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.

Fox News uses the word ‘hate’ much more than MSNBC or CNN

 

`Fox News is up to five times more likely to use the word “hate” in its programming than its main competitors, according to our new study of how cable news channels use language.

Fox particularly uses the term when explaining opposition to Donald Trump. His opponents are said to “hate” Trump, his values and his followers.

Our research, which ran from Jan. 1 to May 8, 2020, initially explored news of Trump’s impeachment. Then came the coronavirus. As we sifted through hundreds of cable news transcripts over five months, we noticed consistent differences between the vocabulary used on Fox News and that of MSNBC.

While their news agendas were largely similar, the words they used to describe these newsworthy events diverged greatly.

Fox and hate

For our study, we analyzed 1,088 program transcripts from the two ideologically branded channels – right-wing Fox and left-wing MSNBC – between 6 p.m. and 10:59 p.m.

Because polarized media diets contribute to partisan conflict, our quantitative analysis identified terms indicating antipathy or resentment, such as “dislike,” “despise,” “can’t stand” and “hate.”

We expected to find that both of the strongly ideological networks made use of such words, perhaps in different ways. Instead, we found that Fox used antipathy words five times more often than MSNBC. “Hate” really stood out: It appeared 647 times on Fox, compared to 118 on MSNBC.

Fox usually pairs certain words alongside “hate.” The most notable was “they” – as in, “they hate.” Fox used this phrase 101 times between January and May. MSNBC used it just five times.

To put these findings in historic context, we then used the GDELT Television database to search for occurrences of the phrase “they hate” on both networks going back to 2009. We included CNN for an additional comparison.

We found Fox’s usage of “they hate” has increased over time, with a clear spike around the polarizing 2016 Trump-Clinton election. But Fox’s use of “hate” really took off when Trump’s presidency began. Beginning in January 2017, the mean usage of “they hate” on the network doubled.

Fox says 'they hate' way more than CNN or MSNBC

Since 2011 all three major cable news channels used the phrase "they hate" in their evening newscasts (between 6 and 11 p.m.). But starting with the 2016 Clinton-Trump race, FOX News has done so far more often than CNN and MSNBC.

‘Us’ versus ‘them’

So who is doing all this hating – and why – according to Fox News?

Mainly, it’s Democrats, liberals, political elites and the media. Though these groups do not actually have the same interests, ideology or job description, our analysis finds Fox lumps them together as the “they” in “they hate.”

When Fox News anchors say "they hate..."

Quantitative analysis shows Fox News' used the phrase "they hate" frequently on its evening programing between January and May 2020, most commonly referring to Democrats (29% of the time) or to a non-specific group like "political elites" (24% of the time). Many of these terms were used interchangeably, as if they were one group unified in their hatred.

As for the object of all this hatred, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and other Fox hosts most often name Trump. Anchors also identify their audience – “you,” “Christians” and “us” – as the target of animosity. Only 13 instances of “they hate” also cited a reason. Examples included “they can’t accept the fact that he won” or “because we voted for [Trump].”

Who's being hated, according to Fox News

Thirty-six percent of times that Fox News anchors said "they hate" between January and May 2020, Trump was the alleged target of that hatred. A smattering of other targets were also named ("you," "me," "Christians," etc.). Rarely did Fox anchors offer a reason for this animosity.

Citing liberal hate as a fact that needs no explanation serves to dismiss criticism of specific policies or events. It paints criticism or moral outrage directed at Trump as inherently irrational.

For loyal Fox viewers, these language patterns construct a coherent but potentially dangerous narrative about the world.

Our data show intensely partisan hosts like Hannity and Carlson are more likely than other Fox anchors to use “they hate” in this way. Nevertheless, the phrase permeates Fox’s evening programming, uttered by hosts, interviewees and Republican sources, all painting Trump critics not as legitimate opponents but hateful enemies working in bad faith.

By repeatedly telling its viewers they are bound together as objects of the contempt of a powerful and hateful left-leaning “elite,” Fox has constructed two imagined communities. On the one side: Trump along with good folks under siege. On the other: nefarious Democrats, liberals, the left and mainstream media.

Research confirms that repeated exposure to polarized media messages can lead news consumers to form firm opinions and can foster what’s called an “in-group” identity. The us-versus-them mentality, in turn, deepens feelings of antipathy toward the perceived “out-group.”

The Pew Research Center reports an increasing tendency, especially among Republicans, to view members of the other party as immoral and unpatriotic. Pew also finds Republicans trust Fox News more than any other media outlet.

Americans’ divergent media sources – and specifically Fox’s “hate”-filled rhetoric – aren’t solely to blame here. Cable news is part of a larger picture of heightened polarization, intense partisanship and paralysis in Congress.

Good business

Leaning into intense partisanship has been good for Fox News, though. In summer 2020 it was the country’s most watched network. But using hate to explain the news is a dangerous business plan when shared crises demand Americans’ empathy, negotiation and compromise.

Fox’s talk of hate undermines democratic values like tolerance and reduces Americans’ trust of their fellow citizens.

This fraying of social ties helps explain America’s failures in managing the pandemic – and bodes badly for its handling of what seems likely to be a chaotic, divisive presidential election. In pitting its viewers against the rest of the country, Fox News works against potential solutions to the  very crises it covers.

https://theconversation.com/fox-news-uses-the-word-hate-much-more-than-msnbc-or-cnn-145983

Overall, we rate Fox News strongly Right-Biased due to editorial positions and story selection that favors the right. We also rate them Mixed factually and borderline Questionable based on poor sourcing and the spreading of conspiracy theories that later must be retracted after being widely shared. Further, Fox News would be rated a Questionable source based on numerous failed fact checks by hosts and pundits

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/

Fox News Channel Scorecard

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/fox-news-channel/

The New Normal Looks to be Unpleasant

Analysis of election results so far is painting a picture of a deeply divided people who will remain deeply divided for years. The division seems to be mostly a combination of (i) a persistent rural-urban divide, and (ii) a probably persistent Trump who may not go away if the loses the 2020 election. Both the New York Times and Washington Post are drawing similar conclusions. WaPo writes:

When Donald Trump narrowly won Wisconsin in 2016 to clinch the presidency, he carried 23 counties that had previously voted for President Barack Obama. But when Joe Biden was projected on Wednesday to put Wisconsin back in the Democratic column, he was on track to pry back just two of them: Door and Sauk.

Rather than flipping more Obama-Trump counties, Biden instead exceeded previous Democratic win margins in Wisconsin’s two biggest cities, Milwaukee and Madison.

That pattern extended to Michigan and other battleground states, with Biden building upon Democrats’ dominance in urban and suburban jurisdictions but Trump leaving most of exurban and rural America awash in red.

The NYT writes:

If President Trump loses his bid for re-election, as looked increasingly likely on Wednesday, it would be the first defeat of an incumbent president in 28 years. But one thing seemed certain: Win or lose, he will not go quietly away.

At the very least, he has 76 days left in office to use his power as he sees fit and to seek revenge on some of his perceived adversaries. Angry at a defeat, he may fire or sideline a variety of senior officials who failed to carry out his wishes as he saw it, including Christopher A. Wray, the F.B.I. director, and Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the government’s top infectious diseases specialist in the middle of a pandemic.

And if he is forced to vacate the White House on Jan. 20, Mr. Trump is likely to prove more resilient than expected and almost surely will remain a powerful and disruptive force in American life. He received at least 68 million votes, or five million more than he did in 2016, and commanded about 48 percent of the popular vote, meaning he retained the support of nearly half of the public despite four years of scandal, setbacks, impeachment and the brutal coronavirus outbreak that has killed more than 233,000 Americans. (emphasis added)  

“If anything is clear from the election results, it is that the president has a huge following, and he doesn’t intend to exit the stage anytime soon,” said former Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, one of the few Republican officeholders to break with Mr. Trump over the past four years.

At this point, it is time to be deeply concerned about the future of democracy, voting rights, civil rights, the rule of law and a long-term rise of radical right propaganda-driven ideology and an accompanying tide of corruption and plutocratic anti-government authoritarianism. America is now firmly settled into a decades-long marathon struggle for social influence and political power.

Two main messages

If I were in control of anti-radical right messaging, I would get experts together and devise a messaging strategy to counter and attack the decades of radical right propaganda, lies and emotional manipulation. Two key messages seem to rise to as the top messaging priorities to deal with. It is now clear that radical right propaganda has successfully but falsely (i) painted democrats as evil tyrant-socialists, deeply corrupt and sometimes crackpot nonsense such as cannibalistic pedophiles, and (ii) created beliefs that compromise is evil or treason, and regulation is tyrannical socialism, while deregulation increases personal freedom. 

Other successful results of radical right propaganda include, but are not limited to, significantly decreased social trust in democracy, democratic institutions, political opposition, elections, ethics, truth, experts, science, the rule of law and the free press. None of that bodes well for democracy or honest, competent governance. The right has come to understand and ruthlessly exploit the means available in the constitution and regional or state differences to divide and polarize Americans. Such means of social division include not just ruthless, effective dark free speech, they include the electoral college and differences inherent in the modern urban-rural divide. Exploiting all of that allows radial authoritarian candidates to ignore sections of the electorate and states that are inclined to support more moderate candidates. 

If the foregoing is a reasonably accurate assessment of the situation, two key false radical right authoritarian messages that urgently need to be countered and debunked are (1) regulation = socialism, and (2) deregulation = more personal freedom. Obviously, opinions will differ on what is most important, but these two usually false beliefs seem to be fairly common among republicans and some or most independents.

The two points to be made are simple. First, regulation of capitalism is not socialism. Second, when private sector interests are deregulated, power does not flow from government to the people, it flows from government to the deregulated interests. Some benefit may or may not flow to some or most affected people. When private commercial interests gain power form deregulation, average people can often be exploited more effectively.[1]

But, if those two messages are not the top two, what are? It is clear that from here on out, we are in a ferocious messaging war. The immoral radical right will continue to rely on dark free speech to advance anti-consumer and anti-democratic authoritarianism. What tactics should the opposition use, dark free speech or honest free speech?

Footnote: 

1. For example, by deregulating regulated for profit colleges after they committed fraud against thousands of students, Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos make it easier for fraud to reappear. Specifically, DeVos made it harder for defrauded students to recover their money. One site commented: "But on Friday DeVos capped off a two-year effort by issuing her own rule, which scales back loan forgiveness opportunities for student borrowers. The new regulations significantly raise the bar for student borrowers seeking debt forgiveness based on claims they were defrauded by their colleges. They add a new three-year time limit for those borrowers to file claims, and each case will be considered individually, even if there is evidence of widespread misconduct at an institution. Borrowers will also be asked to demonstrate they suffered financial harm from their college’s misconduct and that the college made deceptive statements with “knowledge of its false, misleading, or deceptive nature.”" (emphasis added)

Just ask yourself: How can a student prove that the college made deceptive statements with knowledge of its false, misleading, or deceptive nature? Students have to go to court to get the power to subpoena documents that might show knowledge of false, misleading, or deceptive acts, but if the college routinely shreds all of its incriminating evidence, there will be no document evidence to be found and people from the college who testify will lie through their teeth and deny all wrongdoing as such defendants always do.

That shaft the consumer effect is how radical right deregulation works because it is intended to work that way. Deregulation in the public interest reduces needless complexity or limits, but deregulation in the special interest tends to damage the public interest. That is a point that most rank and file republicans simply do not understand and/or will not accept if told about it.