Letters to the Editor
-
How would he know freedom of choice is bad for democracy?
Especially when its' the GOp that have been making sure Americans don't have free choice for decades-choosing the wars we cause-the dictators we kill-the countries we want to invade...
What you're really saying-is freechoice is a threat to the plans the GOP have for all of us.
Sorry but your argument is the lamest I've seen.
IOW-just listen to the media, believe your govt.-like a good little German-and all will be fine.
Yeah, we see how well that turned out, don't we?
Your mistakenly thinking govt. is always honest, unselfish, and has integrity.
Neitsche thought the same thing-then Hitler corrupted his philosphy, by thinking HE-Himself-Das Furor was supposedly the one to deliver Neitsches' message-where it got corrupted by ego, greed, and selfishness.
Philosophers (or whatever you call yourself), need to use reality in the equation somewhere----you don't.
Has the past 7 years not taught you anything?
-
Where this man lost me -
"in 2000 I had high hopes for President Bush"
You would have had to have been highly credulous to have had any hopes for this particular Bush, even back in 2000.
-
Group Polarization
While I agree with most of Sustein’s positions, his study which is outlined provides is merely a replication of the effect that has been studied since Stoner’s original study in 1961 in which he identified what he labeled the risky shift. In the early studies the focus was on how group discussion often resulted in riskier choices than the individuals had endorsed prior to the discussion. As the research continued it was recognized that the effect applied to a much wider range of behaviors than risk taking and was renamed group polarization. Essentially, after discussion a group of individuals become more polarized in their positions. This is especially true if the original position of the members of the group is already not diverse. Thus, conservatives become more conservative and liberals more liberal. The research on this topic is wide spread and has firmly grounded theoretical explanations tied to social comparison and social cognition. We need to go to that literature to fully understand the processes and means for reducing the impact.
-
It is not the internet's fault
The internet is invaluable to me. I can read (biased) opinions on all topics from all over the world and then form my own opinion.
I can't imagine doing that without the internet.
Like somebody else said here. It is the pretense of the "news media" that they are "unbiased" that messes things up. If they declared their biases from the get go, then one could may be take some of their reporting seriously. But it is the hidden biases dressed as impartiality that kill the truth we all go to the internet to seek.
It is thanks to the internet that the rest of the world now has a voice just as loud as corporate/news media. And I can go and read them whenever I want and I do. I'm better informed because of it.
-
It's the "But he's a nice guy" types that are also extremely dangerous...
>"In contrast, in 2000 I had high hopes for President Bush. I thought he could be a very good president."
Right there, his credibility is shot. Does he explain on what basis, other than possibly the "I'd like to have a beer with him" phenomenon, he formed this opinion?<
It's the "Well, we're all rational (white) gentlemen here and those factors we have in common trump everything else. Even if you advocate shooting black people if they just look 'wrong,' you treat me good, so you must basically be a good person. As well, truly civilized people have manners enough not to make a public fuss over things, so those people who make a fuss over being treated like crap obviously are not as enlightened or intelligent as we elite." Over on his NYT blog, Dick Cavett recently defended Imus returning to the airwaves with nearly that exact same logic. "Well, what he said about the Rutgersr team really wasn't so bad--and I know he's irreverent towards everybody anyway." People like him and Sunstein are the kind of accomodationists who give scum like Rove and Bush endless slack. They don't have to deal with the fallout from these guys' horrible policies. As well, they feel down deep that the common masses need to be held in check. They may not like everyone who has that power, but they are sure going to side with them. Better dictatorship than "anarchy" in their eyes.
-
if the echo chamber are so impenetrable...
...then why did Bush' approval rating go from 60 odd percent down to 25?
Both sides are able to make their arguments on the internet, people got informed, Bush's popularity tanked. (I would like to see a graph that charted the increase in blog activity relative to the decrease in Bush's numbers).
I should concede, however, that there is way too much time wasted by people on political forums (of all political stripes) merely attacking people. Next time anyone out there is thinking about commenting on a debate video by saying "wow, that guy tore him another one", please refrain, it is a waste of everyone's time. And, while I agree that Bush is an idiot, merely pointing that out without adding anything else isn't helping anyone.
And, sorry Mishima666, but, although perhaps not at quite the same level as the angry right-wingers, there are terms used quite often by progressives such as "Right Wing Wackjobs", repukes, repugs, etc.
-
He thought Bush could be a good president, admires Scalia's legal talents & has a soft spot for O'Reilly
I kinda think the perspective of this "observer" is leveled from somewhere other than the exact center.
I totally agree w/a previous poster who chalks this up to yet another scolding of progressives to work harder to accomodate our political opponents. Screw that.
Yeah, I have a hard time finding common ground, or being civil to, the party of torturers, gay-bashers, religious zealots who want to "nuke" the world, racists, etc.
Sorry, life is too short to woo the freaks.
Call me intractable.
-
He lost me here:
It's very complicated whether increases in the minimum wage are helpful to poor people.
Really? Ever ask anyone earning minimum wage?
-
The Death of American Intellectualism : Rednecks vs Bluenecks
"The Web" isn't making America stupid --- "Stupidity" is making everyone stupid.
That is ... people have lost the capacity .. the ability .. to process information intelligently; the Age of Intellectualism having seemed to have croaked long ago. That was an Era (in science, philosophy & politics) when information, ideas, prejudices, and so on went through a lifetime of testing one's preconceived prejudices. No more. The cowardly Right listens to their Own Kind as the cowardly Left listens soley to their Own Kind. Critical Thinking as an Art is dead.
When strife pops up in say Pakistan or the Middle East, the Freethinker ought to zap themselves into newspapersDOTcom and read both the Jerusalem Post alongside any of the Islamic jounals provided.
Alongside his hometown paper he or she ought to subscribe to BOTH weeklies 'LIBERAL OPINION WEEKLY' and 'THE CONSERVATIVE CHRONICLE" to guage intelligently all opinions in the debate. To rely SOLEY on leftwing or rightwing media outlets (e.g. "The Factor", "Democracy Now").
Otherwise the Thinker has relegated his or her ability to understand Anything --- suddenly finding themselves to be at the very same level of Thinking that pollutes the Mindset of the KKK or Jihadists. (yeah, yeah ... its the other guy who's wrong)
And loosen-up all Ye Dimthinkers --- don't get so agitated about the Rosie O'Donnels & Ann Coulters of the airwaves --- the webways --
Their day-jobs are to Poke Needles into the Eyes of America's Dullards. If your Eye is poked by either one, then you Absolutely Deserved to be Poked.
They're "Entertainers" !! Showmen on the Political Stage --- admission free.
The Paranoids who desire to muzzle Rosie are Mirror Images of the same Cretins who wish to muzzle Coulter.