Anonymoose provided me and interesting opportunity here. I thought the topic was so important that I made it its own post.
"I'm not interested in going round after round where you repeat the same nonsense that you believe is so brilliant but is really only a way for you to explain how much better you think you are than 'those' people who've not lived up to your standards.
You are bad at this in that you always come back to the same talking points. Instead of these conversations and arguments leading you to a new thought, you somehow lead yourself right back around to where you've always been.
And you ask other people to change and grow so they can be 'deserving' of living in the greatest country on the planet, all while not changing a single thing about your own ideas.
So instead of those other people changing in order to please your sense of fairness, perhaps it's time to reevaluate your own personal sense of what's fair. In other words: start with yourself.
Anonymoose"
"Actually I started with myself long ago when I figured out that I should help others by increasing my charitable giving greatly. Then I took action and kept doing it, I even made make up payments after my laid off period. I do not say this to brag, I say this to try to help people understand that generosity and giving starts at home, not at the State and Federal capitols. Giving away someone else's money is not sacrificing for others.
As for... "Instead of these conversations and arguments leading you to a new thought, you somehow lead yourself right back around to where you've always been."
That does seem to be the norm of human nature. I have been discussing topics with this group of people for ~8 years and I am pretty sure that no one has greatly changed their minds in any substantial way. Though I think they all appreciate a chance to state their views and learn how the other side thinks.
Please remember that G2A is not about convincing anyone of anything, it is just a safe place the discuss very thorny issues. (see blog statement below)
"Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc."
So what would being good at this look like?
Whose views should I adopt and support? (ie Hiram's, Laurie's, Sean's, Jerry's, yours, Dems, GOP, Progressives, Tea Party, other)
Which of you are correct and which of who are idiots?
How would one know?
So if you dislike listening to and disagreeing with opposing views, then maybe retreating into a Liberal bubble is safer and more enjoyable for you. I however think that this is the problem with our country, people keep listening to people who reinforce their version of reality and avoiding people with a different version that those people support equally strongly. No wonder we are split.
The "tastes great" and "less filling" people just keep yelling at each other. Certain that they are correct and everyone else is an idiot. Or worse yet insisting that those other guys are out to hurt people and/or America." G2AThoughts?
17 comments:
Speaking of political bubbles, Our Donald urged people to listen to Judge Pirro on Fox News last night when she was up against the NCAA final eight. What version of America does this guy live in?
--Hiram
In terms of getting good school results, we waste too much attention on high achievement kids. It's a simple matter of arithmetic. If a kid is in the 99th percentile, there is no amount of spending, no amount of effort that can improve that kid's statistical performance. Any money at all is a waste, particularly when those same dollars can be allocated to someone in the middle of the Bell Curve whose results can be improved with effort.
--Hiram
A while back, a friend of mine played for me a "videotape" of League of Women Voters forum from 1984. The candidates were talking about the same things they talk about today.
--Hiram
Per anonymoose's comment, one would think we would all be in ageement by now...
I mean 1984 was along time ago.
I think your views have evolved some on education,John, partially as a result of information from me and other sources. I also think your views are a little bit less libertarian / Ayn Randian and slightly less anti poor people. That last part makes no sense as your favorite talking point lately is constant putting down of babymakers.
I think my view s have shifted a tiny bit on education that teachers need unions to be treated fairly, as in my school high seniority teachers have not been let go to save $.
I usually stick to liberal talking points here and am probably viewed as a strong liberal / far left, but I consider myself a moderate liberal and don't think I post my moderate views as often. I actually find myself disagreeing with the far left quite a bit.
I think I've been around discussion groups like this for much longer than G2A. I appreciate the true "forum" aspect, despite the seemingly rigid ideologies on display. To me the challenge has always been in how to express my views clearly and succinctly, and in a way that conveys to others what I believe to be true, whether they accept it or not.
I believe the biggest problem is actually communication, that quite often we are saying the same things in different ways, and even more certainly that we all want the same desirable ends, disagreeing only on the means. I think "bubble" is an unfortunate term, too. So long as people have arrived at their positions somewhat logically, based on some number of (although selectively chosen) facts rather than some "talking points" handed to them, I think they are entitled to participate in the discussion.
I like bubble because it seems difficult for me to believe that people can come to a reasoned conclusion while only watching FOX News, or Mother Jones, or other?
And with the ever increasing popularity of internet and cable news, the far Left can avoid CNN, NBC, Fox, etc. And the far Right can avoid CNN, NBC, Mother Jones, etc. And worse yet they can live on and participate in forums that continually reinforce their rationale / logic and bash the other view. No wonder both sides are getting more extreme.
I mean consider Anonymoose's comment. I assume they think that by discussing topics often I should invariably shift to their view point. Which I assume they are certain is correct because it is often reinforced by what and who they choose to read and listen too.
It would be like me needing to become a man made climate change denier because Jerry continually makes his case. Which of course he internally reinforces by listening to and giving credibility to denier sources.
My point is that this is what people do... Reinforcement Theory Described
Well of course that is what people do. And each side believe the other irrational because of the inherent logic and supporting evidence which they have. It is why even in this oasis of "calm" discussion, few minds are ever changed. I am always content, in the end, knowing that "you can either agree with me, or you can be wrong."
And I don't think sources of information have as much to do with anybody's position as you might think. I believe information processing style is more important, that is, the ability to discern "truth" from dissenting sources. I used to read that liberal rag the Star Tribune and dropped it because it took too long to sift through the biased reporting to extract the nuggets of fact, which I could then easily confirm from any other source, like the NYT or Fox or Drudge. Having the facts I could draw my own conclusions.
Your example on climate change almost contradicts your own premise. When I quote the EPA and IPCC in denying that fossil fuels have a significant impact on climate, you DENY the very same sources you use to claim they DO. Seems to me the appropriate term for you may be "climate denier denier." :-)
Jerry,
One problem... You pretty much never directly quote these experts.
Your quotes / links are usually to climate denier sites who selectively pick, choose and twist what they say.
Jerry,
Seems to me that you Anonymoose have something in common... :-)
"you can either agree with me, or you can be wrong."
As for "I used to read that liberal rag the Star Tribune and dropped it because it took too long to sift through the biased reporting to extract the nuggets of fact,"
I think this explains "reinforcement theory" excellently. My bet is that you and Anonymoose could read the same article, highlight the crucial facts and have totally different parts highlighted.
"One problem... You pretty much never directly quote these experts."
That statement has TWO problems. One is that I directly quote the head of the EPA, and the second is that she is not an EXPERT. Many of the "deniers" are highly qualified scientists, using actual facts and numbers, while the cultists simply spout platitudes with no basis in fact. And let me help just a little bit. Whenever you hear somebody say "climate change is happening" just say "of course it is, climate changes all the time" and do not get excited about it. If somebody goes back to the /former/ appellation of "Global Warming," the ONLY change their climate models show, then they are trying to hoodwink you. Just because the world gets warmer is ZERO evidence that manmade CO2 is causing it, or at the bare minimum it is an insignificant contributor. The proof is readily available if you just look, and I shouldn't have to find it for you.
"My bet is that you and Anonymoose could read the same article, highlight the crucial facts and have totally different parts highlighted."
You might win that bet, but not because facts are not facts, but because A-moose might not be able to separate out the facts from the fables. It takes a practiced eye. My advice is to go to a news source that is fact-rich and start there. If the liberal rags confirm the same fact, even surrounded by fable, you can proceed to your own conclusions rather than theirs.
How do you get through the door with that head size?
So apparently everyone who disagrees with you is incapable, unskilled, naïve, can't analyze effectively, prone to being scammed, wrong, etc?
It is interesting that most people are very much like you and me. Fairly certain that we are capable, smart and correct...
So apparently everyone who disagrees with you is incapable, unskilled, naïve, can't analyze effectively, prone to being scammed, wrong, etc?
Lots of people who disagree with me are capable, skilled sophisticated and a bit too effectively analytical to my taste. Trump is a scam artist, but lots of his supporters remain unscammed by him which raises an entirely different set of political and moral issues. Furthermore, I don't think that people who disagree with me are wrong, necessarily. Very often they just represent a different set of people.
As for myself, believe me, I am very conscious of my limitations.
--Hiram
Post a Comment