5 ms·

The strawmanning of arguments from both sides is so intense that most people lay in a bed composed entirely of strawman arguments. I firmly blame the media abov

The strawmanning of arguments from both sides is so intense that most people lay in a bed composed entirely of strawman arguments. I firmly blame the media above all for this, but individuals carry a burden to for not trying to remake their bed. It took me 15 years to to remake my bed into somewhat rational arguments, and still I find lots of hay in there. Generally both sides, or all sides really, want the same things and disagree on how to get there. And the truth is there is almost never an obvious or clear way to get there. It's fractal pros and cons all the way down.

matwood 2y ago
> but individuals carry a burden to for not trying to remake their bed In what way? I turn on Fox sometimes and it's not that it's slanted, but it's just a stream of lies and BS. I've watched a bunch of Trump's speeches and in addition to being incoherent, he says the same lies and BS all the way down. Yesterday's tariff speech was a great example. I don't consider myself progressive (though the MAGA right would think me so), but where do I go to try and 'remake [my] bed'?
- ablob 2y ago
  I think what's meant is that you need to be open to changing your opinion and manner of approach to things. To stay with the analogy: when you "remake" your bed and it ends up the same, chances are that you didn't try to improve on its design. By turning on Fox sometimes (provided it's not your main source) you might already not fall into the category of people not trying to remake their bed.
  - freejazz 2y ago
    Wait, we're designing bedding now? Not just remaking our beds? What a strained analogy that when you 'remake' your bed and it's the 'same' (why would it be different?) then you didn't improve the design?? Even more shocking is that you ran with this as opposed to realizing that these were warning signs that either your fundamental argument is ridiculous, or your analogy is.
- nomdep 2y ago
  Well, the first thing is to realize CNN is also just a stream of lies and BS. Every media news organization in the world has become (they always were?) pure garbage. Listening to first-hand sources is the way, I guess, but also remembering they can be lying as well, so be vigilant.
  - MrMcCall 2y ago
    It's true, because all the upper levels of ALL large media organizations have been infiltrated by big-moneyed conservatives. CNN and NBC weren't always as bad as they are now, but their descent has been obvious and dramatic. Some of them still employ democrats to some minimal extent, such as Jamelle Bouie at the NYT, but that's merely subterfuge, lest their bent be glaringly obvious. If someone can name a large organization that is an exception to my first paragraph, I would be happy to learn of them.
    - zoklet-enjoyer 2y ago
      CNN has always been propaganda https://youtu.be/rWtwjDhgN3Q https://youtu.be/rWtwjDhgN3Q https://youtu.be/NlcSiYulhos https://youtu.be/NlcSiYulhos
goatlover 2y ago
> Generally both sides, or all sides really, want the same things and disagree on how to get there. No, that is just not true. For example, do you think Putin and his supporters wanted a functioning democracy in Russia and independent Ukraine? No, they wanted someone functioning as a dictator to restore Russia's cold war territory and influence, and they wanted to undermine western democracies that stood in their way. History does not support your claim that everyone wants the same things. Some people want power and strong man to take over the government. We see that with the Trump administration. The religious conservatives want to use that to make America a Christian nation. The billionaire libertarians want to use it to deregulate their industries and run the government like a corporation. And Trump wants to act unilaterally to bring about his vision of being seen as some great figure. They have illiberal aims.
- Workaccount2 2y ago
  I'm speaking about the collectives, not the individuals. There are always deranged individuals and some of them, many of them, manage to get in power. But the ideological collectives all have pretty much the same core goals. Needs met, population happy.
  - dfxm12 2y ago
    What's your threshold where an "individual" becomes a "collective"? Certainly billionaire libertarians, religious conservatives, Putin and his supporters and the Trump administration (along with the judges he's appointed, the people in congress and state governments who ran on his platform and the 10s of millions of Americans who voted for them) are not individuals... They also very obviously want different things compared to others.
    - Workaccount2 2y ago
      Shy of a few fringe groups, I am not aware of any large suffering & death collectives. Every large collective is trying to achieve a better life for it's adherents, and is always welcoming to those who want to join. Christains might see living is the light of Jesus as the ideal life, and while not for everyone, you should at least be able to understand why they feel that way (as opposed to a religion of self inflicted torture). Remember the goal here is not to become sympathetic to Trump, or Putin, or Sanders, or Netanyahu, or Islam. The goal is to have an accurate understanding of them, so that when you form arguments against them, you are actually attacking bedrock and not just straw.
slt2021 2y ago
politics, especially international geopolitics is a zero-sum game. The game of competition for limited resources and markets. Because resources are limited, the pie is fixed, and this makes it zero sum game. Although there is a way to frame political alliances as a win-win when two parties increase their share at a cost of some other third party losing theirs. Because of that, the arguments will always be straw-man, because people want to win resources, not to argue in good faith. Any political issue can be framed in terms of zero sum game, if you look at the whole picture
- goatlover 2y ago
  That's not how economics works. The pie is not fixed, it tends to grow over time as there's more trade between countries and their economies get bigger. The global economic pie has increased a massive amount over the past century.
  - slt2021 2y ago
    the trade has increased because jobs have been offshored, corporations have been running labor cost arbitrage and making a profit from a difference in labor cost in US vs elsewhere
    - freeone3000 2y ago
      And as with most arbitrages, costs have lowered as a result. It means a piece of technology with thousands of individual parts can be in your hand for $200. Labor efficiency differences have resulted in an explosion of value-for-dollar for the American consumer.
- Vegenoid 2y ago
  This is incorrect. There are few physical resources that we have reached the limit of, such that one entity’s gain is necessarily another’s loss. There are also a great many things of value that aren’t simply raw resources, for which the pie will never be fixed, because the pie is made by humans and can be made bigger or smaller. This zero-sum narrative is only true in a world of no growth, where all resources are being fully utilized to maximum effect. That is very far from the world we live in, where there is enormous room for additional extraction, creation, and efficient utilization of resources.

matwood 2y ago

> but individuals carry a burden to for not trying to remake their bed In what way? I turn on Fox sometimes and it's not that it's slanted, but it's just a stream of lies and BS. I've watched a bunch of Trump's speeches and in addition to being incoherent, he says the same lies and BS all the way down. Yesterday's tariff speech was a great example. I don't consider myself progressive (though the MAGA right would think me so), but where do I go to try and 'remake [my] bed'?

ablob 2y ago
I think what's meant is that you need to be open to changing your opinion and manner of approach to things. To stay with the analogy: when you "remake" your bed and it ends up the same, chances are that you didn't try to improve on its design. By turning on Fox sometimes (provided it's not your main source) you might already not fall into the category of people not trying to remake their bed.
- freejazz 2y ago
  Wait, we're designing bedding now? Not just remaking our beds? What a strained analogy that when you 'remake' your bed and it's the 'same' (why would it be different?) then you didn't improve the design?? Even more shocking is that you ran with this as opposed to realizing that these were warning signs that either your fundamental argument is ridiculous, or your analogy is.
nomdep 2y ago
Well, the first thing is to realize CNN is also just a stream of lies and BS. Every media news organization in the world has become (they always were?) pure garbage. Listening to first-hand sources is the way, I guess, but also remembering they can be lying as well, so be vigilant.
- MrMcCall 2y ago
  It's true, because all the upper levels of ALL large media organizations have been infiltrated by big-moneyed conservatives. CNN and NBC weren't always as bad as they are now, but their descent has been obvious and dramatic. Some of them still employ democrats to some minimal extent, such as Jamelle Bouie at the NYT, but that's merely subterfuge, lest their bent be glaringly obvious. If someone can name a large organization that is an exception to my first paragraph, I would be happy to learn of them.
  - zoklet-enjoyer 2y ago
    CNN has always been propaganda https://youtu.be/rWtwjDhgN3Q https://youtu.be/rWtwjDhgN3Q https://youtu.be/NlcSiYulhos https://youtu.be/NlcSiYulhos

goatlover 2y ago

> Generally both sides, or all sides really, want the same things and disagree on how to get there. No, that is just not true. For example, do you think Putin and his supporters wanted a functioning democracy in Russia and independent Ukraine? No, they wanted someone functioning as a dictator to restore Russia's cold war territory and influence, and they wanted to undermine western democracies that stood in their way. History does not support your claim that everyone wants the same things. Some people want power and strong man to take over the government. We see that with the Trump administration. The religious conservatives want to use that to make America a Christian nation. The billionaire libertarians want to use it to deregulate their industries and run the government like a corporation. And Trump wants to act unilaterally to bring about his vision of being seen as some great figure. They have illiberal aims.

Workaccount2 2y ago
I'm speaking about the collectives, not the individuals. There are always deranged individuals and some of them, many of them, manage to get in power. But the ideological collectives all have pretty much the same core goals. Needs met, population happy.
- dfxm12 2y ago
  What's your threshold where an "individual" becomes a "collective"? Certainly billionaire libertarians, religious conservatives, Putin and his supporters and the Trump administration (along with the judges he's appointed, the people in congress and state governments who ran on his platform and the 10s of millions of Americans who voted for them) are not individuals... They also very obviously want different things compared to others.
  - Workaccount2 2y ago
    Shy of a few fringe groups, I am not aware of any large suffering & death collectives. Every large collective is trying to achieve a better life for it's adherents, and is always welcoming to those who want to join. Christains might see living is the light of Jesus as the ideal life, and while not for everyone, you should at least be able to understand why they feel that way (as opposed to a religion of self inflicted torture). Remember the goal here is not to become sympathetic to Trump, or Putin, or Sanders, or Netanyahu, or Islam. The goal is to have an accurate understanding of them, so that when you form arguments against them, you are actually attacking bedrock and not just straw.

slt2021 2y ago

politics, especially international geopolitics is a zero-sum game. The game of competition for limited resources and markets. Because resources are limited, the pie is fixed, and this makes it zero sum game. Although there is a way to frame political alliances as a win-win when two parties increase their share at a cost of some other third party losing theirs. Because of that, the arguments will always be straw-man, because people want to win resources, not to argue in good faith. Any political issue can be framed in terms of zero sum game, if you look at the whole picture

goatlover 2y ago
That's not how economics works. The pie is not fixed, it tends to grow over time as there's more trade between countries and their economies get bigger. The global economic pie has increased a massive amount over the past century.
- slt2021 2y ago
  the trade has increased because jobs have been offshored, corporations have been running labor cost arbitrage and making a profit from a difference in labor cost in US vs elsewhere
  - freeone3000 2y ago
    And as with most arbitrages, costs have lowered as a result. It means a piece of technology with thousands of individual parts can be in your hand for $200. Labor efficiency differences have resulted in an explosion of value-for-dollar for the American consumer.
Vegenoid 2y ago
This is incorrect. There are few physical resources that we have reached the limit of, such that one entity’s gain is necessarily another’s loss. There are also a great many things of value that aren’t simply raw resources, for which the pie will never be fixed, because the pie is made by humans and can be made bigger or smaller. This zero-sum narrative is only true in a world of no growth, where all resources are being fully utilized to maximum effect. That is very far from the world we live in, where there is enormous room for additional extraction, creation, and efficient utilization of resources.