Political feeling

[toastywombel]

I think most often in people the general reason for anger in an arguement comes down to articulation. Pesonally my eloquence often lets me down. If I don't have enough time to formulate a responce, anger will often result. This however shouldn't happen on a forum as time isn't relavent. So, is it anger or is it resentment?

 

I find it more likely that the anger stems from the desire to control something that is not particularly controllable. Which is often where anger comes from in general, not just politics. As one attempts to defend/introduce a political point/view, his or hers true intent is usually to convey that message to others (receivers) and then convince such receivers that one's political point is a right one, and then finally hope that the receivers act upon the political point/view originally presented by one.

 

"Right" in this sense meaning that it correlates with observed reality and offers solutions and/or explanations to mutually recognized problems that face one's society. Anger occurs when that message is unaccepted or challenged. Also, anger arises when a presented political point/view does not correlate with one's political point/view. The anger at its deepest level stems from the desire to convince or to some degree control the thoughts and then action of others. Which in the end is only as possible as the receiver allows it to be. So back to the conclusion, the anger stems from the desire to control the uncontrollable.

 

Example: As you pointed out, lack of articulation can cause such anger, but that is again anger arising from the inability to convey the message, which is something you can control to a degree, but not completely. It is important to realize that the most articulate person in the world cannot force a stubborn person to accept a concept that the stubborn person refuses to accept.

Edited December 26, 2011 by toastywombel

[dimreepr]

I find it more likely that the anger stems from the desire to control something that is not particularly controllable. Which is often where anger comes from in general, not just politics. As one attempts to defend/introduce a political point/view, his or hers true intent is usually to convey that message to others (receivers) and then convince such receivers that one's political point is a right one, and then finally hope that the receivers act upon the political point/view originally presented by one.

 

"Right" in this sense meaning that it correlates with observed reality and offers solutions and/or explanations to mutually recognized problems that face one's society. Anger occurs when that message is unaccepted or challenged. Also, anger arises when a presented political point/view does not correlate with one's political point/view. The anger at its deepest level stems from the desire to convince or to some degree control the thoughts and then action of others. Which in the end is only as possible as the receiver allows it to be. So back to the conclusion, the anger stems from the desire to control the uncontrollable.

 

Example: As you pointed out, lack of articulation can cause such anger, but that is again anger arising from the inability to convey the message, which is something you can control to a degree, but not completely. It is important to realize that the most articulate person in the world cannot force a stubborn person to accept a concept that the stubborn person refuses to accept.

 

An excellent assesment, having just had such an arguement, I can only concure. I dont have this desire to controll others (whats the point) so have no refrence to understand this concept. I did however start to get angry but not because I wanted to controll her, more the stubborness to accept evidence based conclusions (white isnt black) spoilt what was otherwise an interesting debate.

Edited December 26, 2011 by dimreepr

[JustinW]

iNow,

 

While I can understand your previous point, I don't necessarily agree with it. I believe the "left" has it's extremes also. To find the extremes on one side you only have to listen to the extremes of the other. As for Fox News, I've heard the same said about MSNBC also. It is all in who you talk to. I've actually heard alot of agruements about the bias that certain networks have toward different ideologies. I've even heard some claim that media has bent popular opinion from one side to the other as strategy for filling political office. And from all I've heard from both sides, that particular person did an awful job once in office. It will be whoevers side extremes are against the rest depending on the political feeling at the time.

 

Then before calling the kettle black, you really might ask yourself if there is a media bias from your own side of the issues. I can't imagine anyone's answer would be no. Now I'm just a little off topic.

 

Whether being of the right or left persuasion you have to imagine that frustration and anger plays a big role in any debate on any subject. But the uncalled-for outbursts that propogate out of thin air or unrational assumptions is the problem of constructive conversations on any platform. It was my idea that it might be attributed to one group or type of person more than another. After giving it some further thought I believe that iNow may have been correct when saying that this type of question couldn't be applyed to general categories.

[swansont]

iNow,

 

While I can understand your previous point, I don't necessarily agree with it. I believe the "left" has it's extremes also. To find the extremes on one side you only have to listen to the extremes of the other. As for Fox News, I've heard the same said about MSNBC also. It is all in who you talk to. I've actually heard alot of agruements about the bias that certain networks have toward different ideologies. I've even heard some claim that media has bent popular opinion from one side to the other as strategy for filling political office. And from all I've heard from both sides, that particular person did an awful job once in office. It will be whoevers side extremes are against the rest depending on the political feeling at the time.

 

To what are you referring? Holding an extreme viewpoint is not the same as misrepresenting or manufacturing "facts" to support that viewpoint. IOW, issues of bias are not the same as issues of credibility. I have few illusions about which side of a story O'Reilly or Beck would be on vs. Olbermann or Maddow. But I know which of them I would trust less (or more) to present factual information, based on documented history. Issues of fact are not dependent on who you talk to — if it's not objectively true, it doesn't qualify as a fact. One knows who will generally take issue with the actions or policies of the president or his administration, but claiming that e.g. The US is the only country that confers citizenship on birth is objectively false.

[JustinW]

I was reffering more to slander and propaganda. But even then I don't watch too many personal op news programs and couldn't give an opinion of who missuses or misleads when it comes to talking the facts. You would think that a fact is a fact nomatter who is saying it. Now where that fact came from and where the eventual outcome of the situation is going could be mislead. But I was reffering more to opinional bias rather than factual bias.

 

Yes one could assume who would be the first to take exception of the current administrations actions (when they act). This all has to do again with what side are the political winds blowing at the time. If the left is in office and doing a bad job it would be safe to assume that the political winds are going to shift to the right. Same goes for if the right is in office doing a bad job. So you have to expect a general amount of bias in the media one way or the other. It's only good buisness to follow public opinion. And on a second thought I don't see why anybody would get their political or factual information from an entertainment show. Sure they may be talking politics and laying things out as fact, but everyone also needs to understand that these shows are here for entertainment purposes no matter how they spin themselves. And that goes for all the shows that you listed.

[swansont]

I was reffering more to slander and propaganda. But even then I don't watch too many personal op news programs and couldn't give an opinion of who missuses or misleads when it comes to talking the facts. You would think that a fact is a fact nomatter who is saying it. Now where that fact came from and where the eventual outcome of the situation is going could be mislead. But I was reffering more to opinional bias rather than factual bias.

 

In that case I think it's fairly clear that Fox has conservative pundits/commentators and MSNBC has liberal ones. (But only one of them claims to be fair and balanced.) Was anyone claiming otherwise?

 

I also think it's rather easy to find politicians on both sides that engage in rhetoric, mudslinging and propaganda. Right now it's easy to see on the right because of the debates.

 

 

Yes one could assume who would be the first to take exception of the current administrations actions (when they act). This all has to do again with what side are the political winds blowing at the time. If the left is in office and doing a bad job it would be safe to assume that the political winds are going to shift to the right. Same goes for if the right is in office doing a bad job. So you have to expect a general amount of bias in the media one way or the other. It's only good buisness to follow public opinion. And on a second thought I don't see why anybody would get their political or factual information from an entertainment show. Sure they may be talking politics and laying things out as fact, but everyone also needs to understand that these shows are here for entertainment purposes no matter how they spin themselves. And that goes for all the shows that you listed.

 

The shows I mentioned don't advertise themselves as entertainment. Not like the Daily Show or Colbert Report, who sometimes have less spin and distortion, because they are showing how much spin and distortion there is in politics. Consequently, the information you get is often of higher quality from those entertainment shows; what you lack is the broader spectrum of information gathering you expect of news.

[JustinW]

Even though they don't advertise as entertainment based programs it is a given that they are driven by ratings.

[iNow]

Even though they don't advertise as entertainment based programs it is a given that they are driven by ratings.

Which is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is that several million people use these as their primary source of information and that the content they share is not only biased, but rather frequently untrue and wholly fabricated.

[JustinW]

Ah, it just goes to show why I never understood why people get there information from these types of shows. These types of shows have no legal obligation to tell the truth. Moral obligation might be a better way to look at it, but that still doesn't stop the disimformation. And if we were to pass a law that goes against the free speech amendmant, could we even regulate a show that can classify themselves as entertainment? I could see where the comical part of televised entertainment might see some reprecussions off of something like that.

 

Given some more thought I believe these questions are just as irrelevant. I think what would be more to the point would be which ones and why?

Edited December 26, 2011 by JustinW

[JohnB]

Sorry for the delay. Arete and swansont, unfortunately the videos won't play outside America but after a fair bit of link and story following I think I found the correct segment.

 

One thing all this hunting has shown is that there is another great difference between our cultures. I simply didn't "get" the Politifacts page for quite some time. I'm seeing the names of Beck, Rove and Palin repeated, but nothing about "Fox News" at all. I've now realised that Americans equate the network with the commentator. We don't really have people like Beck or Maddow on TV so to me they are simply overblown talkback radio hosts. I can disagree with the host, but this has no effect on how I view the station. Americans don't make this distinction. Down here opinion is very separate from news.

 

Which is why I can't see any untruths from Fox News, they aren't there, however there are untruths from political commentators on the Fox News Network. About the closest we have to these pundits is "The Bolt Report" on channel 10 on a sunday which is a right wing program. If Bolt were shown to have lied, then we would say that "Bolt lied on his TV show", we wouldn't say that "Channel 10 lies". Similarly since Politifacts puts Rachel Maddow as telling more half truths and mostly false stories than true ones I would take her opinions with a grain of salt but this wouldn't really reflect on my views on MSNBC News. Since she is a left wing political pundit I would expect her to slant the stories in such a fashion as to show her political ideology in the best light, just as I expect those on the right to do exactly the same.

 

While on Fox News it is interesting to see how the left in American politics has manufactured a reality concerning Fox viewers. Politifacts took Stewart to task over the comment "Who are the most consistently misinformed media viewers? … Fox viewers, consistently, every poll", finding this false. It would seem that Fox viewers for some programs are right up there with NPR or are simply average. Of special interest is the attempt by the Daily Kos to spin this as "CONFIRMED: New Study Proves That Fox News Makes You Stupid". However they failed to inform readers that the definition of "informed" in the poll only included those who agreed with the pollsters. Yes Virginia, the left contrives to create a reality as well.

 

I think the most worrying thing about that particular kerfuffle is that more people seem to get thier news from "The Daily Show" than from the news outlets. While I would have to agree that people having their political views formed by a biased media is bad, surely people getting their political news from the Comedy Channel is even worse. Why is the Daily Show even listed in these polls? I've seen a few interviews with Jon Stewart and he doesn't get it either. He's a comedian, why is he being lumped in with the political pundits? This makes no sense at all.

 

To more specifics.

 

iNow, it's not that I'm arguing against your position. I'm looking in from the outside and you are trying to sell me a series of goods. More specifically you are trying to convince me that roughly 50% of your population are sane and rational people and the other 50% live in some form of "manufactured reality". The bit you seem to have missed is that from where I sit, part of the "manufactured reality" that the left inhabits is the belief that only the right lives in a "manufactured reality". See what I mean?

 

You mentioned climate and without going too deep there is a widely held belief (virtually entirely held by left leaning people) of the existence of some vast, hugely funded, "Denialist machine". What a perfect example of a manufactured reality. Point to Sourcewatch is you want, but $20 million paid out over 10 years worldwide isn't a lot compared to Greenpeaces annual budget of $21.9 million in 2008 for the USA alone, of which $5.6 million was specifically for "climate programs". In 2010 Greenpeace Australia alone spent $10.6 million on campaigns. And I haven't even started on the WWF. Places like Climate Audit and WUWT are funded by donation while Realclimate is owned by an advertising agency.

 

And all the money is on my side of the fence? That my friend, is a manufactured reality. What you are trying to sell me is the idea that the people who believe in this fanciful machine are the sane and reasonable ones and it's the rest that are detached from reality.

 

The only moderates are from the left? Now if the moderate Republicans have let the extremists gain control then they will pay for that at the ballot. Politics moves in cycles, the more extremist factions gain more and more control until the electorate banishes them to the wasteland and the party has to "reinvent" itself. Note for example the overwhelming "No" vote that the southern Democrats gave Equal Rights back in 1964. It would be hard to imagine a single dissenter today since the "left" is usually rather big on rights. Things change, people and attitudes change.

 

Part of what you are seeing, and we are seeing it too is a revolt by the average person against the well meaning "experts" and their plans. People are fed up with 24 year old childless experts with freshly minted degrees telling them how to raise their kids. They have seen the experts listened to and watched standards fall in so many areas. This is happening on both sides of the political divide. The (leftish) "Occupy" bunch want to be listened to instead of only the 1% with the money and the "Tea Party" people want to be listened to instead of the machine. The average joe who is paying for everything with blood, time and money wants to be heard, and if the extremists are the only ones who will listen, then that is who joe will go to. Don't blame the voter, blame the parties that have stopped listening to the voters.

 

I know your intent was to disparage this argument preemptively, and to suggest that because both sides engage in such tactics that the frequency, scope, and magnitude of each do not matter... but you're quite simply wrong, IMO. There is a degree of opinion involved, and one can point to examples from both sides doing this (we had a whole thread on this a while back while Pangloss was still here), but at some point a rational observer will have to concede that there truly is a stark imbalance of lies, deceit, and intentional manipulation in today's US political environment where one ideology is clearly living in a bizarro world not rooted in facts or evidence or even a remedial understanding of and appreciation for history.

 

What I'm trying to explain is that from the outside it looks quite plainly that both sides do the same things, but in different areas.

 

The difficult economy makes extremist views more common and more easy to express, and the evidence suggests this has been steadily increasing for some time. People with opposing ideas... or even those people with ideas held more moderately... are being dehumanized and dismissed as not "right enough," and the "if you're not with us you're with them" tribal and gang-like warfare has taken rule of the day.

 

You mean like calling people "deniers" for simply questioning and suggesting that they should have identifying tattoos? Or be gassed? Or face charges for "Crimes against Humanity"? Or be declared mentally unstable? How about Greenpeaces little "We know who you are and we know where you live" threat? You might feel a bit worried about extremist Republicans, but I would be frankly bloody scared if these bastards ever get within an inch of power. People will start to "disappear".

 

What I see in american politics is a complete willingness on both sides to point with alarm to the excesses of the other side and to utterly ignore the excesses on their own side. Even when shown, the standard response is "Yes, but they do it too" or some such. Honestly it's like watching children in a kindergarten sometimes.

 

If the best argument that the American Left can muster for philosophical primacy is "Well, the other guy is worse", then you have very serious problems.

[iNow]

You mentioned climate and without going too deep there is a widely held belief (virtually entirely held by left leaning people) of the existence of some vast, hugely funded, "Denialist machine". What a perfect example of a manufactured reality.

I had a feeling that example would ruffle your feathers a bit. I'm not going to engage you here on the topic. I'll just say that I find it strange that you still reject the idea given all that you've studied and read through the years. That says something very telling about your preferred sources.

 

If the best argument that the American Left can muster for philosophical primacy is "Well, the other guy is worse", then you have very serious problems.

The best argument for what? That's the entire topic of conversation... It's what the OP asked... Is one side worse than the other. The answer? It's a matter of opinion, but the opinions here are rather well informed and think that... yes, one side is worse.

 

Also, yes... The US is run by a bunch of poo throwing chimps... or "kindergartners" as you noted.

[JohnB]

I had a feeling that example would ruffle your feathers a bit. I'm not going to engage you here on the topic. I'll just say that I find it strange that you still reject the idea given all that you've studied and read through the years. That says something very telling about your preferred sources.

 

Over the years I've heard many people assert that it exists, but when it comes down to the hard "follow the money" facts there is very little actual evidence. Usually people just point to sourcewatch or similar. On a purely factual basis you might as well believe that the Illuminatii secretly run the planet. The whole "Big oil machine" thing can only be believed by studiously and willfully ignoring half the story. When people point with alarm at $40,000 donations given to their opponents while ignoring $40 million donations by the same people to their friends they would have to be so one eyed as to warrant the nickname "Cyclops".

 

You can go to Exxonsecrets and find that physicist Willie Soon has recieved funding from oil companies. This is somehow evidence that he and his work is biased or bought. Greenpeace tried to make out that this was somehow a "secret" and proof of dirty dealing until Dr Soon pointed out that his funding is quite openly stated at the end of each paper.

 

Now if you want to follow the line of argument that people funded by oil money are bought, then what are we supposed to make of the fact that the CRU at East Anglia are partly funded by Shell and BP? The thing is that this is barely above ad hom attacks and really classifies as "Poisoning the Well" logical fallacies. If the facts are so strongly in your favour why are these ad hom attacks the first line of defence? They shouldn't be needed at all.

 

As to my preferred sources, they are usually the originals. After the initial "Climategate" there were some inquiries that issued findings. I'm pretty certain that you and others would say that those inquiries "cleared" those involved. Where did you get that information? I happen to think those inquiries were very poor white washes, not because of what I read on some bloody website but because I read the freaking reports. I fact checked the reports against already published timelines. Where available I read the minutes and notes. I watched the video feeds of those who wrote the reports responding to Parlimentary committee. How many of those who contend the reports "cleared" people have done one half as much?

 

And let's face facts. There are quite a few on your side of the fence whose reading ability doesn't go past the Realclimate and SkepticalScience websites. For these two contain the revealed truth and would not hide or prevaricate for yea they speak the holy words. Try following the very technical discussions over at Judith Currys sometime, they leave the people at RC for dead.

 

So I do get bugged when after all that I'm told I'm misguided or read the wrong websites simply because "Realclimate says so" or some such rubbish.

 

The best argument for what? That's the entire topic of conversation... It's what the OP asked... Is one side worse than the other. The answer? It's a matter of opinion, but the opinions here are rather well informed and think that... yes, one side is worse.

 

Like I said, philosophical primacy. I'm trying to turn the viewpoint around from essentially negative to positive. What I note in American political debate is that the arguments seem to revolve around why "My side isn't as bad as yours" when it should be about why "My side is better than yours". In American politics you don't argue about which pig is clean, it's all about which one has the least mud on it. Until both sides demand that their respective partys clean up, then you are stuck playing in the mud.

 

Also, yes... The US is run by a bunch of poo throwing chimps

 

Ah...There is the difference. Ours are "highly trained" poo throwing chimps.

[iNow]

There is the difference. Ours are "highly trained" poo throwing chimps.

I suppose it works better that way. It's rather difficult (by definition, frankly) to have a "highly trained" kindergartner. Cheers, John.

[iNow]

There have been a LOT of mentions in the posts above about "both sides." The video below might offer some perspective on these views... these views at their root imply an equivalence that simply isn't there: