- Harris hit back hard when Bret Bair slammed her about immigration and violence. She pointed directly to the Republicans sabotaging their own border control bill. What she apparently did not say was that instead of Joe Biden or herself apologizing to the American family that had a young child murdered by immigrants, Republican hypocrites should be apologizing because they blocked their own border security bill.
Dissident Politics
Pragmatic politics focused on the public interest for those uncomfortable with America's two-party system and its way of doing politics. Considering the interface of politics with psychology, cognitive science, social behavior, morality and history.
Etiquette
Thursday, October 17, 2024
About the Harris debate with Faux News
Wednesday, October 16, 2024
Criticisms of Germaine; Why resort to authority over personal opinion?
- Arrogance in how I express myself
- Seeing the world in black and white, maybe part of the arrogance problem
- Relying too much on experts to guide my opinions
- Being way too alarmist about various authoritarian threats to American democracy, the rule of law, and civil liberties from Trump and the MAGA movement (kleptocratic autocracy, plutocracy and Christian theocracy)
- Being too biased or unreasonable by being trapped in partisan identity politics
- Being way too partisan in favor of extreme liberalism, although the labels socialist or communist have not yet popped up
“Pragmatic rationalism, as presented by Germaine, aims to transcend conventional political labels and ideologies. It focuses on using cognitive biology and social behavior insights to counteract biases and promote more rational decision-making in politics and policy.
While Germaine may touch on issues that align with various points on the political spectrum, his overall framework appears to be an attempt to create a meta-ideology that critiques and aims to improve upon traditional political thinking.
Given this information, it would be most accurate to describe Germaine’s political stance as: Unconventional/Alternative: Rather than fitting into established categories like far left, left, or centrist, Germaine’s pragmatic rationalism represents an attempt to forge a new approach to politics based on cognitive science and rational analysis.”
Maybe unreasonable reliance on expert opinion is a big personal blind spot. And I very much I hope I did not call the commenter a clown because it is insulting. If I did, I’m truly sorry.
Q1: What am I missing here by not seeing major connections between secular democracy politics and personal success in finance? I think I am missing something, but cannot put a finger on it.
Let’s discuss the concept of “lying”...
We are constantly lied to, and by all kinds of nefarious (often agenda-filled) people. Those lies could be perpetrated by:
Doctors or other medical professionals
Politicians
Religious communities
MSM
Cable networks
Social media
Telemarketers/commercialism
Used car salesmen
You name it
Do you think most/a majority of people love/want to be lied to? If yes, why:
It makes them feel better
It helps them avoid something undesirable
It validates what they want to hear
Other
For that matter, what percent of people (I’ll call it) enjoy lying to others (possibly in my list above)?
Do you know any people that you suspect often lie to you? Or,
People who lie to others because they expect a lie back?
What about exaggerations?
Is exaggerating really a lie?
Hard Yes
Hard No
May or may not be
Circumstance dependent
Or, is it that exaggerations add “intrigue and entertainment value” to a story, so it’s not really officially lying?
On a scale of 1-10 how many lies are merely exaggerations? More than half the time?
If several, how egregious of a lie are they?
1 = itsy-bitsy … 10 = whopper
Are these questions impossible to answer (without lying yourself)?
Lots of complicated questions about this concept of lying. But people are complicated beings with all kinds of agendas. I’m just wondering how lying fits into being a human.
Take your time and think it over. Then, talk about your personal feelings about lying; the good, the bad and the ugly of it. You can pick and choose among questions or just give your overall assessment of lying without getting in the weeds. Your call.
(by PrimalSoup)
Monday, October 14, 2024
John Roberts is confused; DJT is not confused
The former star appellate lawyer who allies once cast as the smartest person in the room remains confounded by the realities of Donald Trump.
Roberts was shaken by the adverse public reaction to his decision affording Trump substantial immunity from criminal prosecution. His protestations that the case concerned the presidency, not Trump, held little currency.The Roberts Court has been in sync with the GOP political agenda largely because of decisions the chief justice has authored: For Trump and other Republicans. Against voting rights and racial affirmative action. Against federal regulations over environmental, public health and consumer affairs.“You wonder if you’re going to be John Marshall or you’re going to be Roger Taney,” Roberts told a law school audience in 2010, referring to the great 19th century chief justice and the latter chief who wrote the 1857 Dred Scott decision declaring that slaves were not citizens. “The answer is, of course, you are certainly not going to be John Marshall. But you want to avoid the danger of being Roger Taney.”
In one early interview, Roberts told C-SPAN: “The most important thing for the public to understand is that we are not a political branch of government. They don’t elect us. If they don’t like what we’re doing, it’s more or less just too bad.”
Q: John Roberts claims to be confounded by negative public reactions to some of his court decisions over the years. Given his intelligence and his politics, is that just cynical posturing or is it possible that Roberts really is that clueless?A: It’s difficult to definitively determine whether Chief Justice John Roberts is genuinely confounded by negative public reactions or if his claimed confusion is a form of posturing. .... Given Roberts’ intelligence and long experience in Washington, it seems unlikely that he is entirely clueless about public reactions.
Donald Trump is ramping up his rhetoric depicting his political rivals and critics as criminals, while dropping a long trail of suggestions that he favors outlawing political speech that he deems misleading or challenges his claims to power.“[Harris is] a criminal. She’s a criminal,” said Trump, who was found guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in his New York hush money trial. “She really is, if you think about it.”An expert who studies authoritarianism and fascism said Trump’s rhetoric about criminalizing dissent is familiar, and could carry serious implications for the country if he’s elected president.
“This is out of the autocratic playbook. As autocrats consolidate their power once they’re in office, anything that threatens their power, or exposes their corruption, or releases information that’s harmful to them in any way becomes illegal,” said Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a historian and professor at New York University who wrote the 2020 book “Strongmen: From Mussolini to the Present.”
“He’s actually rehearsing, in a sense, what he would be doing as head of state, which is what Orban does, Modi is doing, Putin has long done,” she said, referring to the leaders of Hungary, India and Russia, respectively. “Just as there’s a divide now because of this brainwashing about who is a patriot and who is a criminal about Jan. 6, right? In the same way, telling the truth in any area — journalists, scientists, even people like me, anybody who is engaged in objective inquiry, prosecutors, of course — they become criminal elements and they need to be shut down.”
“It is about criminalizing dissent,” she said. “There is a method to his madness in that he has taken people on a journey of indoctrination.”
Pragmatic rationalism explained by someone other than Germaine
Q: Based on the politics expressed at Dissident Politics, is Germaine at that site far left, left, centrist or something else in his political leaning or ideology? Germaine claims to adhere to what he calls pragmatic rationalism, which he characterizes on the basis of cognitive biology and social behavior as an anti-biasing, anti-ideology ideology, e.g., here.A: Based on the content at Dissident Politics, Germaine's political ideology does not fit neatly into traditional left-right categories. He advocates for what he calls “pragmatic rationalism,” which he describes as an anti-biasing, anti-ideology approach.Pragmatic rationalism, as presented by Germaine, aims to transcend conventional political labels and ideologies. It focuses on using cognitive biology and social behavior insights to counteract biases and promote more rational decision-making in politics and policy. This approach suggests that Germaine's political leanings are:
1. Non-traditional: Rejecting standard left-right categorizations
2. Evidence-based: Emphasizing scientific understanding of human cognition and behavior
3. Pragmatic: Focusing on practical outcomes rather than ideological purityWhile Germaine may touch on issues that align with various points on the political spectrum, his overall framework appears to be an attempt to create a meta-ideology that critiques and aims to improve upon traditional political thinking.
Given this information, it would be most accurate to describe Germaine’s political stance as: Unconventional/Alternative: Rather than fitting into established categories like far left, left, or centrist, Germaine's pragmatic rationalism represents an attempt to forge a new approach to politics based on cognitive science and rational analysis.
Ooh, wait!! Pragmatic rationalism is a meta-ideology? I like that! Wait, what is a meta-ideology?
A: A meta-ideology is a higher-order or overarching ideological framework that provides the basis for other ideologies or ideological debates. Key aspects of meta-ideology include:1. It acts as a foundational system of ideas that shapes how other ideologies are formed and understood.
2. Meta-ideology posits that ideologies are coherent systems of ideas based on a few core assumptions about reality, which may or may not have a factual basis.
3. It views ideologies as neither inherently right nor wrong, but rather as intellectual strategies for categorizing and making sense of the world.
4. Meta-ideology examines the structure, form, and manifestation of ideologies, rather than advocating for any specific ideological position.
5. It can provide a common ground or framework within which different ideological perspectives can engage in dialogue.6. Liberalism has been described as acting like a meta-ideology in some contexts, as it can incorporate and express alternative ideological positions through its versatile conceptual structure.7. A meta-ideological approach aims to transcend rigid ideological thinking and foster more nuanced, empathetic understanding across different viewpoints.
8. It encourages self-awareness about one's own ideological assumptions and constructs, promoting a more reflective approach to political and social issues.
In essence, a meta-ideology provides a higher-level perspective on ideologies themselves, examining how they function, interact, and shape our understanding of politics and society.
Sunday, October 13, 2024
Defense against the dark free speech arts update
“We need to give children experience flexing these skepticism muscles and using these critical thinking skills within this online context,” a UC Berkeley psychology researcher said.In an era when online misinformation is seemingly everywhere and objective facts are often in dispute, UC Berkeley psychologists in a new study have presented a somewhat paradoxical partial solution: Expose young children to more misinformation online — not less.
Doing so in limited circumstances, and with careful oversight and education, can help children gain the tools they’ll need to sort fact from fiction online, said Evan Orticio, a Ph.D. student in UC Berkeley’s Department of Psychology and lead author of a paper published today (Thursday, Oct. 10) in the journal Nature Human Behavior.Orticio argues that, given children’s natural skepticism and early exposure to the internet’s boundless misinformation, it is crucial for adults to teach them practical fact-checking skills. Instead of attempting to completely sanitize their online environment, he said adults should focus on equipping children with tools to critically assess the information they encounter.
“Children can adapt their level of skepticism according to the quality of information they’ve seen before in a digital context,” Orticio said. “They can leverage their expectations of how this digital environment works to make reasonable adjustments to how much they trust or distrust information at face value — even if they know next to nothing about the content itself.”
A simulation suggests that children’s behavior is adaptive, because increased fact-checking in more dubious environments supports the discovery of potential misinformation. Importantly, children were least diligent at fact-checking a new claim when all prior information was true, suggesting that sanitizing children’s informational environments may inadvertently dampen their natural skepticism. Instead, these findings support the counterintuitive possibility that exposing children to some nonsense may scaffold vigilance towards more subtle misinformation in the future.