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 biology, social behavior, morality and history.
Etiquette
DP Etiquette
First rule: Don't be a jackass. Most people are good.
Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.
AS per the OPs I put on my own Forum today, I am in an irreverent mood: adjective: irreverent showing a lack of respect for people or things that are generally taken seriously. Put it down to being over-saturated by Covid 19 news, as IF there is NOTHING else happening in the world. OR put it down to having partied too hardily (is that a word?) last night. In the age of Covid 19, Trump, Rightwing conspiracies, major angst and paranoia, sometimes we need something to chill on. Alas, we shouldn't be chilling on Corona beer:
As for the TP problem, if Americans weren't SO full of we wouldn't have to worry about TP hoarding. So with Germaine's permission (after all, he is a very serious sort, that is, I THINK Germaine is a "he"), I would invite peeps to post something Just to help us get over our angst and paranoia! CHEERS
Over the last week or so, I've spent some time each day watching Fox News and comparing that to what other cable and non-cable sources are reporting about the pandemic. There is almost no overlap in coronavirus coverage. Each day, Fox downplays the coronavirus infection and heavily criticizes democrats for all sorts of things, especially exaggerating the seriousness of the disease. There was no criticism of Trump by Fox for anything, just endless hyperbolic praise. Any problems are 100% the fault of democrats, the fake news media and whoever or whatever else can be blamed, even if the blame is a lie, a non-sequitur or otherwise makes no sense.
In several interviews on non-Fox outlets, Ezra Klein of Vox mentioned poll data showing that during times when the president downplayed the pandemic, democrats were hoarding toilet paper and sanitizing hand, body and surface wipes but republicans were not. But after the president finally started saying that the pandemic was real and serious, both democrats and some republicans were hoarding. For people siloed in the Fox News and other partisan pro-Trump source universe, they hear essentially nothing about the infection that the non-Fox universe is hearing. They constantly hear that Trump has done the best job any human ever could.
Words, including lies and deceit, have real world consequences.
According to fact checkers, statements by Trump about the pandemic and his handling of it are heavily larded with false statements, misleading statements and vastly exaggerated praise for himself for his brilliant handling of the situation.
Thus, some people who are ignoring public health calls for social distancing and staying at home are not taking this seriously. Some of them may see this as an opportunity to do some shopping while the stores aren't crowded. The information sources they trust, especially the president himself and Fox, are telling them to not worry about this. They have a license from authoritative sources to do business mostly or completely as usual.
All in all, it now seems reasonable to call this the Trump virus or Trumpvirus since he has made things worse. His incompetence, lies and deceit are going to come home to roost. More Americans than would have been the case if the president had acted with competence and honesty are going to die or suffer serious economic damage.
It is now too late for the president to stop the death and economic damage that could have been avoided had he been competent and honest. Because of that, it is fair and balanced to call it the Trumpvirus.
Question: Is it unfair or hyperbolic to shift this much blame to the president?
I tell you, while I don’t dare say anything to them, in order
to keep peace in the family, I’m so
disappointed in my so-called “highly educated” step-sons/daughters-in-law (all
four have bachelor’s degrees, one has a master’s degree).All four are devout Christians and Republicans
(read still Trump) supporters.Three of them have an outside-the-home job
and one is a home school teacher—granted, she does have credentials for that.Their ages are 47, 54, 54, & 56.I.e., they are not unthinking, fly-by-the-seat-of-their-pants “kids” anymore.
Yesterday, I was again included in on a text msg between the
two families.Here’s a screen-shot with some redactions.And btw, one of the families has an 80-ish
year old mother living in their residence:
A few questions:
-While I can completely
understand necessary trips outside the home (doctor, pharmacy, hopefully
curb-side pickup at the grocery store), when a person is literally being paid to stay home and out of the public
domain, is there not an ethical duty, a
moral imperative, to follow that statewide order?
-And as practicing Christians,
isn’t that moral responsibility even more
pronounced?
-As offspring of an aging parent/step-parent (their dad and
me), what does that say about lack of deference
to (especially seniors’) health concerns?
-Are such non-compliant
people part of the larger coronavirus problem, rather than any part of the
solution?
-As I so often wonder, is
it just me who’s all effed up?? :(
Please explain my stepkids’ mindsets to me, as I don’t get
it.
Ethics: rules provided by an external source, e.g., written codes of conduct in workplaces, or professions, or principles or rules in religions
Free will: (i) the power of acting without the constraint of necessity, fate or uncontrolled biological imperative; (ii) the ability to act at one's own discretion; (iii) actions or behaviors that are not pre-determined by genetic, environmental or automatic unconscious responses to stimuli or information
Morals: an individual’s own beliefs regarding good and bad or right and wrong; morality is subjective; people do not always act in ways that accord with their morals
Virtue: (i) a characteristic of our true, natural self; (ii) sometimes, the quality of being morally good; (iii) properties of people who habitually act rightly and they may or may not be following a moral or ethical rule; some believe that virtues are subjective, while others believe that virtues are universal, and thus arguably more objective than subjective
Acknowledgment: This discussion was inspired by an excellent discussion that PD posted on his Books & Ideas blog, Is Reflective Reason A Virtue?
Free will
Most experts believe humans have no free will based on a lot of empirical data that shows our behavior is dictated by the unconscious mind deciding what to do before we are consciously aware of the decision. Others believe we have at least some free will. It operates as a conscious decision to accept or reject automatic unconscious responses and resulting pre-determined behaviors. One researcher commented: “An unfree will may not be so hard to swallow if we have at least a free unwill.” In other words, human free will amounts to (1) conscious partial or complete veto power over what our unconscious mind wants to believe and/or do, and (2) conscious acceptance of what our unconscious mind wants to believe and do.
For this discussion to make sense, one has to assume that humans have some free will at least when when matters of ethics, morals or virtues are implicated. If we have no free will, as PD points out, then all virtuous behaviors , e.g., conscious reasoning, honesty, fairness or bravery in defense of others, are automatic. In that case, such behaviors cannot be said to be good or bad, or praiseworthy or blameworthy. Absent free will, human behavior just is what it is, leaving the conscious mind with no role in any of it. Speaking of good or bad in that scenario doesn't make much sense. One might like or dislike a certain uncontrolled behavior, but one cannot rationally assign goodness or badness to it.
Less biased conscious reasoning (LBCR)
LBCR is the second core moral value (virtue?) of the pragmatic rationality anti-ideology ideology. From what I understand, it refers to about the same thing that PD and philosopher Nick Byrd calls reflective reason. When one engages in LBCR, e.g., to consider an argument, a hypothesis or a proposed political policy, one is consciously reasoning in a more rational way than when one allows unconscious thinking to control. The unconscious mind is intuitive, emotional, moral, biased and usually tinged with some degree of intolerance, judgmentalism and tribalism.
That is the solution that evolution came up with as a means for the human brain-mind to deal with the world in the Pleistocene epoch, about 2.5 million to 11,700 years ago. That worked to keep humans alive and survive in those times. In modern times, it arguably presents an existential threat to modern civilization and possibly even the humans species itself. Although human minds are probably about the same as those in the Pleistocene, modern threats aren't the same. Most humans alive today do not worry about being attacked by lions or irate hippos.
Can LBCR be considered to be a moral or a virtue? Yes, if one accepts the following logic or reasoning. No, if one doesn’t.
1.The point of elevating it to the status of a moral value is that LBCR can counteract bad decisions the unconscious mind makes based on how modern science understands what is going on when we deal with politics. The unconscious mind is susceptible to emotional manipulation, irrational appeals to personal morals, logical fallacies, biases and a host of other reality and reason[1] distorting human traits.
2. Personal experience indicates that most people (~99%) believe they (1) base their politics on facts, valid truths, and LBCR, and (2) the political opposition does not. Evidence from empirical research shows that, for the most part, that is not true. But the near-universal belief that one should be fact-based and rational about politics is evidence that LBCR is better than the flawed thinking the opposition allegedly relies on.
3. If a widespread belief in a nation or society that X is better than not X, then that could constitute at least one source of authority for considering LBCR to be a moral value.
Questions: Is it reasonable to believe that LBCR is a good moral value? Or, is it something else, e.g., a ‘desirable trait’?
Footnote:
1. Applying logic and reasoning to an issue are quite different modes of operation. The human did not evolve to use logic or be strictly rational in most situations. It evolved to reason about things and apply a soft or fuzzy rationality, usually based mostly (~99% ?) on what the unconscious mind thinks, believes and decides. The unconscious mind gets things right most of the time and there's no problem. It still works great for most things. But when dealing with politics with all of its complexity, opacity, deceit, appeal to logic fallacies, manipulation, misinformation and disinformation, the unconscious mind is mostly out of its depth. We did not evolve minds that can deal rationally with the underlying complexity and subjectivity of things in politics, including objective facts.
