Monday, July 02, 2018
This Moment Isn't What You Think It Is.
Posted by Nomad at 11:43 AM 4 comments
Labels: blindside, christianity, division, divisiveness, enemy, politics, religion, strategy
Friday, April 13, 2018
Political Fallacies: "I don't understand" isn't an argument
There is a particular kind of weirdness that is common on social media these days. A post goes something like this:
"I don't understand how anyone can be against this. If you oppose it, you're a bad person."
Posted by Nomad at 9:48 AM 0 comments
Labels: engagement, fallacies, fallacy, I don't know, I don't understand, ignorance, logic, politics, stop, think clearly
Monday, April 09, 2018
Political Fallacies: Protests are a feature of democracy not a bug
The modern attitude toward peaceful protest is weird and contradictory.
Most of us look back on historical protests with affection and admiration:
- Martin Luther: Overthrew the dominant position of the Catholic Church on European life and theology without ever swinging a sword (although, his writings sometimes provoked violence on both sides). He is admired by all Protestants and seen as a key figured of history.
- Mahatma Gandhi: Gained independence for India from the British Empire without firing a shot. He is admired and widely quoted on social media.
- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr: Lead the Civil Rights Movement for African-Americans which ultimately brought about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He has his own federal holiday and is nearly universally admired.
- Tiananmen Square: Because of the nature of Chinese media, we don't know the names of the peaceful protesters. Even the famous man who blocked a column of armored vehicles is only known as "Tank Man". But these brave men and women are admired around the world.
- Online speech is solitary - one voice in the wilderness - whereas Peaceful Assembly brings together people to work together towards change.
- Anonymous speech is useful but may imply a lack of courage. Peaceful Assembly requires the protester to put themselves into the public space and declare their position.
- Written speech can be ignored by looking away. Peaceful Assembly forces its way into the attention of the public and the powerful.
Friday, April 06, 2018
Political Fallacies: Don't Trust Anyone
There is an old axiom amongst journalists: "Follow the money." There is another old saying from Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." And, of course, there is the old scriptural chesnut: "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." - 1 Timothy 6:10a (ESV)
Money is a useful thing and not evil in and of itself. It allows us to trade and exchange for goods and services without having to barter for each and every transaction. Money allows us to live. And because of that, money becomes an easy lever to manipulate people. Whether we realize it or not, any threat to our source of income is a threat to ourselves. And we will act to protect it.
The problem is, this normal human reaction is not restricted to "bad people" or "corrupt politicians". It happens every day in the news that you read. Every news organization has to be sensitive to the people paying the bills. PBS is dependent on donors and government funding. CNN and FoxNews are dependent on their big corporate advertisers. Facebook is dependent on its network of both big corporate and small-scale advertisers. And because of this, all of these news sources have to ensure their reporting never offends their supporters to the point where funding is withdrawn.
This was most recently and dramatically seen in the case of Laura Ingraham and David Hogg where a casual insult by the conservative host against the Parkland, FL teen caused her advertisers to pull their funding.
This means that every news source you value is inherently biased. It is not that the journalists there intend to deceive, but they and their editors consciously or subconsciously slant their reporting to keep the money flowing. It is well known that CNN tends to liberal views and FoxNews tends towards conservative views. But even your local paper will inevitably be biased by its own local sources of revenue.
What is the problem with this?
- No source of information can be trusted 100%, no matter how honest or sincere it is.
- You'll never have all the facts if you rely on a single source.
- Any attempt to "fix" bias will just lead to new biases driven by new funding sources.
Here are a few sources offering different viewpoints:
- http://www.realclearpolitics.com: Presents opinion pieces from Left, Right, and Middle
- https://news.google.com: News aggregator from Left, Right, and middle
- http://www.bbc.com/news: Reporting from outside the USA which has British biases instead of American ones.
- http://www.drudgereport.com: News aggregator for Conservative news sources
- https://www.drudge.com: News aggregator for Liberal news sources
Posted by Nomad at 8:17 AM 0 comments
Labels: clearly, equal time, fallacies, fallacy, money, politics, stop, think
Thursday, April 05, 2018
Political Fallacies: Yes, Virginia, We're All Hypocrites
I have bad news for you. You're a hypocrite. Yes, the epithet Jesus consistently applied to his enemies also applies to you. Think I'm wrong? Consider this:
- If you're "Pro-Life" on abortion, odds are you support the Death Penalty
- If you're "Pro-Choice" on abortion, odds are you oppose choice when it comes to Gun Ownership
Exactly.
If you've spent any time at all in the politics of late, you see one kind of story shared and re-shared relentlessly, whether it be on social media, blogs, or traditional media. The basic template is this:
- Such-and-So said this about a political issue
- The same person also said the opposite about a different political issue
- This proves they are a hypocrite
- Therefore, you should ignore everything Such-and-So says
- Genetic Fallacy: Discrediting an argument by going after a person instead of addressing the ideas they raise.
- Straw Man Fallacy: Discrediting an argument by presenting an oversimplified and incorrect version of it.
- Whataboutism: Discrediting an argument by raising another issue that is irrelevant but alarming, instead of addressing the ideas they raise.
- A confidence artist convinced you to turn off your brain.
- It's impossible to convince an opponent you never engage with.
- It's impossible to learn anything unless you engage those you disagree with.
Wednesday, April 04, 2018
Political Fallacies: Ideas vs Teams
A recent study confirmed what I have been observing over the last dozen years or so. In the USA, politics is no longer a battle of ideas but a competition between teams.
Of course, it has always been so to some extent. Politics is the science of forming coalitions to further personal goals. This is why we have a Congress to pass laws instead of an enlightened king or executive: only by forming coalitions can we ensure that the top priorities of the maximum number are achieved. This is also why we have political parties: to allow people to come together and form an alliance that achieves goals that not everyone wants but that everyone in the party can live with.
But while parties and coalitions drive votes, it has been ideas that have driven the parties. From the beginning of the nation, political parties worked to ensure their top priorities were based on more than personal preferences and piques. Federalism and Anti-Federalism were defining issues because the first generation had severe disagreements over whether centralization or decentralization were better for the freedom of the individual and the good of the nation. (We are still fighting that battle in the Gun Control debate, among others.) Kennedy to Reagan defended Democracy over Communism not only as a practical matter but also in the arena of ideas as they fought in the Cold War. As recently as President Bill Clinton, the debates over Health Care Reform were over the idea of a government-run universal system and a privately-run independent system. Which was really better for the consumer, the nation, and the world?
Something different has followed the rise of social media. We no longer are talking about big ideas. The formation of echo chambers where we only speak with those who agree with us have eliminated the need to defend a position. Instead, we defend our "friends" against all attackers, right or wrong. Our political parties have turned into teams. And like the Yankees or the Red Sox, it no longer matters who has the best players, best managers, best philosophy, or best mascot. We support our team simply because it is OUR team.
What is the problem with this? There are several, which you have probably noticed in the politics of the last 8 years or so:
- If you support a Team instead of a Philosophy, you find yourself loving or hating people based on their allegiance instead of their character.
- If you support a Team instead of an Idea, you find yourself supporting and defending things that you don't actually believe.
- If you support a Team instead of an Ethical System, you see no problem in hating someone simply because they support the other team.