmation bias not letting them accept the truth because of the negative implications of said truth
2: Spiteful feelings toward the person(s) providing you with that truth
3: A partisan need to stand up for their "team", even if that means ignoring facts

A lot of climate denialists know much more details about climate science than I do, having indepth shorthands of studies, graphs and so on. Some of them are even so good that they never lie, they just present facts in a way that pulls the truth into question.

I know. I've seen flat earthers beat actual scientists in debate thanks to rhetoric and dishonest framing against people who are correct, but too good faith or uncommitted to the debate to do a good job.

Generally, you can assume that someone who follows a debate mindset and is known to shout out very strong opüinions on a regular basis will use these techniques to win a debate, sometimes even unknowingly. As he is very unlikely to say "this is a topic that can be seen with many different angles and I will be very careful to dismiss even the people who say things I deem wrong".

I see no problem with this, provided the person in question is arguing in good faith. Arguing to win isn't necessarily arguing in bad faith. You can tell when someone is steelmanning their opponent's argument, or strawmanning it. You can tell when someone's ad-homming, and when someone's insulting.

Unless you can't. And if that's the case you've got all kind of other problems you need to deal with.

 

[shionoro]

It is that simple. People are misled because they forsake their skepticism and willingness to verify the claims of the news sources they're relying on for other reasons like

1: Confirmation bias not letting them accept the truth because of the negative implications of said truth
2: Spiteful feelings toward the person(s) providing you with that truth
3: A partisan need to stand up for their "team", even if that means ignoring facts

Or they just hear a really good (but still misleading) argument that sticks in their mind from a source they enjoy, and they then believe it. Nobody is able to be completely immune against it. How would you be immune against believing a good argument that just excludes some context? You would have to be knowledgeable about the topic to even research it properly, and nobody can do that for all topics.

I see no problem with this, provided the person in question is arguing in good faith. Arguing to win isn't necessarily arguing in bad faith. You can tell when someone is steelmanning their opponent's argument, or strawmanning it. You can tell when someone's ad-homming, and when someone's insulting.

Unless you can't. And if that's the case you've got all kind of other problems you need to deal with.

You usually can't, at least not completely. That is not an individual problem, that is just a fact because the complexities of modern society a much bigger than what any one human can research. And the techniques to mislead others got more subtle and finetuned.

For example, when you want to stall climate change reform, you can do that by claiming you are FOR climate change reform, but you advocate for nuclear power plants instead of conserving energy, because you cannot stifle industry. You present nuclear as a superior option to actual reform, excluding facts like that building nuclear power plants takes a lot of time (or combating these facts by saying "it takes a tenth of that time in china, we just need to do away with regulations") and by advocating for that impossible option, you can sway minds away from actual reforms.

That is incredibly hard to falsify completely if you are not inside that topic, especially when the person saying it has more detail knowledge about nuclear powerplants and studies that aid their cause (and that were paid for by the fossil fuel industry) than any environmental activist would have. To really get behind that, you need:

1. To be suspicious in the first place and willing to research it (which simply cannot be done for all topics, no human does that).
2. Be able to research very well and find relevant numbers, charts and studies, which is already a lot of work.
3. Be able to understand the data in the right context, for example researching whether a study comes from a scientist known to be paid off.

Most people aren't even able to understand proper scientific studies even in what they are SAYING (and that's natural, as it is not something most people need to do), leave alone understanding the relevant context.

So if a person, any person, has an incentive to present the facts in a way that suits them, that should make you inherently suspicious of them. And you should never overstimate your own ability to defend against misinformation. It is probably much worse than you think (as it is for everyone). And the more you think you are good at researching, the easier they get you.

 

[M3J]

Legit sources are sources that can demonstrate the veracity of their claims. Doesn't matter how good of a person they are. That's the point. Bad Empanada has linked things that you retweet that you obviously accept as true. And yet, based on all of these tweets, he's an unhinged immoral piece of shit.

But that doesn't change any of the true things he's said, does it?

THAT is the point. Truth is truth whether it's said by an unhinged Hamas propagandist that wants to masturbate to the sight of Israelis being raped, or an edgy politics debater making fun of a girl for wanting people to feel bad about the really, really dumb decision she keeps making.

Let me rephrase what I said then: Pavlov from what I've seen of his tweets often either spreads misinformation/lies or is usually incorrect in most things he says. I did not say anything about the kind of person he was. Regardless of the person he is, he still should tell the truth as fact checked, not as he wants people to believe.

Either way, I'm going to use legit sources instead of tweeters' summarized tweets, even though people like Hasan have actual knowledge in what they're talking about.

 

[xi0]

Just absolutely allergic to not getting dogwalked

 

[shionoro]

This is sadly normal tho. Before every peace agreement, both sides usually try to get as much violence done as they can before they have to stop.

 

[M3J]

In this case, it's Israel committing the violence

 

[shionoro]

In this case, it's Israel committing the violence

Absolutely, I kinda doubt the other sides are even capable of striking back (except Iran) rn.

 

[xi0]

Dishonest or idiotic?

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 27, 2024, Original Post Date: Nov 27, 2024 ---

This is sadly normal tho. Before every peace agreement, both sides usually try to get as much violence done as they can before they have to stop.

The optics are still insanely unfavorable to any foreign policy acumen Biden still possesses

 

[ninjabot]

Dishonest or idiotic?

Both. Idiotic because she thinks we don't know that Conservatives can be kind, empathetic people. Our problem isn't with their interpersonal behavior, it's with their political values/actions, because it's like they're immune to the dissonance that should happen when they make decisions counter to their supposed Christian morals. Or supposed patriotism that touts liberty and pursuit of happiness... and freedom of religion.

I keep saying "our" and "we" because I still refuse to take the stance that liberals and centrist democrats aren't members of the left.

Dishonest, because she's doing the same thing the podcasters like Rogan do and equating the entirety of the Democratic party with our more radical far-left members.

 

[M3J]

Absolutely, I kinda doubt the other sides are even capable of striking back (except Iran) rn.

from all evidence, most of them aren't, but weren't you the one defending Israel months or years ago?

 

[shionoro]

from all evidence, most of them aren't, but weren't you the one defending Israel months or years ago?

Yes, some years ago, I saw that conflict differently and had a generally different outlook on things.

 

[M3J]

Yes, some years ago, I saw that conflict differently and had a generally different outlook on things.

okay good, I was afraid of misremembering. But that is why I said what I said, as for some reason even with evidence out there people still think Israel is defending itself.


Ugh, I can see Trump making everything expensive and actually causing "Trumpflation" with his policies. I don't know if Harris actually planned to carry out her promises, but her policies were still better.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 28, 2024, Original Post Date: Nov 27, 2024 ---

yeeeah, if Biden wasn't doing shit like this, then I'm sure Harris would have done better.

 

[shionoro]

It is very rare for political leaders to question their countries' geopolitical alignments for real. Biden, Trump and Harris would all have supported Israel, with varying degrees for sure but none of them would be willing or able to stop support in the current situation. In order to do that, it would take a really dedicated leader that ran on a different kind of foreign policy.

That is why I said back then that there is a strong contrast between someone who is actually a leftist at core and a left leaning moderate. It can look close as there is a lot of overlap on ideas and some on policy, but a moderate Leftist like Sanders would not support weapon deliveries like that, while a left leaning moderate will if the geopolitical lines seem to call for it. Because he is going to try to protect the status quo and the status quo is that israel is an ally.

This isn't even meant as a slight. I do not think someone like Joe Biden or Donald Trump can just stop weapons to Israel, because the power system they ran on demands it. They are never going to do it unless the pressure is so insanely high that the people who are more diehard than them get cold feet. (as a point of comparison, it took german moderates months until they felt comfortable suspending nord stream 2 even after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Even with insane pressure from other political parties and the population, they would first exhaust every other option. That is the stage the US and EU seem to be in with Israel right now).

 

[Franckie]

Both. Idiotic because she thinks we don't know that Conservatives can be kind, empathetic people. Our problem isn't with their interpersonal behavior, it's with their political values/actions, because it's like they're immune to the dissonance that should happen when they make decisions counter to their supposed Christian morals. Or supposed patriotism that touts liberty and pursuit of happiness... and freedom of religion.

I keep saying "our" and "we" because I still refuse to take the stance that liberals and centrist democrats aren't members of the left.

Dishonest, because she's doing the same thing the podcasters like Rogan do and equating the entirety of the Democratic party with our more radical far-left members.

While many voters are well-aware there are drastic differences between the two parties, they see little distinction between the leaders of said parties. And there is some truth to this. For the past 30+ years, the educated professional class that is now the bedrock of the Democratic Party championed lifestyle freedom for minority groups while simultaneously championing corporatist policies (e.g., "free trade" agreements) that benefited themselves at the very expense of their base. It also became nigh-impossible to accomplish anything in blue states, like building more affordable housing. People sense there's something amiss with today's Democratic Party, which is why nowadays they either stay home or vote Republican, figuring they're better off on voting for social issues since they see little distinction between the two parties on pocketbook issues.

 

[M3J]

It is very rare for political leaders to question their countries' geopolitical alignments for real. Biden, Trump and Harris would all have supported Israel, with varying degrees for sure but none of them would be willing or able to stop support in the current situation. In order to do that, it would take a really dedicated leader that ran on a different kind of foreign policy.

That is why I said back then that there is a strong contrast between someone who is actually a leftist at core and a left leaning moderate. It can look close as there is a lot of overlap on ideas and some on policy, but a moderate Leftist like Sanders would not support weapon deliveries like that, while a left leaning moderate will if the geopolitical lines seem to call for it. Because he is going to try to protect the status quo and the status quo is that israel is an ally.

This isn't even meant as a slight. I do not think someone like Joe Biden or Donald Trump can just stop weapons to Israel, because the power system they ran on demands it. They are never going to do it unless the pressure is so insanely high that the people who are more diehard than them get cold feet. (as a point of comparison, it took german moderates months until they felt comfortable suspending nord stream 2 even after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Even with insane pressure from other political parties and the population, they would first exhaust every other option. That is the stage the US and EU seem to be in with Israel right now).

Biden can stop weapons to Israel, he chooses not to because Israel benefits him and the country. He, Trump, Harris, and whoever could do something about stopping Israel and setting up an actual ceasefire that Israel has to honor, but they let the genocidal country get away with whatever even as other countries try to hold it accountable.

 

[shionoro]

Biden can stop weapons to Israel, he chooses not to because Israel benefits him and the country. He, Trump, Harris, and whoever could do something about stopping Israel and setting up an actual ceasefire that Israel has to honor, but they let the genocidal country get away with whatever even as other countries try to hold it accountable.

I don't think he can do that. I wouldnt know how, leave alone without losing power instantly and being pressured by both sides of the political spectrum to correct course in the end.

 

[ninjabot]

While many voters are well-aware there are drastic differences between the two parties, they see little distinction between the leaders of said parties. And there is some truth to this. For the past 30+ years, the educated professional class that is now the bedrock of the Democratic Party championed lifestyle freedom for minority groups while simultaneously championing corporatist policies (e.g., "free trade" agreements) that benefited themselves at the very expense of their base. It also became nigh-impossible to accomplish anything in blue states, like building more affordable housing. People sense there's something amiss with today's Democratic Party, which is why nowadays they either stay home or vote Republican, figuring they're better off on voting for social issues since they see little distinction between the two parties on pocketbook issues.

Yeah. I keep seeing more and more reason why populism is growing in popularity, and discontent with the status quo seems to be the biggest determining factor. I really don't like populism. Or at least what it appears to be to me. I know the presidential race is a big popularity contest already for a lot of people, but there's gotta be some way to counter-act it.

 

[kkck]

Populism is something I've sort of changed my mind on. Distinct from demagogy or an outright polularity contest of course, political parties should strive to do the things they were voted in office for. As in, things people want. Democracy is inherently populist. In practice of course there's sort of a balance between things that politicians personally strive to achieve (either for greed or for their own values) and things they campaigned on because they were popular. And of course it's also important for a politician to be able to sell voters on ideas. Overall neither party has been effective at improving the economic situation of the middle class over the past.... 25 years which you'd think would have both parties in full on permanent panic mode by now. Instead it's a circlejerk over stock market gains and 3-4% gdp growth that doesn't trickle down.

 

[xi0]

I keep saying "our" and "we" because I still refuse to take the stance that liberals and centrist democrats aren't members of the left.

In America, sure. But I think someone not being MAGA or even nominally Republican doesn't automatically make them Left. And I think this is backed up in most other places in the world where most liberals or centrist democrats would be considered center right. Politics shouldn't really be considered on a single axis really, but.... a "centrist democrat" is really just a member of the corporatist establishment and only adopts progressive social positions when it's no longer unpopular to do so. Just look at how long it took Hillary Clinton to support marriage equality. Changing your views over time is natural, only doing do when it's no longer a threat to your grasp on power makes you a charlatan before anything else.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 30, 2024, Original Post Date: Nov 30, 2024 ---

https://www.commondreams.org/news/bernie-sanders-third-party

It's good that he says what he says and continues to do so, but a part of it seems hollow if there isn't real change being done. I get that he's probably too old to see that kind of thing through, but idk.

 

[shionoro]

To me, being on the left means to push for meaningful social change that is fit to achieve freedom, community and equality. Liberals and centrist democrats are just not doing that. They push for some policies that make conditions for poor people nicer, but they wouldnt push for the end of poverty when it is rough for their core voting groups. That is the difference between being on the left and being a centrist.

And I am not saying that to say leftists are better people. My view is that any successful push for these values has to reach people who are not in the left&green bubble and that leftists are often unduly demeaning to other people. But we just cannot pretend that moderate democrats and people who care mostly about woke issues and optics are fighting for the same things as someone who is still for the end of homelessness when people are rallying against the homeless.