3 ms·

When you already believe something, you can start seeing proofs everywhere. Water grids malfunction. Some water management departments suck. Some are good. Som

When you already believe something, you can start seeing proofs everywhere. Water grids malfunction. Some water management departments suck. Some are good. Some cities have better infrastructure than others. Inevitably though, these are taken as "see! I'm right." Tories are evil. Democrats are useless. Communism doesn't work. Capitalism hates humans. Bureaucrats suck. Privatisation is a failure. Regulators are ne'erdowells. Etc. Etc. One of the first principles of formal logic deals with this sort of thing. Reductio and absurdum. When a statement or logical method can yield every conclusion and it's opposite, it's the logic or assumptions that are false.

wahnfrieden 4y ago
I don't actually believe it from this example alone but wanted to say it. Your reading is a little simplistic and condescending
- dalbasal 4y ago
  Fair enough. I can see why you say this, and I would probably feel the same way if our positions were reversed. Perhaps there is a better way that I should have phrased this. OTOH, I'm somewhat stumped. Some forms tend to be condescending or dismissive. Assigning motives, for example. Meta, like my response to your comment. Yet, motivated reasoning exists. Cognitive fallacies recur. Etc. I don't want to be condescending or bad faith. But in these cases, I don't see much daylight between condescending and just not commenting. There is such a thing as adopting a worldview, and then suddenly seeing everything through that lens. As you say, you already hold the position that "the American project is failing its residents." When the water grid has a fault, it's proof of this. My contention is that if you had previously adopted an alternative worldview, you'd hold the recurring culprit (capitalism, bureaucracy, republicans, environmentalism, etc.) responsible by the same logic.
  - wahnfrieden 4y ago
    I get what you're saying but you should recognize a level of "meta" in peoples behavior as well rather than take for granted a kind of intellectual immediacy to what people say. I'm aware of the audience here and have intention to agitate. To be open with you. Also your line of thought can apply to really anything, not just the problem of crediting

wahnfrieden 4y ago

I don't actually believe it from this example alone but wanted to say it. Your reading is a little simplistic and condescending

dalbasal 4y ago
Fair enough. I can see why you say this, and I would probably feel the same way if our positions were reversed. Perhaps there is a better way that I should have phrased this. OTOH, I'm somewhat stumped. Some forms tend to be condescending or dismissive. Assigning motives, for example. Meta, like my response to your comment. Yet, motivated reasoning exists. Cognitive fallacies recur. Etc. I don't want to be condescending or bad faith. But in these cases, I don't see much daylight between condescending and just not commenting. There is such a thing as adopting a worldview, and then suddenly seeing everything through that lens. As you say, you already hold the position that "the American project is failing its residents." When the water grid has a fault, it's proof of this. My contention is that if you had previously adopted an alternative worldview, you'd hold the recurring culprit (capitalism, bureaucracy, republicans, environmentalism, etc.) responsible by the same logic.
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  I get what you're saying but you should recognize a level of "meta" in peoples behavior as well rather than take for granted a kind of intellectual immediacy to what people say. I'm aware of the audience here and have intention to agitate. To be open with you. Also your line of thought can apply to really anything, not just the problem of crediting