4 ms·

People naturally form us-vs-them tribal mentalities, and the fact that this is the top comment of this post indicates that its a tribal mentality that's leading

People naturally form us-vs-them tribal mentalities, and the fact that this is the top comment of this post indicates that its a tribal mentality that's leading it to be upvoted. It's like saying on a Roy Moore post that the investigation was carried out by CNBC: it leads to Republicans invalidating any finding of the investigation. This default of ignoring any information from the Other Side is what almost got Roy Moore elected. This us-vs-them mentality needs to be noted. The fact that this comes from a think tank does not immediately mean they don't raise a good point.

_jal 9y ago
I agree that tribal bullshit has hit a dangerous fever pitch. I also agree that the product of think tanks are not inherently incorrect. But, if you wanted to bet me I couldn't guess what Americans For Prosperity thinks of the tax bill without reading anything from them about it, I'd take that bet in a heartbeat. You don't fix this by ignoring attribution or yelling at people for noting it. You also don't do so by attacking strawmen.
- johansch 9y ago
  How about just, you know, addressing the points the article made?
  - _jal 9y ago
    - Because nobody ignores attribution. - Not only is life it too short to pretend outfits that exist to promote a particular agenda are, in fact, neutral arbiters this time around, but doing so is actively empowering bad actors arguing in bad faith. Puzzle me this: a person you know to be con-artist wants you to do something. You can't figure out an angle, but it is a weird-seeming thing to ask. Do you ignore what you know about this person in making your decision?
    - johansch 9y ago
      The wonderful thing with multi-user forums like this is the crowd-sourcing aspect.
akamaka 9y ago
I thought the article lacking in some regards, which other commentors have already noted (the general "crime is out of control" narrative without comparison to historical data; implying connection between specific robberies and homelessness without providing supporting evidence). I was curious about who wrote it, and felt it was worthwhile to share what I found. That being said, if one wishes to attack the article, I think a strong argument could be made that this is not real research, but a cherry picking of anecdotes that fit the existing viewpoint of the author. It may be true that crime is out of control in Portland, and that the homeless are to blame, but a more convincing argument for this could be made with real statistical research.

_jal 9y ago

I agree that tribal bullshit has hit a dangerous fever pitch. I also agree that the product of think tanks are not inherently incorrect. But, if you wanted to bet me I couldn't guess what Americans For Prosperity thinks of the tax bill without reading anything from them about it, I'd take that bet in a heartbeat. You don't fix this by ignoring attribution or yelling at people for noting it. You also don't do so by attacking strawmen.

johansch 9y ago
How about just, you know, addressing the points the article made?
- _jal 9y ago
  - Because nobody ignores attribution. - Not only is life it too short to pretend outfits that exist to promote a particular agenda are, in fact, neutral arbiters this time around, but doing so is actively empowering bad actors arguing in bad faith. Puzzle me this: a person you know to be con-artist wants you to do something. You can't figure out an angle, but it is a weird-seeming thing to ask. Do you ignore what you know about this person in making your decision?
  - johansch 9y ago
    The wonderful thing with multi-user forums like this is the crowd-sourcing aspect.

akamaka 9y ago

I thought the article lacking in some regards, which other commentors have already noted (the general "crime is out of control" narrative without comparison to historical data; implying connection between specific robberies and homelessness without providing supporting evidence). I was curious about who wrote it, and felt it was worthwhile to share what I found. That being said, if one wishes to attack the article, I think a strong argument could be made that this is not real research, but a cherry picking of anecdotes that fit the existing viewpoint of the author. It may be true that crime is out of control in Portland, and that the homeless are to blame, but a more convincing argument for this could be made with real statistical research.