Fighting in the War on Truth and Reason

It is clearer than ever that going forward the liberal-conservative and urban-rural political-culture wars will probably remain bitter, and deeply polarizing and distrust generating. With Trump effectively out of the way[1], one can see in radical right conservative rhetoric the same dark free speech (DFS) arguments and reasoning that were used before. If one is to effectively spot and rebut the lies, emotional manipulation and flawed reasoning, it helps to consider some of the most common and most effective DFS tactics. Three of the more common fallacies are summarized below.

Straw man fallacy

The strawman argument is a an easy way to make a weak DFS position look stronger than it is. Straw man avoids directly dealing with opposing views. Instead this fallacy substitutes a weaker argument that is more easily rebutted. That generates a false appearance of a weak DFS argument rebutting a stronger original argument. Examples of the straw man include:

 

“The Senator thinks we can solve all our ecological problems by driving a Prius.”

“The Senator thinks the environment is such a wreck that no one’s car choice or driving habits would make the slightest difference.”

False dilemma fallacy 

This fallacy is also called the “black-and-white fallacy,” “either-or fallacy” or “false dichotomy.” This line of reasoning fails by limiting the options to two when there are in fact more options to choose from. It’s not a fallacy if there actually are only two options. This fallacy is often an emotional manipulation ploy intended to polarize the audience by making one side look good and honest, while demonizing the other. Examples include:

“Either we go to war, or we appear weak.”

“Either you are pro-NRA or you oppose the 2nd Amendment and/or want to take all of our guns away.”

“Either we shelter in place, strictly observe social distancing and wear masks on those rare occasions when we have to venture out (in which case, we obviously don’t care a whit about the economy), or we reopen our businesses and start to resume “normal” life (in which case, we obviously don’t care a whit about people or safety or the common good).”

“Either we let every immigrant into our country, or we close the borders for everyone.”

Red herring fallacy

A red herring fallacy can be difficult to spot because it’s not always clear how different topics relate. A side topic may be used in a relevant way, or in an irrelevant way. There are usually several factors or lines on reasoning involved in political disagreements. Various subtopics can be entangled in issues. The red herring is a DFS attempt to divert the attention away from the relevant issue by raising another, usually irrelevant issue. It is an intentional distraction tactic to move the argument or a question to a different issue that is easier to respond to. Clarifying how one part of the conversation is relevant to the core topic helps spot and rebut red herrings. When one spots a red herring, one can rebut it by saying it is irrelevant to the topic being discussed, and/or by explaining why it is fallacious. If the persoming trying to use the red herring refuses to stay on point, one can allow the change of topic, insist on going back to the original argument, or just disengage from the discussion.

Red herrings by Trump include:

“I don't know Putin, have no deals in Russia, and the haters are going crazy - yet Obama can make a deal with Iran, #1 in terror, no problem!” 

“It’s locker room talk, and it’s one of those things. I will knock the hell out of ISIS. We’re going to defeat ISIS. ISIS happened a number of years ago in a vacuum that was left because of bad judgment. And I will tell you, I will take care of ISIS.”

Example in the media:

Reporter: “It’s been two years since your policies were implemented, and so far they have failed to reduce unemployment rates.” 

Politician: “I have been working hard ever since I came into office, and I’m happy to say that I met with many business leaders throughout the country, who all say that they are glad to see that our hard work is paying off.”

Footnote: 

1. That assumes the supreme court or GOP state legislatures do not intervene to re-elect Trump. The odds of that seem to be so low that it is not a realistic possibility. Nonetheless, the odds of successful intervention for Trump are not zero, but pretty close. 

“Joe [DiMaggio] Biden… a nation turns its [lonely] divided eyes to you”

We, here in the United States, are still very much a politically divided country. The close 2020 presidential election this last week has proven that out as an objective fact.

Currently, there are lots of celebrations …and… protests, and understandably so.  Both sides are experiencing their respective highs and lows. But once the emotional dust settles (hopefully by Inauguration Day), is it possible that there will be enough bipartisan compromise to move forward in any kind of positive/constructive way?  Surely there are plenty of issues we can all agree on as a society. This leads me to wonder about some things… 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question 1: In a show of patriotic reconciliation, should the new Biden Administration invite several prominent, influential, maybe centrist-type Republicans into its fold (to include governors, senators, congress people, ex-office holders, military types) as well as into Biden’s Cabinet selections, all in a gesture, an effort, to “pull the county together?”  Isn’t this the only way a divided, polarized country can heal and find a way to work together?  If NO, fine.  You’re done with this question.  If YES, who do you think should be on this bipartisan list?  In other words, who do you foresee as those Republican icons? (E,g., Tom Ridge, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Bill Weld, Christine Todd Whitman, Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Jeff Flake, Will Hurd, Colin Powell, James Mattis, Michael Steele, etc.)

[your Republican icon list here]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question 2: Is a bipartisan (Dem/Repub/Ind) Biden Administration a bad / dangerous / frivolous / reckless / foolish / giving away of newfound Democratic power / (what have you) idea?  If YES, fine.  You’re done with this question.  If NO, list the pros and cons of a bipartisan Biden Administration.

[your pros versus cons list here] 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question 3: Is hope for a Biden bipartisan government just more pie-in-the-sky, liberal idealism?  And the “real” hard-to-digest truth is we are so divided in our values that there is no way we could ever reconcile our major differences.  Regardless of your answer here, isn't it true that stubbornly clinging to our steadfast differences may give each side a momentary “feels good” triumph over the other, but to what end does this lead?  What is the end game with this non-bipartisan tactic? 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question 4: Has Dark Free Speech and social media manipulation gone on for too long, to the point where we as a society can no longer think “straight,” “honestly,” “unbiasedly,” etc., about political reality?  Has that condition reached a point of no return?  Are our respective bubbles so strong that there is not enough collective interest in seeking out objective truths, if such truths threaten our subjective truths; that feelings are now able to trump facts?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Question 5: Other than bipartisan reconciliation through a politically diverse administration, can you think of a better way… or ANY way really... to bring a divided country together?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Answer any or all questions of your choosing.  And thanks for thinking about it, posting, and recommending. :)

 

Why are people conservative or liberal?

 When looking at how closely divided the nation is on politics I thought it can't be that 70 million are just stupid.  So why?

How is Susan Rice's kid a conservative?  Can't be the environment he was raised in. 

So....

This article likely will get a discussion going some.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/can-your-genes-predict-whether-youll-be-a-conservative-or-a-liberal/280677/

Now this is just a conversation starter.  7 year old article from a magazine.  

This type of mind provided societies with an evolutionary advantage or else it would not be here.    Same with liberal minds. It's not 80 to 20.  So how is it so even today?   

Knowing this might help us understand that we can't change how they think.  Maybe we need to move the discussion to other issues?  The conservative mind will always be conservative.  If we change the issues we can move society forward on to other things.  

Millions today are dancing in the streets.  They get it.  70 million are at home wondering why the best president ever lost.  

I always say Nature and Nurture.

Thoughts folks? 

Looks Like Biden Has Won, But Will He Win? Probably.

Trump supporter protesting the possibility of a Trump loss

It looks like Biden will legitimately win the electoral college. He has legitimately won the popular vote. The question is whether partisan courts or GOP subversion of the electoral college process will take victory from Biden. Probably not. According to the New York Times: 

The president appeared to have little path through the courts to shift the outcome of the election, leaving him reliant on long shots like recounts or pressure on state legislatures. President Trump’s bellicose pledge to fight the outcome of the election in the courts crashed on Friday into skeptical judges, daunting Electoral College math and a lack of evidence for his claims of fraud. 

The most high-profile step of the day came when Pennsylvania Republicans asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and require election officials in the state to segregate ballots that arrived after Election Day and not to include them for now in the vote totals in the largest and most critical of the swing states.

On Friday evening, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. agreed to the request.

But the move was almost entirely for show: Pennsylvania is already segregating those ballots, counting them separately and not including them in the announced vote totals. The secretary of state, over the objections of Republicans and Mr. Trump, has said they can be counted if they arrived by 5 p.m. on Friday, in line with a state court ruling that the Supreme Court has left open the possibility of reviewing again.

A state official said the ballots in question number in the thousands but not tens of thousands. 

At the same time, allies of the president openly suggested an extreme move: to use baseless allegations of Democratic malfeasance to pressure Republican-controlled state legislatures in key states to send pro-Trump electors to the Electoral College regardless of the results of the popular vote.  

But a supportive outside group, True the Vote — one of the most prominent promoters of the false narrative that “voter fraud” is rampant in the United States — sought to help Mr. Trump build his cases. On Friday, it announced it had formed a $1 million “Whistleblower Defense Fund” to “incentivize” witnesses to step forward with charges of malfeasance.  

But even if the court were to take the case and rule in favor of the Republicans to wipe out all of the ballots in question — votes from mail ballots have overwhelmingly gone to Mr. Biden — it would not affect the current vote totals, which do not include the ballots that came in after Election Day. By early Friday evening, Mr. Biden had a lead of about 17,000 votes in Pennsylvania.  

Other suits in Pennsylvania sought to knock out votes that were the result of a decision by Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar to allow county officials to give voters a chance to fix mistakes in their rejected mail-in ballots or to cast provisional votes instead. But even if that case had succeeded, it would have affected only 93 votes. Similarly, in Michigan, a judge dismissed a Republican suit challenging the vote count in the state, noting the counting was already effectively over and dismissing some of the evidence as based on hearsay. 

Frustrated supporters of the president like the talk radio host Mark Levin called on Republican legislatures in states including Pennsylvania to use their constitutional authority to send a pro-Trump delegation of electors to the Electoral College regardless of the popular vote. 

That description indicates that the odds are low that the president will win by cheating. Given that, it looks like Biden has about a 96% chance of knocking the monster in the White House out. It is getting much easier to feel optimistic about the outcome.