What Happened to the USA

Post Reply New Topic

You're simply restating what I said in my second post in this thread. Society has severe contradictions that are continuing to deepen. You've got 2 main factions moving in diametrically opposite directions.

As for open-mindedness, your mind needs hinges. If it's too open, your mind will end up a welter. If it's too closed, you may miss beneficial information. I accept the scientific consensus. In my view, if someone disagrees with it and wants to convince me, then they need to be able to convince the scientists. I am generally skeptical of attempts like yours to bypass the scientific community and appeal directly to laymen who lack extensive knowledge of the subject. I am generally skeptical of such attempts and they have a very high bar to meet to convince me if they can't convince very many experts with extensive education and training in the relevant field.

Apparently, you strongly disagree. Therein lies the contradictions.

I really can't tell you my opinions about what happened to it because I'll risk being banned from WP. Again. Maybe permanently this time.

That's what happens when you say things that sound like hate speech but is really the truth.

Could we be evolving more toward a real democracy, in which everyone gets to express their opinion?

And you have a growing loose collective of people who are rejecting the partisanship of both factions, yet both factions consider such people to be part of the other. As someone who has been anti-partisan for years, I'd rather not see that loose collective turn into some "neo-third-way" faction, limited by its extremists.



The laymen are bypassing the scientific community and reading reports from journalists and politicians rather than studies and research. Far from asking people to believe me at my word, I'm advocating learning the science, reading the research, and making up your own mind. I'm sure that many people who do so will come to the same conclusion I have - that it's not a settled matter - just as I'm sure it will only serve to reinforce the minds of many of those who have already chosen to believe either 100% for or against.

You're advocating fear of uncertainty, which is another line of persuasion used by the dogmatic.

I may have an open mind, but it's surrounded by a moat and accessible only via drawbridge. You can bet your mortgage I'll yank that bad boy shut as soon as I come under fire - because that's virtually universal.



I'm hoping that's what this all leads to. I have a few private predictions regarding the future of Western politics, and despite the usual pains associated with change, I'm feeling quite positive about it all.

There is an excellent piece on this in US News & World Report:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/ ... annopoulos

I was going to add my own thoughts here, but I think the piece I'm quoting pretty much says it all. Anyone who cares about this will find the middle section with the quote from Arthur Schlesinger worth reading and an interesting historical frame. This problem is not exclusively the property of the left.

Adamantium, that's what Edward R. Murrow did with Joe McCarthy in 1954. He had his people simply record McCarthy's ranting at the Army-McCarthy hearings, then tossed it on the air as is, no edits, no comments. Once people saw what a drunk weirdo McCarthy was, he got the boot from the court of public opinion, and ultimately drank himself to death. So, what the left should do is simply sneak a camcorder (one with a lot of memory!) into Yiannopoulous's "speeches", then upload the footage to Youtube. Cockroaches hate the light. True in 1954, true in 2017.

You do know those speeches are usually live streamed right? It's no great mystery what is said, Milo is indeed a clown and clearly not this insidious force of evil that some apparently think he is. He is a free speech advocate in this day and in age in academia where being a traditionalist conservative is now grounds for expulsion and apparently lynch mobs too, his schtick being that he can get away saying these things as he's an effeminate gay British Jew who loves black men. It's really not anymore sophisticated than that but you're 100% right that the anticipated response is what really makes it worth it to Milo and proves his point that our free speech is under attack.

That technique is good when the guy is a drunk weirdo. Not so good when the guy seems not particularly drunk, high or weird, and can form reasonably coherent sentences. Sometimes it's better to ignore them, but Sometimes you do have to engage on content. Many are afraid to do that because they don't want to acknowledge the small truths that are the launching point for the big lies and hate.

Bannon has been very shrewd about using real information as a lever to position his ideology. To many lazy and thoughtless people who oppose him are unprepared to deal with that. They need to sharpen their game or get out of the fight.

I saw the DP show with Milo and he was pretty funny. I dont agree with everything he says, but he has some interesting opinions that deserve protection.

adifferentname,

I recommend reading digests by scientists for the general public, and possibly reviews. The issue with reading individual studies is that there are a lot of them, a single study may have spurious results or bad methodology, and it may be difficult for a layman to put each of them into context. There is also the issue of time. Not everyone interested in an issue has time (or other necessary characteristics) to gain the extensive knowledge that someone with a doctorate in the field has, which can make it difficult to judge the studies, so the issue becomes, What sources do we trust? What can we depend on?

For a medical issue like gender transition, I would trust resources like the Merck Manual and reviews in the relevant field which can be found on PubMed, both of which are written by experts in the field, including physicians and psychologists.

For climate change, I would trust the IPCC, which per Wiki has "thousands of scientists and other experts" "writing and reviewing reports". They review a lot of the research and release it in a format that policymakers and other laymen can understand.

Given that most of us have only so much time and capacity to take in and integrate information on an issue, it is imperative to have good sources to look at which can provide a digest. For the issues above, I think these sources are good.

For a layman, perhaps. For me, not so much. Don't make assumptions about the depths of my scientific knowledge.



Now you're advocating scepticism. I thoroughly approve! Take it a step further though. You haven't given me good cause to trust your judgement of what makes a good source.



It's tempting to respond to that with an eye-rolling smiley.

For the record, I do believe that you're genuinely trying to be helpful. Having your heart in the right place counts for a lot in my book.

My counter-recommendation, though, is that you refrain from implying that I'm ignorant, no matter how politely you express it. It's admirable that you've ditched 'my position is morally correct'. Don't replace it with 'you don't understand the subject well enough' or similar.



I've mentioned why I, on the other hand, do not trust the IPCC, previously on this forum. Presumably you're already aware of the common objections to their reports, so I won't massively derail the thread by reiterating them here. I doubt it's going to alter your position, and it would take us way over the off-topic boundary.



You mentioned a paint-by-numbers medical reference book/website (albeit a renowned one), a search engine and an organisation that's been heavily criticised for its practices, multiple controversies and its worryingly close ties to the governments it "advises". I don't think your sources are at all adequate, but I very much appreciate the intent behind your post, if not the delivery.

adifferentname,

Tell us about the depths of your scientific knowledge. Do you have a degree? What field do you specialize in? Have you been published? If so, could you tell us your published works? Or, if you don't wish to reveal your name, can you give us an idea of the nature of your published works? Thank you.

I've personally noticed that since I've purchased my house 16 years ago, the roses are blooming earlier and earlier in the year. At first, roses would be in peak bloom on the first day of Summer, which is right around Father's day. Now most of the roses are done blooming by that time. And it isn't just my yard, other people around me have noticed the same thing. Wish I could figure out how to move the peak bloom back to where it was.

I feel like part of the problem lies in the weird strain of christianity which people don't often acknowledge. Plenty of people have preachers as apocalyptic as Jeremiah Wright, but since they aren't aggrieved black men it doesn't make as much news.

Lots of our elected officials sincerely believe Jesus will come back in their lifetimes to punish their critics. Many of their constituents feel the same, and it will definitely affect their long-term planning. Also, there's an interpretation of the bible which says the earth is ours to use up, because it has a short expiration date, after all.

On the left, we require our politicians to say a bunch of stuff. Some of it makes sense, and some of it doesn't, and some of it changes on a dime or contradicts other stuff. The right does it too, but we're worse about it. It's hard to be a tough opponent when you have to spend half your time signaling your virtue. It takes time away from virtuous acts.

We've also had a huge political shift. Racists can make exceptions for individuals, and its clear that a lot of racists in the Democratic party did that for Obama. When Trump appealed directly to those ideas, they jumped ship. Most of the racists have finally gone over to the Republican side.

At this point, I can only hope that it ends up with a war of secession rather than a race war. As long as any attempt to reach a consensus gets met with overwhelming ridicule, we won't get anywhere.

Authorities must prove their arguments as much as anyone else, beneficii. Satisfying your request would only impact upon my anonymity, which I value above your esteem.

I think the racists have lost already. The younger generation thought it was a settled issue. The fact that it came back isn't going to change their minds that inter-racial marriage is now acceptable among young people.

http://www.pewresearch.org/2010/02/01/a ... -marriage/