Media Bias

[MaxVel]

No. I am a fiscal conservative but a social liberal. I disagree with more of Trump's policies than I agree with. But I would simply be back where I was under Bush I and Bush II - a reasonable man in office who's policies I happened to disagree with. I have never said "not my president" until Mr. Trump, no matter how much I disagreed with their policy positions. Not getting what you want out of government some part of the time is part of the price we pay for living in a democracy.

Then there is literally NO reason why our hypothetical Trump voter should care what you think. You're merely tone policing someone else's representative, and nothing they could do, short of abandoning the policies and values that the voter chose them for would get you to vote for them.

If Trump was as softly spoken and well-mannered as the Dalai Llama it wouldn't matter. No vote from you. If he was as rough and cruel as Atilla the Hun, same result. Ergo, your complaints about Trump's speech, behaviour and manner are irrelevant. You're going to have to argue policies and values if you want to reach Trump voters. You're going to have to police the politicians those voters feel hate them and want them wiped away just as hard as you police Trump, who they believe represents their interests. Arguing tone is disrespectful to them, when a change in that wouldn't make Trump more popular with you.


Please take a moment to re-read your last two sentences quoted above... ...do they not contradict each other? Does not the last sentence undermine your objections to Trump's behaviour? He - warts and all - is what plenty of people want.


I'm no more happy than you that this is the nature of the political environment, BTW. But it's not going to get better unless we start calling out everyone who crosses the line.

Then we have to agree to disagree. I have not seen such a corrupt and vile man in political office in my lifetime - and that includes Ted Cruz!

(that latter part was intended to be a joke)

Then you weren't alive when Clinton was President? I thought you were older than that....

Sorry, Max, but some things are more important than "winning." I have said before and I will say again: if Mr. Biden were to begin to show the character traits and behavior of Mr. Trump, he would instantly lose my vote. It would not matter the degree to which his policies align with mine. I'd write in someone else.

Look, I am not expecting politicians to be perfect. I understand they come with flaws, and some can be abysmal. Theodore Roosevelt is one of my heroes - but he was a flagrant racist. Thomas Jefferson is another hero, and he owned slaves. I understand that we have to accept that our heroes will have blemishes. Pix chronically and mistakenly characterizes this as "forgiving them" for their flaws. There is a difference between recognizing a flaw and forgiving one. On balance, these two men (and others) did great things and were great men - but they also had ugly parts of their lives that I do NOT admire. But Trump goes way past "blemishes." The very fact that he believes lying is an acceptable activity if it gets you what you want means he is eroding the importance of truth in society - and that is an extremely dangerous thing to do. The man is a danger to our democracy and our society. He exemplifies so much of what we consider immoral - I would never consider voting to put him in power, even if it meant I could have every policy wish I ever had. Another election will come along and I will find another candidate.

I think Trump is a symptom - an outworking if you like - of what is already here. That his exaggeration, boasting, hyperbole and lies are usually accepted is no accident - truth is dead and valueless in a postmodern world. What counts is power, winning - that's how the (extreme?) Democrats operate and have operated for quite some time now, Trump is merely following that pattern.


I congratulate you on your efforts to 'make things better', please endeavour to win trust by showing yourself more clearly to be willing to call out everyone equally.

I don't actually expect them to care, Max. I have long since abandoned any hope that the party that was formerly "the party of family values" will ever again live up to that claim. I dispute, however, that I "actively oppose things they hold important." I actively oppose some of the things they hold important - and support others. The same is true in reverse. And I absolutely do not believe they should have no say in American life. We live in a democracy - we all get a say - and that means we all sometimes get what we want, and sometimes don't get what we want.

This is what is missing in the world of modern politics: the understanding that a democracy is built on compromise. Ultimately, no one will get exactly what they want, because what they (we) want has to be balanced by the wants/needs of those who share the society with us. If those are the "rules" the people you are referring to believe they should not have to live by, then our democracy is already lost.

Yep. Probably. I think America is too fundamentally divided, in too many deep ways, to hold together for many more years. Maybe 20 or so?? But Covid-19 could bust that all up, anyway. If there are serious problems with food supply and Depression-level unemployment, look out. And I think both of those are possible. Right now everyone should get behind Trump, faults and all - it's potentially a nation-busting level of crisis, and politicking and sniping is not what is needed. For now.

We all practice morality subjectively, Max. It's inescapable. People can label themselves "moral objectivists" and "moral realists" all day every day and it will not change the intrinsic nature of morality: a subjective assessment based on subjectively-driven valuing.

Actually, I think I can agree with both of those underlined above, and still be a moral objectivist. It's trivially true that we make subjective assessments of everything, since all our data is subjectively received and analysed - we are beings that have an inescapable "I" point if view. That of itself says nothing necessarily about objective reality (and thus objective moral truths).

In the same sense, we make subjectively-driven value judgments - that is, it is a subjective "I" who makes the judgments. Again, in that sense, that has no bearing on the question at hand.


If you mean, however, that we cannot make moral judgments based on objective values - i.e. moral truths that are true independent of our agreeing / believing with them or not - then I say that you are begging the question. We can make subjective assessments of all sorts of other objective things - measurements (note that these are subjectively chosen, yet once chosen, become objective facts), places, things, times, math expressions, the truth or falsity of propositions, and more. Why can we not do the same for moral truths?


{But this is another rabbit hole that we've explored extensively before.}

As with everyone else, I have no chance of influencing your moral choices unless I can a) cause you to change you moral framework (which is unlikely for those who have aligned to what they believe is a god-center external framework), or b) get you to see a disconnect between your words and your actions. I am hoping for the latter. It is inconsistent to hold the moral position "lying is immoral" and then ignore, defend, and/or praise every lie that comes out of this man's mouth. The same can be said of most of Mr. Trump's moral behavior.



So this I will call you on. Point out one place where I have excused inappropriate/immoral behavior from someone on the left that I have chastised someone on the right for. If you can do so - you can justifiably accuse me of hypocrisy. If not, then I suggest you are lumping me into the general category "liberal" or "left" and doing what Sparko, MM, Sean, Pix, and so many others regularly do here: painting with an overly broad brush.



I am not "the left." I am not speaking for "the left." I am not responsible for "the left."


ETA: Once again, I do have to commend you for a post that (mostly) stays with the issues and does not slip into personal attacks. An exchange with you is always a breath of fresh air in here.

Thank you. Likewise.

[simplicio]

Then there is literally NO reason why our hypothetical Trump voter should care what you think. You're merely tone policing someone else's representative, and nothing they could do, short of abandoning the policies and values that the voter chose them for would get you to vote for them.

If Trump was as softly spoken and well-mannered as the Dalai Llama it wouldn't matter. No vote from you. If he was as rough and cruel as Atilla the Hun, same result. Ergo, your complaints about Trump's speech, behaviour and manner are irrelevant. You're going to have to argue policies and values if you want to reach Trump voters. You're going to have to police the politicians those voters feel hate them and want them wiped away just as hard as you police Trump, who they believe represents their interests. Arguing tone is disrespectful to them, when a change in that wouldn't make Trump more popular with you.


Please take a moment to re-read your last two sentences quoted above... ...do they not contradict each other? Does not the last sentence undermine your objections to Trump's behaviour? He - warts and all - is what plenty of people want.


I'm no more happy than you that this is the nature of the political environment, BTW. But it's not going to get better unless we start calling out everyone who crosses the line.









Then you weren't alive when Clinton was President? I thought you were older than that....






I think Trump is a symptom - an outworking if you like - of what is already here. That his exaggeration, boasting, hyperbole and lies are usually accepted is no accident - truth is dead and valueless in a postmodern world. What counts is power, winning - that's how the (extreme?) Democrats operate and have operated for quite some time now, Trump is merely following that pattern.


I congratulate you on your efforts to 'make things better', please endeavour to win trust by showing yourself more clearly to be willing to call out everyone equally.





Yep. Probably. I think America is too fundamentally divided, in too many deep ways, to hold together for many more years. Maybe 20 or so?? But Covid-19 could bust that all up, anyway. If there are serious problems with food supply and Depression-level unemployment, look out. And I think both of those are possible. Right now everyone should get behind Trump, faults and all - it's potentially a nation-busting level of crisis, and politicking and sniping is not what is needed. For now.





Actually, I think I can agree with both of those underlined above, and still be a moral objectivist. It's trivially true that we make subjective assessments of everything, since all our data is subjectively received and analysed - we are beings that have an inescapable "I" point if view. That of itself says nothing necessarily about objective reality (and thus objective moral truths).

In the same sense, we make subjectively-driven value judgments - that is, it is a subjective "I" who makes the judgments. Again, in that sense, that has no bearing on the question at hand.


If you mean, however, that we cannot make moral judgments based on objective values - i.e. moral truths that are true independent of our agreeing / believing with them or not - then I say that you are begging the question. We can make subjective assessments of all sorts of other objective things - measurements (note that these are subjectively chosen, yet once chosen, become objective facts), places, things, times, math expressions, the truth or falsity of propositions, and more. Why can we not do the same for moral truths?


{But this is another rabbit hole that we've explored extensively before.}




Thank you. Likewise.

Your comments here about the effects of the post modern world are interesting, A key voting block are conservative Christians. You are making the argument that the politically conservative Christians have surrendered themselves to the postmodern spirit of this age!

[MaxVel]

Your comments here about the effects of the post modern world are interesting, A key voting block are conservative Christians. You are making the argument that the politically conservative Christians have surrendered themselves to the postmodern spirit of this age!

Think much wider than that. If anything, that group has been less affected than other groups. Love your breathless enthusiasm whenever you think you've found a stick to beat Christians who aren't like you with.

[Juvenal]

And just how many predictions , within living memory, for the end of history coming from Christians? Israel returned to the land in 1948, which started the clock ticking toward the endtimes apocalypse..... Left Behind?

The "12 years" prediction referred to the timeline for carbon usage that would place us irretrievably above the 2ºC line. It's from physics based on measurements that anyone can duplicate, not interpretations of arcane texts that can't otherwise be checked.

This is not a reasonable comparison.

[Juvenal]

Right now everyone should get behind Trump, faults and all - it's potentially a nation-busting level of crisis, and politicking and sniping is not what is needed. For now.

You misspelled Pence. Getting behind Trump isn't an option. His changes in position occur too quickly. Ask Governor Kemp.

... politicking and sniping is not what is needed ...

Have you seen any of his recent press conferences?

[MaxVel]

You misspelled Pence. Getting behind Trump isn't an option. His changes in position occur too quickly. Ask Governor Kemp.

... politicking and sniping is not what is needed ...

Have you seen any of his recent press conferences?

"Ma, he started it!"

No-one else has to act maturely until Trump does. Really?

Not a solution.

[carpedm9587]

Then there is literally NO reason why our hypothetical Trump voter should care what you think. You're merely tone policing someone else's representative, and nothing they could do, short of abandoning the policies and values that the voter chose them for would get you to vote for them. If Trump was as softly spoken and well-mannered as the Dalai Llama it wouldn't matter. No vote from you. If he was as rough and cruel as Atilla the Hun, same result. Ergo, your complaints about Trump's speech, behaviour and manner are irrelevant. You're going to have to argue policies and values if you want to reach Trump voters. You're going to have to police the politicians those voters feel hate them and want them wiped away just as hard as you police Trump, who they believe represents their interests. Arguing tone is disrespectful to them, when a change in that wouldn't make Trump more popular with you.

So I see the issue concerning any president as consisting of two layers: the policy layer and the character/morality layer. The latter is more important to me than the former. In general, I would rank them in this order:

1. Policy alignment, character/morality alignment
2. No policy alignment, character/morality alignment
3. Policy alignment, no character/morality alignment
4. No policy alignment, no character/morality alignment

If I compare two candidates and one is higher on the list than the other, the one higher on the list will get my vote. Obviously this is simplistic, since the assessment is never strictly binary. Sometimes I'm faced with a candidate who I'm aligned with on policy 80% and character/morality 50%, making the decision more complex than this simple breakdown shows. But the general message of this breakdown is that I will always weigh character/morality more heavily than policy. I know that there will be another chance in the future to get my desired policies but having a person of compromised character/morality at the helm of the ship is a serious problem for the general direction that person take take the entire populace served.

It is amazing to me that anyone who claims a moral high road would assess any differently. Winning "policies" at the expense of "character/morality" strikes me as the height of a compromised personal ethics.

Please take a moment to re-read your last two sentences quoted above... ...do they not contradict each other? Does not the last sentence undermine your objections to Trump's behaviour? He - warts and all - is what plenty of people want.

So, first, the same argument you just made could easily have been made for Ms. Clinton (not that I was all that excited about her either). Indeed, more people wanted Ms. Clinton than Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump won by virtue of an archaic election system designed to ignore the will of the majority. He lost by 3M votes and won by 70,000 strategically located voters in three states.

Second, no they do not contradict. I understand that Mr. Trump won the game based on the rules of the game as they are currently structured. I have never suggested otherwise. When I say "not my president" I say it not because I don't think he has the legal right to hold the office, but specifically because I want it clear that this man may represent this country on policy, but he does not represent me on character/morality. I will not confer on him the honorific that goes with his elected position because he simply does not deserve it. Because he is a character/morality stain on the office he holds. Pix loves to go back in time and find the faults of previous presidents I listed for her as "favorite presidents" of mine. She looks at my list and attempts to apply it as a binary exercise. By that application, there is no difference in character/morality between Mr. Trump and any other president. Other presidents have had affairs. Other presidents have lied. Other presidents have insulted their opponents and called names. The fact that I admire some of these men despise Mr. Trump is a matter of hypocrisy to her.

But when you step away from this as a binary exercise, it quickly becomes clear that it is the combination and weighting of good/bad character/moral qualities I am objecting to. No one in my memory, and very few in the history of our Republic, have combined character/moral flaws in the same way and to the same degree as this man. For most others, there were redeeming qualities that exceeded the character/moral flaws. This man has an abundance of the latter and precious few of the former.

I'm no more happy than you that this is the nature of the political environment, BTW. But it's not going to get better unless we start calling out everyone who crosses the line.

On this we agree 100%

Then you weren't alive when Clinton was President? I thought you were older than that....

I was alive. I turned 40 in his second term. While he was(is) certainly not a shining example of character/morality, President Clinton doesn't even come close to Mr. Trump.

I think Trump is a symptom - an outworking if you like - of what is already here. That his exaggeration, boasting, hyperbole and lies are usually accepted is no accident - truth is dead and valueless in a postmodern world. What counts is power, winning - that's how the (extreme?) Democrats operate and have operated for quite some time now, Trump is merely following that pattern.

Oh I am aware Mr. Trump is a symptom. He is a symptom that says a great deal about this country of ours. It is exactly for that reason I have repeatedly said that I can accept 2016 as an aberration and understand the motivating forces behind it. If it repeats in 2020, however, it strongly suggests that this is not an aberration. It suggests our entire country is slipping in a direction that is dark and ugly, and it is no longer the country I grew up in and loved. I will find another place to make my home, where the general direction of the country is not so dark and ugly.

And I realize that there is a desire by many on the right to lay this at the feet of the Democrats. That is, IMO, an unbalanced view. While we can trace the roots of our current malaise to many things, a significant turn was made when the dual reality of Newt Gingrich and Fox News burst upon the scene. This "politics of war" was Gingrich's thing. This polarization has been a drumbeat Fox (and others) have been beating for years to a willing audience. Before these realities, there were politicians across the divide in both parties. You could find liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. Today, Republicans have become the party of the right with a very narrow tent, and Democrats have become the party of the left. Though if you compare the political spread of the two parties, Democrats have preserved more of that spread (to date) than Republicans. They are a more diverse party than Republicans in most ways. But I think most of the positives that can currently be said about the Democratic party are largely vestigial. The pattern suggests that the party will continue to swing further and further left, and eventually there will be noting in common between the parties whatsoever.

I congratulate you on your efforts to 'make things better', please endeavour to win trust by showing yourself more clearly to be willing to call out everyone equally.

Where do you think I am lacking in this? Most of the discussion here concerns Mr. Trump. When a politician is criticized here, I honestly convey my views on their actions, left or right. Where do you think there is something from the left that I have been unwilling to criticize?

Yep. Probably. I think America is too fundamentally divided, in too many deep ways, to hold together for many more years. Maybe 20 or so?? But Covid-19 could bust that all up, anyway. If there are serious problems with food supply and Depression-level unemployment, look out. And I think both of those are possible. Right now everyone should get behind Trump, faults and all - it's potentially a nation-busting level of crisis, and politicking and sniping is not what is needed. For now.

So long as Mr. Trump continues to mismanaged the crisis and put his character/morality on display continuously, that is not going to happen for this boy. I could no more "get behind Trump" for the sake of ... (what exactly?) ... than I could have gotten behind any of the ugly world leaders of history.

Actually, I think I can agree with both of those underlined above, and still be a moral objectivist. It's trivially true that we make subjective assessments of everything, since all our data is subjectively received and analysed - we are beings that have an inescapable "I" point if view. That of itself says nothing necessarily about objective reality (and thus objective moral truths).

In the same sense, we make subjectively-driven value judgments - that is, it is a subjective "I" who makes the judgments. Again, in that sense, that has no bearing on the question at hand.

If you mean, however, that we cannot make moral judgments based on objective values - i.e. moral truths that are true independent of our agreeing / believing with them or not - then I say that you are begging the question. We can make subjective assessments of all sorts of other objective things - measurements (note that these are subjectively chosen, yet once chosen, become objective facts), places, things, times, math expressions, the truth or falsity of propositions, and more. Why can we not do the same for moral truths?

{But this is another rabbit hole that we've explored extensively before.}

Yes, it is. And perhaps a topic for a different discussion. I will simply note this: Moral objectivists continually make this parallel between the laws of mathematics/logic/physics and the laws of morality, without one iota of justification for making the parallel. The two sets have nothing in common except the claim that they are both universal/objective/absolute (in some combination). This is not something you can show - merely assert over and over again. But there is something that is highly parallel to moral principles: legal principles. I have shown this parallel multiple times. Both are dependent on the existence of sentient minds for their own existence. Both deal with human action and establish "oughts" and "ought nots." Both show variation by culture/community. And legal principles are decidedly subjective and relative. They can even explicitly contradict one another when they are defined by two different groups separated by space and/or time. Yet no one suggests these principles are somehow "meaningless" because of that reality. Yet, for some odd reason (historically rooted), morality is treated as a special case that somehow is vulnerable to these criticisms, without once showing a justification for this treatment.

Thank you. Likewise.

[Juvenal]

"Ma, he started it!"

No-one else has to act maturely until Trump does. Really?

Find the knob labeled "misrepresentation."

Turn it down from 11.

Not a solution.

I'm all ears if you've got one.

everyone should get behind Trump

... directly contradicts ...

politicking and sniping is not what is needed

Choose one, and run with that.

[MaxVel]

Find the knob labeled "misrepresentation."

Turn it down from 11.

You first. Let me know if you're interested in what I actually mean.


If you're just looking for snippets you can extract to score points, carry on stroking your ego by yourself.

[Juvenal]

You first.

It wasn't a misrepresentation because, "No, you!"

Let me know if you're interested in what I actually mean.

This is about coherent conversation.

In the same sense that one cannot both support Trump and oppose politicking and sniping, it's not possible to get behind this president because, "What does he when he says words." If I was interested in scoring points, that Zachary Wolf quote is ripe for this encounter. If you've got an argument that those positions aren't contradictory, forge on. Otherwise, the obvious path is to resolve the contradictions first, as previously suggested.

[MaxVel]

It wasn't a misrepresentation because, "No, you!"

This is about coherent conversation.

In the same sense that one cannot both support Trump and oppose politicking and sniping, it's not possible to get behind this president because, "What does he when he says words." If I was interested in scoring points, that Zachary Wolf quote is ripe for this encounter. If you've got an argument that those positions aren't contradictory, forge on. Otherwise, the obvious path is to resolve the contradictions first, as previously suggested.

You asserted a contradiction - it's your job to argue for that, not mine to defend it, I know what I meant, and the context of the whole post, the thread, and the discussion with carpedm should have made that clear.

In the context of my whole post, which you chose but one sentence to comment on, asserting that "Right now everyone should get behind Trump.." contradicts "... and politicking and sniping is not what is needed." is a misrepresentation of my position. For there to be a contradiction I would have to have been arguing that everyone should unreservedly "support Trump" (your words, not mine) and agree with him on everything. That's not was I was saying.

End of argument, because I have just plainly told you that you're misrepresenting me...


This was never about 'coherent conversation', since you opened with a misunderstood (being charitable) snippet from a longer post in a longer discussion with carpedm. And you chose to take the Jerk ^TM patented snarky approach instead of asking me to clarify.

We're done now. Bye.

[carpedm9587]

You asserted a contradiction - it's your job to argue for that, not mine to defend it, I know what I meant, and the context of the whole post, the thread, and the discussion with carpedm should have made that clear.

In the context of my whole post, which you chose but one sentence to comment on, asserting that "Right now everyone should get behind Trump.." contradicts "... and politicking and sniping is not what is needed." is a misrepresentation of my position. For there to be a contradiction I would have to have been arguing that everyone should unreservedly "support Trump" (your words, not mine) and agree with him on everything. That's not was I was saying.

End of argument, because I have just plainly told you that you're misrepresenting me...

This was never about 'coherent conversation', since you opened with a misunderstood (being charitable) snippet from a longer post in a longer discussion with carpedm. And you chose to take the Jerk ^TM patented snarky approach instead of asking me to clarify.

We're done now. Bye.

Good luck with the bolded part. I've been saying that to many here for quite a while, to no effect. I'm not sure I will ever understand the following dynamic:

Person A: I think X
Person B: You said you think Y
Person A: No, that's not what I said, and certainly not what I think. You've changed/misunderstood my post.
Person B: You think Y - stop trying to squirrel out of it.
Person A: I actually don't think Y - I think X.
Person B: You're hand-waving, ignoring the data/facts, like nailing jello to a tree, etc., etc. etc.
Person A: NVM... <insert head pounding on wall emoji here>

Your complete lack of this dynamic is one of the many reasons talking with you is like a breath of fresh air - even if we disagree on most things.

ETA: Oh - and then there's the infamous "X is actually Y."

[MaxVel]

Good luck with the bolded part. I've been saying that to many here for quite a while, to no effect. I'm not sure I will ever understand the following dynamic:

Person A: I think X
Person B: You said you think Y
Person A: No, that's not what I said, and certainly not what I think. You've changed/misunderstood my post.
Person B: You think Y - stop trying to squirrel out of it.
Person A: I actually don't think Y - I think X.
Person B: You're hand-waving, ignoring the data/facts, like nailing jello to a tree, etc., etc. etc.
Person A: NVM... <insert head pounding on wall emoji here>

Your complete lack of this dynamic is one of the many reasons talking with you is like a breath of fresh air - even if we disagree on most things.

ETA: Oh - and then there's the infamous "X is actually Y."

"Complete lack" is very flattering but honestly goes too far. But thank you nonetheless.

[carpedm9587]

"Complete lack" is very flattering but honestly goes too far. But thank you nonetheless.

Not in my experience. Yes, you do sometimes misunderstand posts - but I have never experienced you telling me what I think and then insisting that you know what I think better than I know what I think when I correct a misconception. (that is a really clumsy sentence... )

There are many here for whom that is a regular occurrence. I've pretty much given up on conversations with them. They're pointless.

[Mountain Man]

Good luck with the bolded part. I've been saying that to many here for quite a while, to no effect. I'm not sure I will ever understand the following dynamic:

Person A: I think X
Person B: You said you think Y
Person A: No, that's not what I said, and certainly not what I think. You've changed/misunderstood my post.
Person B: You think Y - stop trying to squirrel out of it.
Person A: I actually don't think Y - I think X.
Person B: You're hand-waving, ignoring the data/facts, like nailing jello to a tree, etc., etc. etc.
Person A: NVM... <insert head pounding on wall emoji here>

Your complete lack of this dynamic is one of the many reasons talking with you is like a breath of fresh air - even if we disagree on most things.

ETA: Oh - and then there's the infamous "X is actually Y."

Except in your case, it's:

carpe: I believe X.
us: Why would you believe X? That's crazy.
carpe: I never said I believed X. You're just twisting my words.
us: Um... here's a direct quote from you stating your belief in X.
carpe: Yes, but that really means not-X.
us: But if you meant not-X, then why did you say X?
carpe: But I didn't say X.
us: Dude, we have an exact quote of you explicitly saying X! How can you deny it?
carpe: I'm through discussing it. Last word to you.