4 ms·

It is a "bad faith" problem. Bad faith arguments are made on all sides of the political spectrum, but anecdotally, it feels like one side is a little more fact

It is a "bad faith" problem. Bad faith arguments are made on all sides of the political spectrum, but anecdotally, it feels like one side is a little more fact challenged and relies on them fairly heavily. And the amount of arguments being made in bad faith means it is often more productive to just ignore or dismiss the other sides arguments outright. Here is a good example. Right wing media likes to point at the homelessness problem in CA and claim that that is proof that Democrats are bad at governing. The homeless issue is a fact, supported by data. And CA being a Democratic state is also a fact supported by data. But pointing to both those facts and claiming it as proof that Democrats==bad is a bad faith argument. Blue states have higher GDP, higher levels of education attainment, and lower poverty rates than red states. And homelessness is a weird metric to use as it is partially a by product of regional economic success, where a good job market coupled with an overheated housing market results in an increasing number of people willing to tough it out on the streets or in their cars. I could make a similarly bad faith argument, and point out that West Virginia has the highest number of opioid overdoses per capita, therefore Republicans==bad. But I don't need to do that because the statistics that most reasonable people would agree to use as an arbiter of state level success are already in agreement with my position. As you can see from the length of the above paragraph. These bad faith arguments require a decent amount of effort and/or knowledge to effectively counter. So as we move into this post-fact world, can you really blame people for just sticking to the 'narratives'?

_qulr 6y ago
> homelessness is a weird metric to use Homeless is not a weird metric to use. It's absolutely a failure of government in the worst possible way. Democrats deserve all the criticism in the world for tolerating that situation. Still, you're correct that there is bad faith: the bad faith is that Republicans care about homelessness, which they generally do not either. Democrats deserve criticism for the failures of Democratic-controlled governments, and Republicans deserve criticism for the failures of Republican-controlled governments. In my opinion, they're both bad. Are they "equally bad"? Maybe not, but I won't accept that homelessness is a weird metric. There's a lot of bad faith is ignoring one's own faults.
- vonseel 6y ago
  Exactly. California not the only Democrat-led place with major homelessness problems. Just look at Austin, Texas, for an example of exactly what not to do. And these bleeding heart liberals want to elect Biden... it breaks my heart what the toxic Democrat-led media are doing to this country.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    > And these bleeding heart liberals This doesn't really give the impression of actually deeply caring about homelessness...
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> anecdotally, it feels like one side is a little more fact challenged and relies on them fairly heavily. This is just filter bubbles and various cognitive biases. Stories from any cable news network are regularly full of major holes, which you overlook when they're on "your side" because you're not invested in finding fault with them. Stephen Colbert's perception of reality has a known liberal bias. > And homelessness is a weird metric to use as it is partially a by product of regional economic success, where a good job market coupled with an overheated housing market results in an increasing number of people willing to tough it out on the streets or in their cars. But the overheated housing market is the criticism, and is completely valid. California is correctly criticized for letting housing costs get so bad that people who are making twice the US median income are nonetheless sleeping in their cars. And California may be the worst, but it is actually a problem which is more severe in blue states than red states on average. Housing costs more in NYC than Austin, and more in Chicago than Charlotte, despite having a lower median income. So sticking to the "narratives" doesn't get you there. It causes you to ignore the problems in your own back yard. You have to look at the facts, even when they're inconvenient, and admit it when it's your team making a mistake.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > This is just filter bubbles and various cognitive biases. Stories from any cable news network are regularly full of major holes, which you overlook when they're on "your side" because you're not invested in finding fault with them. Everyone is wrong about some facts. Surely I'm wrong about some facts, as I'm not omniscient. However, this does not imply that everyone is equally wrong about the facts. Some people are clearly more often wrong about facts than others.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > Some people are clearly more often wrong about facts than others. When half the country disagrees with the other half as to who that is, I'm not sure "clearly" is the right word to use. And if you don't entertain the possibility that it could be you, it will be you.

_qulr 6y ago

> homelessness is a weird metric to use Homeless is not a weird metric to use. It's absolutely a failure of government in the worst possible way. Democrats deserve all the criticism in the world for tolerating that situation. Still, you're correct that there is bad faith: the bad faith is that Republicans care about homelessness, which they generally do not either. Democrats deserve criticism for the failures of Democratic-controlled governments, and Republicans deserve criticism for the failures of Republican-controlled governments. In my opinion, they're both bad. Are they "equally bad"? Maybe not, but I won't accept that homelessness is a weird metric. There's a lot of bad faith is ignoring one's own faults.

vonseel 6y ago
Exactly. California not the only Democrat-led place with major homelessness problems. Just look at Austin, Texas, for an example of exactly what not to do. And these bleeding heart liberals want to elect Biden... it breaks my heart what the toxic Democrat-led media are doing to this country.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > And these bleeding heart liberals This doesn't really give the impression of actually deeply caring about homelessness...

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> anecdotally, it feels like one side is a little more fact challenged and relies on them fairly heavily. This is just filter bubbles and various cognitive biases. Stories from any cable news network are regularly full of major holes, which you overlook when they're on "your side" because you're not invested in finding fault with them. Stephen Colbert's perception of reality has a known liberal bias. > And homelessness is a weird metric to use as it is partially a by product of regional economic success, where a good job market coupled with an overheated housing market results in an increasing number of people willing to tough it out on the streets or in their cars. But the overheated housing market is the criticism, and is completely valid. California is correctly criticized for letting housing costs get so bad that people who are making twice the US median income are nonetheless sleeping in their cars. And California may be the worst, but it is actually a problem which is more severe in blue states than red states on average. Housing costs more in NYC than Austin, and more in Chicago than Charlotte, despite having a lower median income. So sticking to the "narratives" doesn't get you there. It causes you to ignore the problems in your own back yard. You have to look at the facts, even when they're inconvenient, and admit it when it's your team making a mistake.

_qulr 6y ago
> This is just filter bubbles and various cognitive biases. Stories from any cable news network are regularly full of major holes, which you overlook when they're on "your side" because you're not invested in finding fault with them. Everyone is wrong about some facts. Surely I'm wrong about some facts, as I'm not omniscient. However, this does not imply that everyone is equally wrong about the facts. Some people are clearly more often wrong about facts than others.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > Some people are clearly more often wrong about facts than others. When half the country disagrees with the other half as to who that is, I'm not sure "clearly" is the right word to use. And if you don't entertain the possibility that it could be you, it will be you.