This wasn’t the steel man. The steel man was the effort to find a fundamental agreement (let’s make abortion rare!). This is then the evidence-based prescription to get us from point A to point B, drawing on factors that are important to both the political right and the political left that have been proven to reduce abortions when implemented, while reducing as much suffering as possible for all agents (the mother, and the developing agency of the fetus).
And it seems like you are trying to characterize some of my beliefs, which for the sake of the steel man I will try to clarify
Let’s use integral language rather than media language here, as per your suggestion. I am in no way “anti-religion”. Nor am I “anti-amber” in terms of our ongoing development.
What I am against is placing amber leadership in positions of power that are beyond amber’s complexity. I am against encoding amber ethnocentrism into law, whether that be the metaphysics of abortion, bias against immigrants, etc.
And I am not saying that all conservatives are amber, nor am I saying that all religious people are amber. I am saying, however, that amber fundamentalists make up a large portion of the GOPs voting base, and so the GOP leadership naturally caters to this level of development.
I am also not “very bullish on expansion of state powers”. However, I am also not anti-authority. I believe in a meritocratic system where expertise is earned, and then should be seriously listened to. I believe there is a unique strain of anti-authority AND anti-intellectualism in this country that has effected our two parties in different ways.
And it should be noted, that many of the remedies that you have advocated for would also eliminate free choice. Texas just eliminated free choice for virtually all the women who live there. Forcing companies like Facebook (who, again, I loathe) to allow anyone who wants to use their platform eliminates free choice for businesses. Trump’s immigration policies eliminate free choice for people seeking asylum.
In fact, a great many ethnocentric-driven laws can be seen to “increase choice for us, decrease choice for them”. I think there is an important partial truth to this quote, which I will qualify in brackets:
“[Ethnocentric, amber] conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” -Frank Wilhoit
That is a faulty reconstruction of my interiors Again, I do not use Qanon as a catch-all for “people I disagree with”. It is a specific belief system.
That’s fine, we don’t always need to find common ground. But I will say that this goes against the fundamental premise I thought we agreed on — the goal is to reduce the total number of abortions, in as compassionate a way as possible. And there are mountains of evidence that show that sex education does not “groom children to fuel the abortion industry”, it is actually one of the primary proven ways to reduce abortion rates, alongside easy access to contraceptives.
This comment is controversial and dismissal of other peoples thinking making it highly political. As you suggested a very large percentage of Republican voters believe that to be true. A sentiment very familiar to many of us old enough to remember Gore/Bush 2000 recount and again in 2016 regarding Russian inference that stole the election.
FYI I do not want to be in the political debate here I just want to suggest that a better way to argue the integral nuances is through acknowledging that not everyone shares that view. So making that as a declarative statement makes it political and automatically shuts down an honest rational conversation with those who disagree.
I am happy to see @FermentedAgave trying to reach across the disconnected divides I hope that will continue. ~ Peace
There’s no conflating here, it is simply a list of evidence that, taken together, makes a fairly convincing case (to me and to many others) that there is an unnerving rise of conspiratorial thinking taking place here.
…who believe that Democrats are literal satanic baby-eating pedophiles who run the world.
…that emerged in the Post-Trump world and is well known for disinformation and fake news
…same, with millions among their audience, intentionally trying to “out-right” Fox News.
…and ENTIERLY PARTISAN firm with no prior experience who was contracted by Republicans to audit the 2020 election.
Not an opinion. He demonstrably lost the election, but continues to lie and say he did.
…which, as Sydney Powell herself recently revealed, “was intended to be used to give Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito time to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election victory.”
…like the time Tucker Carlson told his audience to accuse parents of masked children of child abuse. Being “anti-mandate” does not explain why vaccination rates are still so low in Republican enclaves. In fact, mandates would never be necessary in the first place if people made more responsible decisions in their own rational self-interest Which is sort of the crux of it – authoritarianism becomes more necessary when people begin to abandon their personal responsibilities to the collective, which I believe is one of the many victims of 40 years of neoliberalism and the “cult of individualism” it created.
Personally, I have some issues with vaccine mandates. However, I think mask mandates are 100% justifiable and should be implemented in public spaces whenever there is an outbreak like this. If a restaurant can mandate “no shoes, no service”, then there is no reason they can’t add a mask to the dress code.
I used the weasel word “apparently” because I am still trying to locate the data for this one But we do know that the vast majority of people who are being admitted into the ICUs, and the majority of people subsequently dying, are the ones who are not vaccinated. And I believe there is evidence that a great many people (not all) who refuse to get vaccinated are making that decision based on misinformation and/or propaganda.
He is lying about it.
He continues to lie about it.
There is zero evidence of massive voter fraud - even after the partisan Arizona audit.
The few instances of voter fraud actually documented and investigated actually turned out to be Republican voters.
Yes, the false narrative completely contrary to the facts needs to be 100% challenged and dismissed.
I actually think this might be about as close as we can get to the “flat earth” vs. “round earth” example
I don’t personally care that many people “believe” Trump won. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and without that evidence, the claims can be thrown right out. Just like all those frivolous lawsuits were thrown right out of the courts, and many of the attorneys are now facing severe legal consequences.
I think we need to stop catering to “beliefs” and move forward with the evidence at hand. We have legal mechanisms to falsify that evidence, and the Trump campaign tried to pull as many of those levers as they could to prove their case. They were unsuccessful. So rational people should be able to agree that Trump’s claim that he actually won is, in fact, a lie.
And I don’t think these are really comparable to 2000 or 2016.
In 2000, we had extremely contentious results in Florida, which was such a clusterfuck we had to call on the Supreme Court – who not only made a completely unprecedented decision, but also demanded that their decision not be held as precedent in future. Gore then conceded to Bush.
In 2016 we had a great many reports about Russian interference, and the question was how much the Trump campaign actually knew about this interference. And after multiple investigations and reports, not just by Mueller but also by the Bipartisan Senate commission, we found that the interference really did take place, and in fact some in Trump’s orbit (namely Paul Manafort) did in fact hand over protected polling data to Russia. Despite all of this, Hillary conceded the election, and she never claimed that her political opponents were actively altering election records.
Trump, meanwhile, refused to concede. In fact, he did everything in his power to overturn the election results from within:
Trump tried to pressure secretaries of state to not certify.
Trump tried to pressure state legislatures to overturn the results.
Trump tried to get the courts to overturn the results.
Trump tried to pressure Mike Pence to overturn the results.
When all else failed, Trump tried to get a mob to overturn the results.
Now, my own Zone 5 reconstruction of Trump’s interiors tells me that he has a very clear case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and these types tend to exert a powerful “reality distortion field” (which I think Keith Witt and I are going to discuss this weekend!) It also makes it virtually impossible for these people to admit defeat, or even being wrong, which is a very clear pattern with Trump over the last 5 years (remember “Sharpiegate”? LOL). If there is even a remote possibility this armchair diagnosis is true, then we need to be very careful about limiting our discussion according to what his followers “believe” to be true, and instead stick with the objective evidence in front of us.
I think we’ve been kneeling to “belief-based politics” for far too long, which are always the products of information warfare!
I don’t have the time or desire to find more than this, but it is possible to find data linking various trends. In this case, predominantly Republican populations with Anti-vaccine beliefs.
Note Marketwatch is mostly nonpartisan. I believe they do have an agenda, but are far from being “Left”
In asking you if you recognize yourself as using these rhetorical devices which I defined, I described these devices or tactics as “hampering if not killing communication.” So that’s partially the point in my bringing it up–suggesting it does not help and indeed does hamper our communication. When deflection or sidetracking, for instance, is used, it sends a message that basically says: “I don’t value or care about or respect this thing you have said,” or the message is “I have no interest in responding or don’t know how to respond,” or the message is “I don’t want to give any ‘weight’ or apparent validation to this point you have made, so I’m just going to ignore what you’ve said and talk about my points.” In a nutshell, this makes it a relational issue, and can be both confusing and frustrating for the person on the receiving end.
We all assert our independence in these conversations, our independent views and such, and nothing wrong with that; that’s how it should be. But when independence is asserted in a conversation without regard for the interdependence that is inherent in and necessary for effective communication between two or more people, then we run into problems.
To be clear, most of us at this site have probably at one time or another, or at one time or another in the future, will use one of these rhetorical devices, intentionally or otherwise. No big deal, in my opinion, the occasional deflection, sidetrack, both-siderism, etc. The topic becomes worthy of discussion, however, when these tactics are used regularly or often by one of us.
While I think this is a bit of a deflection (shifting the focus, diverting the conversation from you and rhetorical devices to me and what you see as my inaccurate information gathering), I also consider it a bit of a “fair play” in the sense that I did speak about you personally, so you are now speaking about me personally. Tit for tat!
I’m always open to suggestions for close approximations of unbiased media information, including from conservatives, so if you have some suggestions for me, please share. I do not watch Rachel Maddow nor Don Lemon. I do not in fact watch any news broadcast full-through on television. I watch brief You Tube clips (Rachel Maddow maybe 3 times in the last year, total of maybe 15 minutes; Don Lemon maybe once in the last year), but mostly I am a reader. Of those mainstream cable stations, at MSNBC, I find Ari Melber most palatable of those I’m aware of; he is a lawyer, seems to be more careful with language, is relational with his guests, occasionally “raps,” and has and shares some good humor! But I don’t “follow” him either. Jake Tapper at CNN and Chris Wallace at Fox have both had a few good moments in the last year, but I don’t follow them either. This past week, I have spent quite a bit of time with the conservative George Will, as he’s promoting a book, I find his facility with language attractive, and have just wanted to catch up with where he’s at. I watched a 15-minute 60-minutes clip of the interview of the conservative Republican Liz Cheney. While I don’t consider her an “intellectual,” I would listen to more of her policy views, because she has shown courage and integrity around you-know-what. I plan to search out Corey’s recommendations about conservative intellectuals, and as I say, if you have suggestions, I’ll take a look. Caveat: I will not entertain spending time with Trump-supporter conservatives extolling his “virtues” with no mention of his “vices.” Hopefully history will give a full and fair rendering on Trump, his positive accomplishments and the other stuff.
Check the paragraph just before the one in my post that you extracted this quote from. The very first sentence, I speak to the “perhaps” or “probable” political motivation of Biden-Harris statements. I then went on to put their statements in context. My question for you: Was or was not Trump an unreliable source of information about Covid?
Can answer your first question here with an “absolutely not;” I did not have discussions or make the kind of statements about Trump that you’re referencing. I was too ignorant of the overall situation, actually, to have an opinion. So I didn’t.
As for the AZ. Audit, kudos to you for listening to the entire read-out. I haven’t had time to get into the details, although I did read a brief Guv’s statement that there will most likely be some follow-up in the legislature, looking at a few things. I like that in your “So what’s next?” section, you mention your assumption that Fox and Friends will continue to honk about a “stolen” election. Those kind of statements give you more credibility, imo, because you are willing to criticize “your side.” I am willing to criticize “my side” too. For instance, the recent Bill Maher video on the discussion on the tv show “The View” about a second national anthem. New Rule: Don’t Segregate the Anthem | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO) - YouTube
I didn’t see The View discussion, and while I can understand the thinking of those in support of a second national anthem (the Black people’s anthem), I don’t agree with it either. Too divisive, too “woke.”
Finally, just want to say, I don’t really see AZ. as being a solid Blue state. Yes, in the last election, we sent a second Dem Senator to Congress and voted for Biden-Harris. Also, two referendums passed with Dem majorities: a wealth tax to support education and the legalization of recreational marijuana. But we still have Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs in the House, Republicans many people nationally know by name, particularly the infamous Gosar. The state legislature is Republican majority, and the Governor of course. And most of the small counties, which are more rural, are quite conservative-Republican. We do get quite a few California transplants which may or may not turn us solid blue, but right now, I think we’re still up for grabs.
I found Pres Trump very clear, transparent and decisive regarding literally everything known in a time of many unknowns. Very refreshing to have a getter done leader instead of a life long politician. I am also not a big fan of second guessing decisions in hindsight without looking at what was known at the time of the decision.
I view thru a lens identifying domains - political doman bridges public perception to policy/legislation. From a normal course of life, family, community, business perspectives politics operates by rules we consider unethical. It is what it is so gnashing too much about it is a oft unproductive. Sadly our media has devolved into a perception milking amygdala hijack machine mostly devoid of journalism.
Policy, legislation and administration are what i focus on.
Yup, i dont see many swing states getting bluer and many becoming much redder in 22, including AZ.
Brnovich will likely crush Kelley, just my take.
I missed almost all of Dr MITs presentation, but The Federalust article might be a little less hyperbolic and bit more data based than most sources.