4 ms·

Everyone in a democracy is informed, there is no such thing as uninformed voters per se. So depending on how you define informed citizenry I don't think you ar

Everyone in a democracy is informed, there is no such thing as uninformed voters per se. So depending on how you define informed citizenry I don't think you are right. And I believe that way too much importance is being put on the fake news effect. It has nothing to do with why people voted like they did. If anything EVERYONE is living in a filter bubble and have been doing that since the dawn of man. The voters who voted for Trump or Hillary were informed enough to make a choice because they voted on what they experience in their everyday. Thats the whole idea. The idea isn't that someone dictates what it means to be informed (i know you didn't say specifically but you seem to imply something along those line) News fake or not isn't what drive most peoples decisions and I would ask you to ask yourself if you changed your opinion on something that was you found out was fake. My guess is you didn't even when you thought it was right.

grzm 10y ago
When people are informed of and led to believe factually incorrect information, I think it's more than fair to say they're misinformed or uninformed.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  What factually correct information are you talking about exactly? Both sides have biases if nothing else about the other side. The whole idea with a democracy is that no one get to decide what is important to voters and so no one get to decide what they need to be informed about. Politics about prioritization it's NOT an academic discipline. People who voted for Trump did so because of what they felt was important just like voters for Hillary did on her. Who are you or I to say what information is the right information to judge based on?
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Politics should be about prioritization. But unfortunately, it's often about facts. For example, the climate change debate should be about how much effort to put into fighting it, whether regulatory or market-based solutions are more appropriate, etc. Instead, the debate is about whether it's even happening at all. If we can't even agree on basic facts, what hope is there of choosing effective leadership?
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      Huh? Politics are never about facts not sure where you get that idea about it's about perception, power etc. Not about facts. Thats why it's called the art of the possible. You prove my very point. Your believe that the priority should be about how we should fight it. Thats your prioritization. You don't even have to be a climate sceptic to come up with another perspective which is. You don't need to worry about that, technology will solve it. Agreeing on the basic facts has absolutely nothing to do with politics. Because even the basic facts aren't what drives politics decision making.
      - mikeash 10y ago
        I said that the climate change debate should be about how much effort to put into fighting it. "Zero" is a perfectly acceptable answer to that question (albeit one I disagree with). The problem isn't that people are arguing that "zero" is the correct answer to the question. The problem is that we lack a shared basis of facts, to the extent that about half of the electorate will say that the question itself is based on false assumptions.
        ThomPete 10y ago
        The problem is that even when it comes to climate it's not even sure people accept that it's an important fact to worry about. Thats what I am trying to say. There is not right prioritization here. Only the one people make. Thats democracy.
        mikeash 10y ago
        I agree with your second paragraph. There is no right prioritization, only different ones. But there are right facts. And if the basis of someone's prioritization is "climate change isn't even happening, so of course we shouldn't do anything to fight it" then I think it's reasonable to call that position uninformed. The problem isn't that some people think it's unimportant. The problem is that many people think it's not even real.
  - grzm 10y ago
    How people prioritize issues based on facts is different from whether the facts are true. I agree that you or I can disagree on prioritization of issues. People can also be wrong about which facts they believe. For example, if someone believes that New York City is the capital of the state of New York, they're factually wrong. They're misinformed. For a more political fact, Barack Obama either was or was not born in the US. People made political decisions based on whether or not this is true. For the argument I'm making, it doesn't matter whether or not it's true. It's that a fact is politically important. If you're arguing that which facts are true is ultimately relative, I'm not going to chase you down that particular rabbit hole. Perhaps what I'm saying is obvious and trivial to you, and we're speaking past each other.
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      Of course there are facts not disagreeing there. What I disagree with is whether they impact the voters as has been claimed (not necessarily by you) and which I believe is the base of this whole thread here. The critical thinking only help you based on your premise it doesn't give you the "right" premise IMO.
      - grzm 10y ago
        Great! We agree that there are facts! :) (That's sincere, by the way. Sometimes it seems even that common ground is frustratingly hard to find.) As for impact on voters: Do you think there were any voters that cast their vote in part on their belief whether or not Obama was born in the US?
        ThomPete 10y ago
        Not enough for it to be a meaningful factor. Keep in mind many of the people who voted in Trump also voted in Obama.
        grzm 10y ago
        Cool. I think it's fair to say that we agree 1) There are facts. 2) Facts have an impact on voters. The open question then is 3) The weight voters give these facts varies from voter to voter and fact to fact. Is that fair? I can certainly agree to that. What do you think?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

grzm 10y ago

When people are informed of and led to believe factually incorrect information, I think it's more than fair to say they're misinformed or uninformed.

ThomPete 10y ago
What factually correct information are you talking about exactly? Both sides have biases if nothing else about the other side. The whole idea with a democracy is that no one get to decide what is important to voters and so no one get to decide what they need to be informed about. Politics about prioritization it's NOT an academic discipline. People who voted for Trump did so because of what they felt was important just like voters for Hillary did on her. Who are you or I to say what information is the right information to judge based on?
- mikeash 10y ago
  Politics should be about prioritization. But unfortunately, it's often about facts. For example, the climate change debate should be about how much effort to put into fighting it, whether regulatory or market-based solutions are more appropriate, etc. Instead, the debate is about whether it's even happening at all. If we can't even agree on basic facts, what hope is there of choosing effective leadership?
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    Huh? Politics are never about facts not sure where you get that idea about it's about perception, power etc. Not about facts. Thats why it's called the art of the possible. You prove my very point. Your believe that the priority should be about how we should fight it. Thats your prioritization. You don't even have to be a climate sceptic to come up with another perspective which is. You don't need to worry about that, technology will solve it. Agreeing on the basic facts has absolutely nothing to do with politics. Because even the basic facts aren't what drives politics decision making.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      I said that the climate change debate should be about how much effort to put into fighting it. "Zero" is a perfectly acceptable answer to that question (albeit one I disagree with). The problem isn't that people are arguing that "zero" is the correct answer to the question. The problem is that we lack a shared basis of facts, to the extent that about half of the electorate will say that the question itself is based on false assumptions.
      - ThomPete 10y ago
        The problem is that even when it comes to climate it's not even sure people accept that it's an important fact to worry about. Thats what I am trying to say. There is not right prioritization here. Only the one people make. Thats democracy.
        mikeash 10y ago
        I agree with your second paragraph. There is no right prioritization, only different ones. But there are right facts. And if the basis of someone's prioritization is "climate change isn't even happening, so of course we shouldn't do anything to fight it" then I think it's reasonable to call that position uninformed. The problem isn't that some people think it's unimportant. The problem is that many people think it's not even real.
- grzm 10y ago
  How people prioritize issues based on facts is different from whether the facts are true. I agree that you or I can disagree on prioritization of issues. People can also be wrong about which facts they believe. For example, if someone believes that New York City is the capital of the state of New York, they're factually wrong. They're misinformed. For a more political fact, Barack Obama either was or was not born in the US. People made political decisions based on whether or not this is true. For the argument I'm making, it doesn't matter whether or not it's true. It's that a fact is politically important. If you're arguing that which facts are true is ultimately relative, I'm not going to chase you down that particular rabbit hole. Perhaps what I'm saying is obvious and trivial to you, and we're speaking past each other.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    Of course there are facts not disagreeing there. What I disagree with is whether they impact the voters as has been claimed (not necessarily by you) and which I believe is the base of this whole thread here. The critical thinking only help you based on your premise it doesn't give you the "right" premise IMO.
    - grzm 10y ago
      Great! We agree that there are facts! :) (That's sincere, by the way. Sometimes it seems even that common ground is frustratingly hard to find.) As for impact on voters: Do you think there were any voters that cast their vote in part on their belief whether or not Obama was born in the US?
      - ThomPete 10y ago
        Not enough for it to be a meaningful factor. Keep in mind many of the people who voted in Trump also voted in Obama.
        grzm 10y ago
        Cool. I think it's fair to say that we agree 1) There are facts. 2) Facts have an impact on voters. The open question then is 3) The weight voters give these facts varies from voter to voter and fact to fact. Is that fair? I can certainly agree to that. What do you think?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]