4 ms·

I agree with gnarbarian. Being an extremist is defined as being far outside the norm. Even with a low voter count, it seems irrational to suggest that the maj

by vivekd 10y ago

I agree with gnarbarian. Being an extremist is defined as being far outside the norm. Even with a low voter count, it seems irrational to suggest that the majority of the people who voted in this election are people with views far outside the norm in America and the majority with ordinary views just didn't go to the polls. If someone can convince the large majority of voters in a country to pick them, I think it's a strong suggestion that their views are well within the norm for that country. Trump could never be elected into office here in Canada, even with a low voter count because his views are far outside of the norm of how many Canadians think. America is different with a different culture, and the only evidence we have (polling data) suggests that the views of a great many Americans in 2016 line up pretty closely with the views of Mr. Trump.

Jtsummers 10y ago
Google - define:extremist a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action. Nothing about this requires they not be the majority or even a very significant minority. It just requires they hold extreme views. Nothing about this requires viewing them only through a local and not a global lens, either. And just because people voted for Trump doesn't mean they agree with all or even any of his positions. (Anecdata) I've spent the last several days speaking with numerous people who voted for him despite disagreement on many of his policy positions, strictly because they were voting against Clinton.
- vivekd 10y ago
  But how do you define extreme? Consider this, believing non-whites are morally and intellectually inferior would be considered an extreme and fanatical position. However this was not considered an extreme position in the 1800s because, unforutnately, it was the majority position. The problem you are having is you are defining extreme with reference to what you and the people around you believe to be extreme and fanatical rather than defining it based on what the majority consider extreme and fanatical, and the best evidence we have for the majority view in America is a very recent poll.
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    Most extremists do not consider their views extreme. It largely requires an outside view (literally as in another time or place, or figuratively as in the non-extremists colocated with them). In particular, though, that view is demonstrably false. Anyone holding it can be considered an "extremist" just on the grounds of holding onto false beliefs (though falsification still has to occur). A modern example is (not a majority view) the anti-vaxxer crowd. Another one which is closer to a majority view (certainly a significant minority), is the anti-climate change crowd. How about the anti-evolution crowd (which has a lot of overlap with the above two), a significant minority in the US as evidenced by our K-12 biology textbooks.
    - vivekd 10y ago
      All you are saying here is "people who disagree with me about vaccination and climate change are extreme because they are blind to evidence" Obviously these people have a very different interpretation of the evidence and the conclusions that can be drawn from it. To suggest they are crazy because they disagree with you or find your evidence unconvincing is the same kind of smugness that cost Ms. Clinton and the democratic party this election.
      - Jtsummers 10y ago
        I'm not running for office any time soon, so my smugness will cost me nothing but karma here. I'm not suggesting they're crazy, I'm suggesting they're holding views which, by all reasonable evidence, appear to be false. These are not "opinion" views. You can't opinion your way into autism from vaccines. You can't opinion your way out of climate change. People who believe vaccines cause autism (today) are fanatics. People who deny climate change is happening (today) are fanatics.
        vivekd 10y ago
        I think you can with regard to climate change - no one is saying that the termpreature isn't getting warmer, what they are arguing is whether human released CO2 is the cause. It's probably not going to be a popular opinion on this website but there are some holes in climate science that points to humans as the major contributor. For example: 1 The climate record started in 1800 which was one of the coldest periods in history - 1816 is popularly called the year without a summer and there had been a little ice age that started in the 1600s and ended during the 1800s (of course it's been rapidly warming since then) 2. Recent NASA observations show glacial retreat and warming on Mars that happened exactly at the same time as global warming on earth suggesting possible solar origion of climate change rather than human caused. 3. I have yet to see a single piece of evidence that conclusively links a warming climate with human released CO2. All we are told is that CO2 makes things warmer and that humans are releasing more CO2 than before. That's not enough, for climate change to be plausable they have to show that human released CO2 is enough to make a meaningful impact on atmospheric composition such that it makes the earth warmer. I don't think we have enough understanding of how atmosphere behaves or even of how much gases we are releasing to make those kinds of conclusions. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer 2 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/31/mars-also-undergoing-climate-change-ice-age-retrea/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/31/mars-also-un... now my purpose isn't to get into a debate on climate change here, all I want to demonstrate is that the people who deny man made climate change aren't crazy or fanatical, they are ordinary rational people that for whatever reason have reached a different conclusion and we should not be so quick to dismiss them. The hallmark of rationality is willing to inquire and debate for the validity of opinions, not dismiss opinions outright as fanatical or crazy without at least looking at the other side's evidence.
drewrv 10y ago
So you think, by definition, no democracy could ever elect an extremist?
- vivekd 10y ago
  I'm saying that "extreme" and "extremist" are not things with an objective reality, but rather things defined with reference to an existing group. What is extreme for one group may not be extreme for another group. An election is basically a poll of whose views the population supports. So any person elected by that population must be a person with views that said population does not find extreme. I think this is a problem with modern liberalism in that "extreme" has become synonymous with "people who disagree with me" or "people who don't share my right kind of opinions"

by vivekd 10y ago

Jtsummers 10y ago

Google - define:extremist a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action. Nothing about this requires they not be the majority or even a very significant minority. It just requires they hold extreme views. Nothing about this requires viewing them only through a local and not a global lens, either. And just because people voted for Trump doesn't mean they agree with all or even any of his positions. (Anecdata) I've spent the last several days speaking with numerous people who voted for him despite disagreement on many of his policy positions, strictly because they were voting against Clinton.

vivekd 10y ago
But how do you define extreme? Consider this, believing non-whites are morally and intellectually inferior would be considered an extreme and fanatical position. However this was not considered an extreme position in the 1800s because, unforutnately, it was the majority position. The problem you are having is you are defining extreme with reference to what you and the people around you believe to be extreme and fanatical rather than defining it based on what the majority consider extreme and fanatical, and the best evidence we have for the majority view in America is a very recent poll.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  Most extremists do not consider their views extreme. It largely requires an outside view (literally as in another time or place, or figuratively as in the non-extremists colocated with them). In particular, though, that view is demonstrably false. Anyone holding it can be considered an "extremist" just on the grounds of holding onto false beliefs (though falsification still has to occur). A modern example is (not a majority view) the anti-vaxxer crowd. Another one which is closer to a majority view (certainly a significant minority), is the anti-climate change crowd. How about the anti-evolution crowd (which has a lot of overlap with the above two), a significant minority in the US as evidenced by our K-12 biology textbooks.
  - vivekd 10y ago
    All you are saying here is "people who disagree with me about vaccination and climate change are extreme because they are blind to evidence" Obviously these people have a very different interpretation of the evidence and the conclusions that can be drawn from it. To suggest they are crazy because they disagree with you or find your evidence unconvincing is the same kind of smugness that cost Ms. Clinton and the democratic party this election.
    - Jtsummers 10y ago
      I'm not running for office any time soon, so my smugness will cost me nothing but karma here. I'm not suggesting they're crazy, I'm suggesting they're holding views which, by all reasonable evidence, appear to be false. These are not "opinion" views. You can't opinion your way into autism from vaccines. You can't opinion your way out of climate change. People who believe vaccines cause autism (today) are fanatics. People who deny climate change is happening (today) are fanatics.
      - vivekd 10y ago
        I think you can with regard to climate change - no one is saying that the termpreature isn't getting warmer, what they are arguing is whether human released CO2 is the cause. It's probably not going to be a popular opinion on this website but there are some holes in climate science that points to humans as the major contributor. For example: 1 The climate record started in 1800 which was one of the coldest periods in history - 1816 is popularly called the year without a summer and there had been a little ice age that started in the 1600s and ended during the 1800s (of course it's been rapidly warming since then) 2. Recent NASA observations show glacial retreat and warming on Mars that happened exactly at the same time as global warming on earth suggesting possible solar origion of climate change rather than human caused. 3. I have yet to see a single piece of evidence that conclusively links a warming climate with human released CO2. All we are told is that CO2 makes things warmer and that humans are releasing more CO2 than before. That's not enough, for climate change to be plausable they have to show that human released CO2 is enough to make a meaningful impact on atmospheric composition such that it makes the earth warmer. I don't think we have enough understanding of how atmosphere behaves or even of how much gases we are releasing to make those kinds of conclusions. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer 2 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/31/mars-also-undergoing-climate-change-ice-age-retrea/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/31/mars-also-un... now my purpose isn't to get into a debate on climate change here, all I want to demonstrate is that the people who deny man made climate change aren't crazy or fanatical, they are ordinary rational people that for whatever reason have reached a different conclusion and we should not be so quick to dismiss them. The hallmark of rationality is willing to inquire and debate for the validity of opinions, not dismiss opinions outright as fanatical or crazy without at least looking at the other side's evidence.

drewrv 10y ago

So you think, by definition, no democracy could ever elect an extremist?

vivekd 10y ago
I'm saying that "extreme" and "extremist" are not things with an objective reality, but rather things defined with reference to an existing group. What is extreme for one group may not be extreme for another group. An election is basically a poll of whose views the population supports. So any person elected by that population must be a person with views that said population does not find extreme. I think this is a problem with modern liberalism in that "extreme" has become synonymous with "people who disagree with me" or "people who don't share my right kind of opinions"