World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[MrPopo]

There's always a balance there. Sometimes, people need the safety net. Other times, folks abuse the safety net. It's trying to find the best way to help the people that need it while also hopefully making them productive members of society where possible. We just differ on how to achieve that at times. Meeting immediate needs versus achieving long-term goals when lifting people out of poverty can be tricky.

Another fantastic example; criminal justice. Once someone is convicted of a crime how does one punish them such that it serves as a disincentive for that behavior for them and others while also ensuring that once they have served their punishment they can return to being a productive citizen?

[dsheinem]

The media is far too conservative, all around, I believe. Too much "equal time" and "fair treatment" of demonstrably insane crackpots.

Trump was demonstrably and unequivocally the biggest liar we've ever had run for president. He told lie after lie after lie. This is not opinion, it is provable time and again. With research. With facts.

The media has problems. Having a so called "liberal bias" is not one of them.

Here's what the right has done well: created an army of boogeyman. Welfare queens. Reverse racism. Liberal media bias.

Who believes in boogeymen? Children. Idiots. The uneducated.

[o.pwuaioc]

Oh, the media definitely is biased, just look how wrong the polls were!

With sound logic like that, no wonder you voted for Trump.

I don't think snide sarcasm is helping anything here.

No offense meant here, J T, but I think you're dead wrong. Trump's election proves that the biggest lies shouted over and over again cannot be battled by kind truth. You of all people should know that our brains don't work like that. Study after study after study shows that many people double down on false beliefs when presented with what might seem to many to be undeniable truth. I'm under no illusions that the enlightenment model of rationalization is merely a fantasy, a desire wished for but forever unobtainable. And I should know, as I deeply believed in it until, starting with Nyhan and Reifler during the Bush years, I began to see the evidence for what it was.

For a long time I was a moderator at a very prominent atheist forum, and my own experiences showed that people on all sides of the theological debate easily were duped by attractive theories that emboldened their preconceived beliefs. When logic dictated that certain "proofs" of gods' existence were illogical, people resorted to faith. When strong evidence was supplied for the existence of a historical Jesus—not even a divine one, just a human!—many of us were labeled closet Christians.

If genuine answers have any good, it's incidental. Maybe someone will read a well-though out post and have their opinions swayed, but let's not kid ourselves here. Arguing politely with well-grounded research isn't going to change CRT's mind. This discussion isn't really to convince any sides of right or wrong, it's a self-satisfying circle jerk, in which people feel important by "scoring points" or "correcting others." It's about feeling superior to the racists or feeling superior to the SJW-idiots. Yes, one side might be more right, but the game doesn't really care, and neither do the ideologies' proponents.

[jp1]

I just can't understand how anyone can be cool with letting someone freeze to death or starve.

Some children are born into poverty and don't get enough to eat without assistance. How do you justify opposition to social programs in a system you have benefited from, while the same system has left others suffering.

Survival of the fittest is a notion that is held by those who are on the winning end of it. There was a time that many of you ultra conservatives would have certainly opposed such a concept being that you would have been on the losing end. Compassion and empathy would be totally different ideas from that perspective.

It's easy to be smug from an ivory tower. A little harder, in my opinion, to try and understand the plight of the peasants below. Maybe if some of you spent time with some of these people you could learn about what happened to land them in their situation and how hard it can be to turn it around.

[o.pwuaioc]

It's cool though. I've had enough of this shit, feel free to issue a ban or whatever if you like. I'm tired of watching the "silent majority" flap their gums about all the human garbage looking for a handout.

Another thing the election showed: They are neither silent nor a majority. And you can just forget about being moral!

[CRTGAMER]

I feel your frustration jp1, but that is at the core of people's political differences. The left wants to do the most good for the most people, and will leverage governmental power to do so. The right champions freedom from government involvement, particularly through taxes and business regulation. The right generally follows a kind of equality based on the principle of everything being equal in the rules for everyone, whereas the left champions equality by looking at existing inequities and trying to leverage the system to balance them out.

At least that's how I typically think about it. It's a bit of an oversimplification, but I have to remind myself of the core differences as I'm feeling my blood boil every time I hear the word "handout."

That is very great insight, this really seems to describe each side! Your words should be in the OP, I PMed Flake on it.

I really do believe in less Government Intervention using their "unlimited bank" of taxes be it the family boarding situation in New York or the Carrier Company getting that tax break over other companies to stay put in Indiana.

My feelings carry over in how some do own up to their own actions. Here locally, an Uber Driver was found guilty of multiple sexual assaults on college students. Due to no prior record and undisclosed reasons, the Liberal Judge let him go! I don't care what your childhood was like, you have intellect so take ownership responsibility for your actions.

Oh and speaking of the Media; watching the big 3 just now and sure enough very similar canned layout. Well, ABC did show a different view of a storm sink hole. In a case of irony on recent discussion, the TV news covered a gunman shooting up a Pizza Joint after seeing fake news online. Sadly the TV Media blamed the online Social Media Site for shooting people and not the person holding the gun!

In an interesting turn (you think this would be the Republican Conservative side), Democrats have been calling for control (censorship) of fake news online.

Now this is wrong, what happened to free speech!?

http://thebostontribune.com/wake-electi ... s-outlets/

In Wake Of Election: Obama Passes Executive Order Banning All ‘Fake’ News Outlets
In wake of the controversial 2016 presidential election, President Obama has signed what may be one of his final executive orders. On Monday morning, President Obama signed Executive Order 13749 banning all fake news websites and ensuring penalties ranging from fines/fees to criminal prosecution for those that own and maintain such websites.

In the days after President-Elect Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election the topic of fake news has been one of fierce controversy as many point to a myriad of frequently trending- yet fake news articles that were widely circulated on social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter during the election cycle. According to many critics, the rate in which fake news was circulated online unfairly influenced the results of the election.

President Obama previously indicated that he agrees with the majority of the public that fake news has a negative effect on U.S. society. He recently addressed the topic of fake news during a speech in Berlin by saying – “Because in an age where there’s so much active misinformation, and its packaged very well, and it looks the same when you see it on a Facebook page or you turn on your television, where some over zealousness on part of a U.S. official is equated with constant and severe repression elsewhere, if everything seems to be the same and no distinctions are made, then we won’t know what to protect. We won’t know what to fight for. And we lose so much of what we’ve gained in terms of the kind of democratic freedoms and market-based economies and prosperity that we’ve come to take for granted.”

[o.pwuaioc]

The Boston Tribune is a fake news outlet.

http://www.snopes.com/in-wake-of-electi ... s-outlets/

You couldn't be more gullible if you tried.

[J T]

No offense meant here, J T, but I think you're dead wrong. Trump's election proves that the biggest lies shouted over and over again cannot be battled by kind truth. You of all people should know that our brains don't work like that. Study after study after study shows that many people double down on false beliefs when presented with what might seem to many to be undeniable truth. I'm under no illusions that the enlightenment model of rationalization is merely a fantasy, a desire wished for but forever unobtainable.

No offense taken. I am aware of the backfire effect. It depresses the hell out of me. I know that people rarely respond to corrective feedback. I also know that they fight back and become more entrenched in their views when talked down to with sarcasm, which is why I said that to you. Although, it's corrective feedback, so maybe you'll ignore it. There I go again haha.

I agree though that changing minds is incredibly hard work. It's an uphill battle of fighting the confirmation bias that makes people seek out information that supports their views while ignoring evidence that doesn't support their views. A battle against the self-serving bias where people need to perceive themselves in a favorable manner, and therefore feel a need to refute all criticisms. A battle against the just-world-hypothesis, where people so desparately need to believe the world is just and fair that they convince themselves that victims of injustice must have deserved whatever bad happened to them as a form of punishment (blaming the victim). An uphill battle against the availability heuristic, where people focus on the salient memorable events, and misjudge probabilities (this is a huge problem with terrorist events because people overestimate their prevalence based on the horribleness of their occurrence).

I know I'm probably preaching to the choir about these things, even though you're atheist, so that metaphor is kind of funny.

I'm typing all this though because I think everyone should be willing to ask themselves "what evidence could possibly change your mind on a political issue? Under what conditions would you humbly admit you are wrong about an issue? Do you ever challenge your own beliefs by crafting a test that could disprove them and seeing if your beliefs can stand up against that test?"

[MrPopo]

I'm typing all this though because I think everyone should be willing to ask themselves "what evidence could possibly change your mind on a political issue? Under what conditions would you humbly admit you are wrong about an issue? Do you ever challenge your own beliefs by crafting a test that could disprove them and seeing if your beliefs can stand up against that test?"

I remember when Bill Nye did that debate with the creationist and someone asked that very question of the both of them. Bill Nye's response was "one piece of verifiable evidence". The other guy's response? "Nothing."

[o.pwuaioc]

No offense taken. I am aware of the backfire effect. It depresses the hell out of me. I know that people rarely respond to corrective feedback. I also know that they fight back and become more entrenched in their views when talked down to with sarcasm, which is why I said that to you. Although, it's corrective feedback, so maybe you'll ignore it. There I go again haha.

You didn't really correct me though. I never assumed that sarcasm would do anything positive. In fact, we're in agreement, but I don't make sarcastic quips because I think minds will change.

I agree though that changing minds is incredibly hard work. It's an uphill battle of fighting the confirmation bias that makes people seek out information that supports their views while ignoring evidence that doesn't support their views. A battle against the self-serving bias where people need to perceive themselves in a favorable manner, and therefore feel a need to refute all criticisms. A battle against the just-world-hypothesis, where people so desparately need to believe the world is just and fair that they convince themselves that victims of injustice must have deserved whatever bad happened to them as a form of punishment (blaming the victim). An uphill battle against the availability heuristic, where people focus on the salient memorable events, and misjudge probabilities (this is a huge problem with terrorist events because people overestimate their prevalence based on the horribleness of their occurrence).

I'm really bothered by the double-spaces between sentences. How do you live with yourself doing this all the time?

I'm typing all this though because I think everyone should be willing to ask themselves "what evidence could possibly change your mind on a political issue? Under what conditions would you humbly admit you are wrong about an issue? Do you ever challenge your own beliefs by crafting a test that could disprove them and seeing if your beliefs can stand up against that test?"

People like this do exist. I've surrounded myself with them. You can purposefully seek them out. I'm sure you have, too, in your PhD program and throughout academia. The debates are lively, and the full gamut of reasonable positions are taken, discussed, mocked, torn down, and built back up. We call it scholarship or science. Demands for evidence are met.

And that's not meant as a pat-me-on-the-back. I have my serious vices, but changing positions based on new evidence is literally my job, and I love to do it. It helps that I'm appalled by both the far left and far right and, right now, both the Republicans and Democrats. But hey, I'd love to be proven wrong, especially since right from where I'm sitting, it's all pretty bleak (and no heaven to boot!).

But let's be real here for a moment. That sort of person isn't the majority of people, and the festive and congenial spirit that accompanies a lively debate between ideological opposites evaporates in the online medium.

I'm typing all this though because I think everyone should be willing to ask themselves "what evidence could possibly change your mind on a political issue? Under what conditions would you humbly admit you are wrong about an issue? Do you ever challenge your own beliefs by crafting a test that could disprove them and seeing if your beliefs can stand up against that test?"

I remember when Bill Nye did that debate with the creationist and someone asked that very question of the both of them. Bill Nye's response was "one piece of verifiable evidence". The other guy's response? "Nothing."

Funny enough, after I had typed up my first response to J T, I had a phone call from a relative and a moderate Trump supporter, and though we disagreed sharply on most things, we did agree that Ken Ham's position is abhorrent.

I think we'll have to realize that quite a few people online (and in real life) don't want to be changed, and if they do change, forum discussions are not where that change happens, and if they are, it wasn't the catalyst for it.

Anonymous avatars battling other anonymous avatars will not succeed in freeing people of their cognitive biases. I mean, it's been over thirty years and we're still arguing over whether the SNES or the Genesis was better!