4 ms·

Critical thinking is all well and good, but I'll hazard a guess that it won't help - many people know it but only apply it selectively. On the other hand, I ca

Critical thinking is all well and good, but I'll hazard a guess that it won't help - many people know it but only apply it selectively. On the other hand, I can't help but think comment threads like this amount to nothing more than "voting for the other guy is so illogical, clearly my vote is the correct one". A slightly veiled way to call anyone who doesn't vote your way stupid.

toomuchtodo 9y ago
Not at all. I don't blame a single person who voted for Donald Trump (disclaimer: Bernie Sanders was "my" candidate); Trump made promises, and people voted for those promises. The fault lies with his failing his base, not the base itself. Now, if he runs again and people still vote for him after he's lied and broken most of his campaign process, that can't be fixed, in which case maybe democracy is broken.
- candu 9y ago
  One counterargument to this reasoning is that many of his promises are for policies that, according to the best available evidence, are counterproductive. If the base consistently votes for things like “get tough on crime!” or “keep drugs illegal!” or “spend a lot of money building a giant wall!” or “institute a travel ban on questionable legal and national security grounds!”, I think there’s a strong case to be made that there’s some sort of issue affecting the base. Where the issue lies, and which people / organizations are at fault, is the thornier question. (Is it inequities in education? Is it propaganda, good old FUD campaigns, or a failure of the media? Poverty? Drug abuse? Political disenchantment caused by corruption or widening inequality? The legacy of institutionalized racism?) All of which is to say: I don’t think his base is solely to blame; far from it. We do, however, need to understand why people vote for useless / counterproductive policies, and for the people that espouse them, when we should collectively know better. If we're not willing to face this question, democracy is already broken.
  - problems 9y ago
    The problem I see here is that your definition of counterproductive might not match mine. Maybe I think punishment is important for moral reasons so longer prison sentences are something I favor. That's not exactly a logic level issue, that's not a media issue, that's a moral decision I've made. Just because my view of the world differs from yours doesn't make it less valid, maybe I made a decision based on my conscience or upbringing instead of on pure economic or improving lives grounds. I don't think that makes the decision less valid. Many such policies can be viewed in this light.
    - candu 9y ago
      If we’re making decisions that could have been predicted, on the basis on known scientific evidence, to lead to measurably worse outcomes, I’d argue that does indeed make those decisions less valid. There’s a troubling tendency these days to discredit scientific expertise, or to mischaracterize it as partisan. It’s insane to imagine that we can forever hide behind arbitrary (and, often, deeply problematic) value systems to ignore the available expertise, knowledge, and data. You can't move water uphill with morality.
- StevePerkins 9y ago
  This is a seriously naive view of why people vote. I don't think most people have ever actually voted FOR a candidate in their life. Most people vote AGAINST candidates. And if the candidate you voted against loses, then there is no subsequent validation of how they did in office, because they weren't in that office.

toomuchtodo 9y ago

Not at all. I don't blame a single person who voted for Donald Trump (disclaimer: Bernie Sanders was "my" candidate); Trump made promises, and people voted for those promises. The fault lies with his failing his base, not the base itself. Now, if he runs again and people still vote for him after he's lied and broken most of his campaign process, that can't be fixed, in which case maybe democracy is broken.

candu 9y ago
One counterargument to this reasoning is that many of his promises are for policies that, according to the best available evidence, are counterproductive. If the base consistently votes for things like “get tough on crime!” or “keep drugs illegal!” or “spend a lot of money building a giant wall!” or “institute a travel ban on questionable legal and national security grounds!”, I think there’s a strong case to be made that there’s some sort of issue affecting the base. Where the issue lies, and which people / organizations are at fault, is the thornier question. (Is it inequities in education? Is it propaganda, good old FUD campaigns, or a failure of the media? Poverty? Drug abuse? Political disenchantment caused by corruption or widening inequality? The legacy of institutionalized racism?) All of which is to say: I don’t think his base is solely to blame; far from it. We do, however, need to understand why people vote for useless / counterproductive policies, and for the people that espouse them, when we should collectively know better. If we're not willing to face this question, democracy is already broken.
- problems 9y ago
  The problem I see here is that your definition of counterproductive might not match mine. Maybe I think punishment is important for moral reasons so longer prison sentences are something I favor. That's not exactly a logic level issue, that's not a media issue, that's a moral decision I've made. Just because my view of the world differs from yours doesn't make it less valid, maybe I made a decision based on my conscience or upbringing instead of on pure economic or improving lives grounds. I don't think that makes the decision less valid. Many such policies can be viewed in this light.
  - candu 9y ago
    If we’re making decisions that could have been predicted, on the basis on known scientific evidence, to lead to measurably worse outcomes, I’d argue that does indeed make those decisions less valid. There’s a troubling tendency these days to discredit scientific expertise, or to mischaracterize it as partisan. It’s insane to imagine that we can forever hide behind arbitrary (and, often, deeply problematic) value systems to ignore the available expertise, knowledge, and data. You can't move water uphill with morality.
StevePerkins 9y ago
This is a seriously naive view of why people vote. I don't think most people have ever actually voted FOR a candidate in their life. Most people vote AGAINST candidates. And if the candidate you voted against loses, then there is no subsequent validation of how they did in office, because they weren't in that office.