9 ms·

I don't understand this fetishism with centrism and all opinions being treated equally, and that having made up your mind on an issue is necessarily wrong. Whe

I don't understand this fetishism with centrism and all opinions being treated equally, and that having made up your mind on an issue is necessarily wrong. When it comes to an issue like, say, climate change, I spent years reading the blogosphere, reading blogs like WUWT and whatever Judith Curry would come up with, and then the rebuttals, sometimes waiting years for the science to come out. For any issue around climate science, there's probably a web page on it at skeptical sicence. I've probably skimmed at least half the papers on that webpage. After many years of that (I'm a veteran of the mid-2000s global "pause" debate) I've made up my mind. The idea that having made my mind is a horrible thing, is just a tactic to try to creates wedges of doubt to try to keep a zombie political idea going. One side is getting very desperate because of how incredibly wrong they've consistently been. And implicitly I bet it isn't Fox News viewers that you see starting to listen to NPR (although I'm certainly they'll pick out some individuals that do) it is predominantly working to get the open-minded-liberal crowd and Joe Rogan viewers to spend some time letting Fox News pour information into their head in the name of being better informed about both sides. Some news really is equivalent to trans fats and highly refined sugars for the brain. Trying to achieve "balance" there isn't actually healthy. Some of it is just bad. And the two outcomes are either that you're going to get sucked in (and not even realize it) or that you're just going to get angry at it.

stadium 5y ago
> is just a tactic to try to creates wedges of doubt to try to keep a zombie political idea going. One side is getting very desperate because of how incredibly wrong they've consistently been. Agree completely that it's used as a divide and conquer tactic. However, convincing the consumers of said wrong information, or more than wrong just outright fabrications in many cases, is a tough sell. Telling someone that their major belief system and ideology is "wrong" will usually harden their beliefs further.
trophycase 5y ago
Unfortunately the whole "Lab Leak" COVID thing has given them another 5 years of legitimacy probably.
- myfavoritedog 5y ago
  Unfortunately? This is exactly why living in the default media bubble is such a problem. The COVID lab leak coverup was the normal state of affairs. It wasn't an outlier. We saw all last year as the media stood in front of looting, rioting, and burning buildings and told us that the protests were "mostly peaceful". We heard that the police are "systemically racist" and practically hunting black people in the streets, but if you looked at the police interactions statistics, you saw that it just wasn't true. We were told by the media last year that Hydroxychloroquine was a dangerous drug... simply because Trump suggested it might be a good treatment for COVID. Social media companies are still banning people for touting it: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9671029/Hydroxychloroquine-zinc-increase-COVID-19-survival-rates-nearly-200.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9671029/Hydroxychlo... The current normal is for most of the media to lie and push Democrat political narratives. Yeah, yeah, Fox News is a real counterbalance when they aren't even a tenth of the audience of ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, and PBS. There's no social media narrative bubble to speak of. It's all Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and on and on.
adflux 5y ago
Why mention Joe Rogan viewers...?
- tw04 5y ago
  Because Joe Rogan has a habit of hosting individuals who are blatant frauds and plays it off as "representing both sides". When you have Alex Jones on and let him spew outright lies for an hour without questioning any of it, you've lost all credibility.
  - mpfundstein 5y ago
    have you seen last podcast? he questions a lot of Alex' stuff. Further are the three AJs podcasts great entertainment
    - stouset 5y ago
      Maybe, just maybe, we should stop going out of our way to provide platforms to influential fraudsters and lunatics?
      - adflux 5y ago
        Yes, let's silence everyone who doesn't share our view and shame everyone who follows him, I'm sure that's a great strategy. For creating extremists, that is. Keep an open dialogue and dismantle them. If you can't do that, maybe they have something worth listening to.
        lamontcg 5y ago
        "any publicity is good publicity as long as they spell your name right"
        stouset 5y ago
        Do you understand that there’s an immense difference beteeen silencing those you disagree with and not personally inviting them to spread their bullshit to an audience of tens or hundreds of millions of your own followers? > Keep an open dialogue and dismantle them. If you can't do that, maybe they have something worth listening to. Climate change denialism, antivaxers, and flat earthers have all thrived in an environment of open dialogue. Do you believe they have ideas worth listening to? The gish gallop is a depreddingly effective tool, and not one generally leveraged by people on the right side of a debate.
systemvoltage 5y ago
I disagree. Climate change is a terrible example to prove your point. It's an easy one and weakens your argument about balance. Climate change has scientific consensus and has gotten better over time. Most political issues left/right are concerned about issues that are far more nuanced and there isn't enough data to back it up, or even if there is data, there are gaping holes in methodology and eventually boils down to philosophical/ideological discussions about rights, duties of citizens and the governing bodies. People that follow the ideology of echo-chambering that you're proposing is exactly what we don't need at this time. Labeling centrists with condescendence of fetishism is uncalled for. I suggest RTFA. The press is doing a poor job of omitting facts (which is different from lying) because they don't echo back in their chambers. People that follow your proposal would be illinformed of the facts that are omitted.
- JKCalhoun 5y ago
  You think that climate change is a settled issue across the political spectrum? I have seen the contrary.
  - systemvoltage 5y ago
    Here is the core problem that I have a hard time articulating: Here is what OP is doing: 1) Point out ills on the other side - QAnon, Climate denial, etc. 2) Make a sweeping statement that being a centrist means giving attention to aforementioned theories and giving "equal" importance to both sides. That's not what centrists do. OP's condenscending take on Centrists is based on low-blows and not much substance.
    - JKCalhoun 5y ago
      I feel like there was a time when you could be centrist and it made you appear objective, wise, open to discourse from both sides (a bit like Switzerland, LOL?). I think that time has passed though. Maybe it's the extremists that are forcing us to take sides. It's a little too nuanced in today's political climate to say, "I'm a centrist and entertain ideas from both sides … but not those crazy ideas."
JKCalhoun 5y ago
Yes. I'm reminded of the woman who had survived the Holocaust and was asked to be interviewed — where they would also bring on a Holocaust denier ... you know, for balance. Thankfully, she declined. But the point is of course: here we are.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  Context aside, that sounds like it would have been a powerful film. A denier face to face with an eyewitness, presumably with the eyewitness prepared with all of the innumerable pieces of indisputable evidence. Talk about losing, that's losing.
  - watwut 5y ago
    She would be eye witness talking about own experience. It is super easy to attack against that or manipulate to make her sound crazy. She is not historian to know nuances of stuff deniers talk about. The denier would be prepared too. Deniers often claim the extend of it was much smaller or that leadership had no idea. Victim being tortured cant speak of thosez historian could.
  - x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
    I've read and even said a lot of uncomfortable things on the internet, but seeing someone lament the loss of not pitting a holocaust survivor with a denier probably takes the cake.
    - whatshisface 5y ago
      A lot of holocaust survivors have made very cogent cases against deniers, you may be underestimating their strength. Maybe some people couldn't do that, but other people could. It is a lot of people we are talking about.
      - x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
        This isn't about making a case, it's about giving equal credence to the narratives of a holocaust survivor and someone who denies it.
slowhand09 5y ago
I listened to and contributed to NPR for years, long before Trump, Hillary , or Obama were things. I watch Fox news also. When you distinguish between news and opinion shows, Fox is at least as good as CNN/MSNBC/ABC/CBS. When you watch a cropped clip, then the full clip, and the entire circumstances change that should be a sign. Notice the Wired example mentioned kids in a TN classroom, and it was the liberal kids they implied were scared to express their opinions. I'm pretty sure they cherrypicked that. Because that is the opposite in most states, especially those where the teachers assign specific homework based on opinion shows, demonizing specific parties and ideas. Your initial point about climate science... It was cooling, then heating, now change, and sea level rise. Most people you would characterize as "climate deniers" believe in climate change. Many do not agree that by adopting electric cars and burning ethanol(remember that transfer of wealth?) in the US, we control change after crippling our economy while China churns out multiple times what the rest of the world does. I'm sure they'll stop tho, once the completely dominate the world economy. Wanna talk about gun control now?
- lamontcg 5y ago
  “Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary” -- Karl Marx The rest of what you wrote about climate change comes under Brandolini's law.
nyokodo 5y ago
> The idea that having made my mind is a horrible thing, is just a tactic to try to creates wedges of doubt to try to keep a zombie political idea going. You're an extreme minority in how in-depth you've looked into the science. The only really rational position for someone who hasn't done so is at most vague trust based on the scientific consensus. People who both haven't sufficiently looked into the science and yet who still have a strongly held belief are part of the problem even when they happen to be right. Then the political implications are a different matter to the scientific question. There is a whole range of political positions you can come to even given a consensus on the science. Do you drastically reduce carbon usage or accept the warming and adapt? Maybe both? That is where the political x/y/z axes come in.
x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
>...I don't understand this fetishism with centrism and all opinions being treated equally, Let's be honest here, the direction of this thread, and people most enthused about the linked article are people who are sympathetic to right-wing ideologies. Currently, because of demographic trends, the right-wing is scared that their ideas will be run out of the marketplace of ideas. The only way to prevent that is to 1. Embrace enlightened centrism, and 2. Complain that their opinions aren't being treated "equally".
mythrwy 5y ago
While I accept that humans are to some degree altering the climate, I've come the opposite conclusion. And I'm not a veteran dating back to mid 2000's. I'm a veteran dating to the late 80's at which time I was very concerned. But the dire predictions simply didn't come to pass. We have been burning coal for well over 200 years. And oil for over 100. Where is the massive climate change? Where is the massive increase in extreme weather events? So I highly doubt the accuracy of many models. I also highly doubt a slightly warmer wetter world will be net negative for humanity should it come to pass. I don't see my skepticism to be anti scientific at all. My purpose for posting this is not to argue against climate change, simply to point out that the magnitude and ultimate effects are not settled in my mind at least. The issue isn't closed. It's not "fact". It's a hypothesis as to what the effects will be and the way forward is very much opened to debate. It's certainly not "one side is absolutely right!" at all.

stadium 5y ago

> is just a tactic to try to creates wedges of doubt to try to keep a zombie political idea going. One side is getting very desperate because of how incredibly wrong they've consistently been. Agree completely that it's used as a divide and conquer tactic. However, convincing the consumers of said wrong information, or more than wrong just outright fabrications in many cases, is a tough sell. Telling someone that their major belief system and ideology is "wrong" will usually harden their beliefs further.

trophycase 5y ago

Unfortunately the whole "Lab Leak" COVID thing has given them another 5 years of legitimacy probably.

myfavoritedog 5y ago
Unfortunately? This is exactly why living in the default media bubble is such a problem. The COVID lab leak coverup was the normal state of affairs. It wasn't an outlier. We saw all last year as the media stood in front of looting, rioting, and burning buildings and told us that the protests were "mostly peaceful". We heard that the police are "systemically racist" and practically hunting black people in the streets, but if you looked at the police interactions statistics, you saw that it just wasn't true. We were told by the media last year that Hydroxychloroquine was a dangerous drug... simply because Trump suggested it might be a good treatment for COVID. Social media companies are still banning people for touting it: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9671029/Hydroxychloroquine-zinc-increase-COVID-19-survival-rates-nearly-200.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9671029/Hydroxychlo... The current normal is for most of the media to lie and push Democrat political narratives. Yeah, yeah, Fox News is a real counterbalance when they aren't even a tenth of the audience of ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, and PBS. There's no social media narrative bubble to speak of. It's all Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and on and on.

adflux 5y ago

Why mention Joe Rogan viewers...?

tw04 5y ago
Because Joe Rogan has a habit of hosting individuals who are blatant frauds and plays it off as "representing both sides". When you have Alex Jones on and let him spew outright lies for an hour without questioning any of it, you've lost all credibility.
- mpfundstein 5y ago
  have you seen last podcast? he questions a lot of Alex' stuff. Further are the three AJs podcasts great entertainment
  - stouset 5y ago
    Maybe, just maybe, we should stop going out of our way to provide platforms to influential fraudsters and lunatics?
    - adflux 5y ago
      Yes, let's silence everyone who doesn't share our view and shame everyone who follows him, I'm sure that's a great strategy. For creating extremists, that is. Keep an open dialogue and dismantle them. If you can't do that, maybe they have something worth listening to.
      - lamontcg 5y ago
        "any publicity is good publicity as long as they spell your name right"
      - stouset 5y ago
        Do you understand that there’s an immense difference beteeen silencing those you disagree with and not personally inviting them to spread their bullshit to an audience of tens or hundreds of millions of your own followers? > Keep an open dialogue and dismantle them. If you can't do that, maybe they have something worth listening to. Climate change denialism, antivaxers, and flat earthers have all thrived in an environment of open dialogue. Do you believe they have ideas worth listening to? The gish gallop is a depreddingly effective tool, and not one generally leveraged by people on the right side of a debate.

systemvoltage 5y ago

I disagree. Climate change is a terrible example to prove your point. It's an easy one and weakens your argument about balance. Climate change has scientific consensus and has gotten better over time. Most political issues left/right are concerned about issues that are far more nuanced and there isn't enough data to back it up, or even if there is data, there are gaping holes in methodology and eventually boils down to philosophical/ideological discussions about rights, duties of citizens and the governing bodies. People that follow the ideology of echo-chambering that you're proposing is exactly what we don't need at this time. Labeling centrists with condescendence of fetishism is uncalled for. I suggest RTFA. The press is doing a poor job of omitting facts (which is different from lying) because they don't echo back in their chambers. People that follow your proposal would be illinformed of the facts that are omitted.

JKCalhoun 5y ago
You think that climate change is a settled issue across the political spectrum? I have seen the contrary.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  Here is the core problem that I have a hard time articulating: Here is what OP is doing: 1) Point out ills on the other side - QAnon, Climate denial, etc. 2) Make a sweeping statement that being a centrist means giving attention to aforementioned theories and giving "equal" importance to both sides. That's not what centrists do. OP's condenscending take on Centrists is based on low-blows and not much substance.
  - JKCalhoun 5y ago
    I feel like there was a time when you could be centrist and it made you appear objective, wise, open to discourse from both sides (a bit like Switzerland, LOL?). I think that time has passed though. Maybe it's the extremists that are forcing us to take sides. It's a little too nuanced in today's political climate to say, "I'm a centrist and entertain ideas from both sides … but not those crazy ideas."

JKCalhoun 5y ago

Yes. I'm reminded of the woman who had survived the Holocaust and was asked to be interviewed — where they would also bring on a Holocaust denier ... you know, for balance. Thankfully, she declined. But the point is of course: here we are.

whatshisface 5y ago
Context aside, that sounds like it would have been a powerful film. A denier face to face with an eyewitness, presumably with the eyewitness prepared with all of the innumerable pieces of indisputable evidence. Talk about losing, that's losing.
- watwut 5y ago
  She would be eye witness talking about own experience. It is super easy to attack against that or manipulate to make her sound crazy. She is not historian to know nuances of stuff deniers talk about. The denier would be prepared too. Deniers often claim the extend of it was much smaller or that leadership had no idea. Victim being tortured cant speak of thosez historian could.
- x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
  I've read and even said a lot of uncomfortable things on the internet, but seeing someone lament the loss of not pitting a holocaust survivor with a denier probably takes the cake.
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    A lot of holocaust survivors have made very cogent cases against deniers, you may be underestimating their strength. Maybe some people couldn't do that, but other people could. It is a lot of people we are talking about.
    - x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
      This isn't about making a case, it's about giving equal credence to the narratives of a holocaust survivor and someone who denies it.

slowhand09 5y ago

I listened to and contributed to NPR for years, long before Trump, Hillary , or Obama were things. I watch Fox news also. When you distinguish between news and opinion shows, Fox is at least as good as CNN/MSNBC/ABC/CBS. When you watch a cropped clip, then the full clip, and the entire circumstances change that should be a sign. Notice the Wired example mentioned kids in a TN classroom, and it was the liberal kids they implied were scared to express their opinions. I'm pretty sure they cherrypicked that. Because that is the opposite in most states, especially those where the teachers assign specific homework based on opinion shows, demonizing specific parties and ideas. Your initial point about climate science... It was cooling, then heating, now change, and sea level rise. Most people you would characterize as "climate deniers" believe in climate change. Many do not agree that by adopting electric cars and burning ethanol(remember that transfer of wealth?) in the US, we control change after crippling our economy while China churns out multiple times what the rest of the world does. I'm sure they'll stop tho, once the completely dominate the world economy. Wanna talk about gun control now?

lamontcg 5y ago
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary” -- Karl Marx The rest of what you wrote about climate change comes under Brandolini's law.

nyokodo 5y ago

> The idea that having made my mind is a horrible thing, is just a tactic to try to creates wedges of doubt to try to keep a zombie political idea going. You're an extreme minority in how in-depth you've looked into the science. The only really rational position for someone who hasn't done so is at most vague trust based on the scientific consensus. People who both haven't sufficiently looked into the science and yet who still have a strongly held belief are part of the problem even when they happen to be right. Then the political implications are a different matter to the scientific question. There is a whole range of political positions you can come to even given a consensus on the science. Do you drastically reduce carbon usage or accept the warming and adapt? Maybe both? That is where the political x/y/z axes come in.

x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago

>...I don't understand this fetishism with centrism and all opinions being treated equally, Let's be honest here, the direction of this thread, and people most enthused about the linked article are people who are sympathetic to right-wing ideologies. Currently, because of demographic trends, the right-wing is scared that their ideas will be run out of the marketplace of ideas. The only way to prevent that is to 1. Embrace enlightened centrism, and 2. Complain that their opinions aren't being treated "equally".

mythrwy 5y ago

While I accept that humans are to some degree altering the climate, I've come the opposite conclusion. And I'm not a veteran dating back to mid 2000's. I'm a veteran dating to the late 80's at which time I was very concerned. But the dire predictions simply didn't come to pass. We have been burning coal for well over 200 years. And oil for over 100. Where is the massive climate change? Where is the massive increase in extreme weather events? So I highly doubt the accuracy of many models. I also highly doubt a slightly warmer wetter world will be net negative for humanity should it come to pass. I don't see my skepticism to be anti scientific at all. My purpose for posting this is not to argue against climate change, simply to point out that the magnitude and ultimate effects are not settled in my mind at least. The issue isn't closed. It's not "fact". It's a hypothesis as to what the effects will be and the way forward is very much opened to debate. It's certainly not "one side is absolutely right!" at all.