6 ms·

I know it's popular in certain circles to oppose, shame and attack Trump, but when you really think about it, all politicians do this, none of them is using fac

by tomp 11y ago

I know it's popular in certain circles to oppose, shame and attack Trump, but when you really think about it, all politicians do this, none of them is using facts in their campaign.

gadders 11y ago
Yeah. I would have used more sympathy for the article if he had used left and right wing examples. As it is, it just comes across as politically motivated (or at least slanted).
- ACow_Adonis 11y ago
  From the article: "Proctor explains that ignorance can often be propagated under the guise of balanced debate. For example, the common idea that there will always be two opposing views does not always result in a rational conclusion." So i'm not sure if you're serious, or being ironic... Either way, that articles have to be "even handed" or present "both sides of the story" is a technique often used by spreaders of ignorance or partisans to deny rational points or treatments of information.
  - tomp 11y ago
    Conversely, pointing this out (as you and another commenter did) is a convenient (but falacious) way of justifiying one-sided views/articles.
  - Nursie 11y ago
    False Balance. You see it on news reports all the time. Here we have a scientist talking about the latest meta-study, well reviewed, on the safety profile of a certain type of vaccine. And now we need to balance that out with a crackpot who thinks vaccines are a form of government mind control.
  - gadders 11y ago
    Well, here's the thing. People can spread ignorance, I agree. However, if someone gives a list of examples and 2/3 or them could be described as "right wing" you begin to wonder as to his motivations. However, if you think that the spread of ignorance is purely a right-wing phenomonon and that left-wing politicians are scrupulously truthful in all they do, then I don't know what to say to you.
    - tremon 11y ago
      2/3 or them could be described as "right wing" purely a right-wing phenomonon In your opinion then, what should we say to someone that thinks 2/3 is equal to 100%?
  - dawnbreez 11y ago
    The problem is that there often are multiple views, even if they're inequal in terms of logic. You could use this argument that two sides leads to bad things as an excuse to simply never take any other view into account. This too is bias.
- mapt 11y ago
  I'm not sure if this is supposed to be sarcastic or what. He deliberately calls out false equivalences: "“This ‘balance routine’ has allowed the cigarette men, or climate deniers today, to claim that there are two sides to every story, that ‘experts disagree’ – creating a false picture of the truth, hence ignorance.”"
  - gadders 11y ago
    You think comparing, say, Donald Trump to Hilary Clinton is a false equivalence?
    - MaysonL 11y ago
      Yes, obviously.
smackay 11y ago
You should read Scott Adams' posts about Trump, http://blog.dilbert.com http://blog.dilbert.com. He describes him as a Master Persuader, http://blog.dilbert.com/post/128474925371/how-to-spot-a-wizard http://blog.dilbert.com/post/128474925371/how-to-spot-a-wiza....
- lukev 11y ago
  Sure, if you buy into a bunch of NLP pseudoscience. Or, you could accept the much more straightforward and believable explanation that Trump has unique appeal for racists, xenophobes and those who are extremely frustrated with the conservative establishment. He's the first candidate in a long time to appeal to that bloc; hence his popularity. Trump isn't even a successful businessman - he'd be wealthier if he'd parked his inheritance in an index fund rather than trying to manage it.
venomsnake 11y ago
You must think of trump supporters as in the same state as 1984 O'Brian. They choose their reality willfully.
- tomp 11y ago
  > They choose their reality willfully. Doesn't everybody?
mahouse 11y ago
He appeals to the part of the population that doesn't have a problem agreeing that massive illegal immigration, and especially muslims, put the country in trouble, that China is an enemy, that ISIS must be just banished, etc. In my opinion it's just a matter of priorities, and how the voter thinks the social and financial crisis should be tackled. How is someone like Hillary cleaner than Trump for example?
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago
  Illegal immigration from Mexico has turned negative since the Global Financial Crisis and the Great Recession. There is basically no "massive illegal immigration" of Muslims at all.
pjc50 11y ago
Trump doesn't care about his proposals being even remotely feasible. He's simply not interested in keeping the discussion within the realms of what people are likely to agree might work in practice. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform "Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards – of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore." Mexico is never going to pay for the wall. I know it's been standard practice to make Latin American countries pay for US drugs policy, but this is over the top. "Impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages" is in particular going to be a Drugs War x2; how do you identify illegal wages? The gunboat diplomacy thing is likely to do huge damage to US-Mexican relations and probably contradicts NAFTA. Starting a trade war works in both directions: Mexico could start kicking out US companies. "End birthright citizenship": he's put this under "Defend The Laws And Constitution Of The United States", despite the fact that it directly contradicts the 14th Amendment. This is probably the biggest anti-factual thing in the whole document, as it contradicts itself. It also results in stateless children, and the problem of trying to deport people from the US to Mexico who aren't Mexican nationals either. "End welfare abuse. Applicants for entry to the United States should be required to certify that they can pay for their own housing, healthcare and other needs before coming to the U.S.": does that apply to tourist visas? Is this the end of the visa waiver programme? Either he's completely serious about ending tourism to America or he's eliding the fact that people will illegally immigrate on tourist visas.
- avar 11y ago
  Not defending Trump's policies or their feasability, but I have a question about this: > [Abolishing jus soli] [...] results in stateless children, and > the problem of trying to deport people from the US to Mexico who > aren't Mexican nationals either. If the US abolished birthright citizenship and a child were born to Mexican parents in the U.S. isn't that child eligable for Mexican citizenship? Birthright citizenship isn't a thing in e.g. Europe and that's how this works there, it doesn't result in stateless children, it just results in children needing to be registered in their parent's country of origin.

by tomp 11y ago

I know it's popular in certain circles to oppose, shame and attack Trump, but when you really think about it, all politicians do this, none of them is using facts in their campaign.

gadders 11y ago

Yeah. I would have used more sympathy for the article if he had used left and right wing examples. As it is, it just comes across as politically motivated (or at least slanted).

ACow_Adonis 11y ago
From the article: "Proctor explains that ignorance can often be propagated under the guise of balanced debate. For example, the common idea that there will always be two opposing views does not always result in a rational conclusion." So i'm not sure if you're serious, or being ironic... Either way, that articles have to be "even handed" or present "both sides of the story" is a technique often used by spreaders of ignorance or partisans to deny rational points or treatments of information.
- tomp 11y ago
  Conversely, pointing this out (as you and another commenter did) is a convenient (but falacious) way of justifiying one-sided views/articles.
- Nursie 11y ago
  False Balance. You see it on news reports all the time. Here we have a scientist talking about the latest meta-study, well reviewed, on the safety profile of a certain type of vaccine. And now we need to balance that out with a crackpot who thinks vaccines are a form of government mind control.
- gadders 11y ago
  Well, here's the thing. People can spread ignorance, I agree. However, if someone gives a list of examples and 2/3 or them could be described as "right wing" you begin to wonder as to his motivations. However, if you think that the spread of ignorance is purely a right-wing phenomonon and that left-wing politicians are scrupulously truthful in all they do, then I don't know what to say to you.
  - tremon 11y ago
    2/3 or them could be described as "right wing" purely a right-wing phenomonon In your opinion then, what should we say to someone that thinks 2/3 is equal to 100%?
- dawnbreez 11y ago
  The problem is that there often are multiple views, even if they're inequal in terms of logic. You could use this argument that two sides leads to bad things as an excuse to simply never take any other view into account. This too is bias.
mapt 11y ago
I'm not sure if this is supposed to be sarcastic or what. He deliberately calls out false equivalences: "“This ‘balance routine’ has allowed the cigarette men, or climate deniers today, to claim that there are two sides to every story, that ‘experts disagree’ – creating a false picture of the truth, hence ignorance.”"
- gadders 11y ago
  You think comparing, say, Donald Trump to Hilary Clinton is a false equivalence?
  - MaysonL 11y ago
    Yes, obviously.

smackay 11y ago

You should read Scott Adams' posts about Trump, http://blog.dilbert.com http://blog.dilbert.com. He describes him as a Master Persuader, http://blog.dilbert.com/post/128474925371/how-to-spot-a-wizard http://blog.dilbert.com/post/128474925371/how-to-spot-a-wiza....

lukev 11y ago
Sure, if you buy into a bunch of NLP pseudoscience. Or, you could accept the much more straightforward and believable explanation that Trump has unique appeal for racists, xenophobes and those who are extremely frustrated with the conservative establishment. He's the first candidate in a long time to appeal to that bloc; hence his popularity. Trump isn't even a successful businessman - he'd be wealthier if he'd parked his inheritance in an index fund rather than trying to manage it.

venomsnake 11y ago

You must think of trump supporters as in the same state as 1984 O'Brian. They choose their reality willfully.

tomp 11y ago
> They choose their reality willfully. Doesn't everybody?

mahouse 11y ago

He appeals to the part of the population that doesn't have a problem agreeing that massive illegal immigration, and especially muslims, put the country in trouble, that China is an enemy, that ISIS must be just banished, etc. In my opinion it's just a matter of priorities, and how the voter thinks the social and financial crisis should be tackled. How is someone like Hillary cleaner than Trump for example?

eli_gottlieb 11y ago
Illegal immigration from Mexico has turned negative since the Global Financial Crisis and the Great Recession. There is basically no "massive illegal immigration" of Muslims at all.

pjc50 11y ago

Trump doesn't care about his proposals being even remotely feasible. He's simply not interested in keeping the discussion within the realms of what people are likely to agree might work in practice. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform "Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards – of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore." Mexico is never going to pay for the wall. I know it's been standard practice to make Latin American countries pay for US drugs policy, but this is over the top. "Impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages" is in particular going to be a Drugs War x2; how do you identify illegal wages? The gunboat diplomacy thing is likely to do huge damage to US-Mexican relations and probably contradicts NAFTA. Starting a trade war works in both directions: Mexico could start kicking out US companies. "End birthright citizenship": he's put this under "Defend The Laws And Constitution Of The United States", despite the fact that it directly contradicts the 14th Amendment. This is probably the biggest anti-factual thing in the whole document, as it contradicts itself. It also results in stateless children, and the problem of trying to deport people from the US to Mexico who aren't Mexican nationals either. "End welfare abuse. Applicants for entry to the United States should be required to certify that they can pay for their own housing, healthcare and other needs before coming to the U.S.": does that apply to tourist visas? Is this the end of the visa waiver programme? Either he's completely serious about ending tourism to America or he's eliding the fact that people will illegally immigrate on tourist visas.

avar 11y ago
Not defending Trump's policies or their feasability, but I have a question about this: > [Abolishing jus soli] [...] results in stateless children, and > the problem of trying to deport people from the US to Mexico who > aren't Mexican nationals either. If the US abolished birthright citizenship and a child were born to Mexican parents in the U.S. isn't that child eligable for Mexican citizenship? Birthright citizenship isn't a thing in e.g. Europe and that's how this works there, it doesn't result in stateless children, it just results in children needing to be registered in their parent's country of origin.