When Conspiracists Psychoanalyze

Status
Not open for further replies.

econ41

Senior Member
In my neck of America when people mention being a republic it is referring to "states rights" vs "federal rights". Like my quote.
A "Republican Federation of States." Australia is also a Federation of States - but it is a parliamentary Monarchy Federation of States. Guess where much of the federation model came from. The balance of state rights versus federal is different - AU started out with more power at Federal level.
Partly due to the philosophic model - AU is still "top down". The US emphatically "bottom up" "We the People" allow a minimal federal government to exercise limited control and unite us against external enemies etc
Partly due to the small size of the country. Even now only 25 million of us. About 7 million I think at federation.
I definitely wasnt thinking of the monarch part of the definition.
Understood. It is a separate issue but a lot of people have strong emotions --- either way. I'm pragmatically neutral given that becoming a republic is always under consideration here in AU. And given recent events, likely to become a front-line issue again.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
BUT does get frustrating when members mix and match or conflate the two very different sets of concepts.
and it's not at all frustrating that someone couldnt say a page and a half ago "dont use the word republic, say "representational democracy", instead of all this ambiguous questioning. :)
 

econ41

Senior Member
and it's not at all frustrating that someone couldnt say a page and a half ago "dont use the word republic, say "representational democracy", instead of all this ambiguous questioning. :)
And I've been avoiding the debate for reasons I've mentioned.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Because of this, I didn't tolerate outside comments about my country. I lost the ability to be patient about it. I snapped, I told them to mind their own business or at least hold their tongue.
Try the phrase "No shit, Sherlock". I like that because it conveys all you said but also conveys that you 'already know all that, thanks'. You can't say that on MB but you can say it in public.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
You might want to familiarise yourself with the historical usage of the terms from sources like Madison and his Federalist Papers

Sure, but I (and we) live in the 21st century. :)

it's not at all frustrating that someone couldnt say a page and a half ago "dont use the word republic, say "representational democracy",

Couldn't be me. I've never heard of any definition of the word "republic" that had anything to do with democracy.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
And I've been avoiding the debate for reasons I've mentioned.
I didnt say engage in a debate. I said say "dont use the word republic, say "representational democracy". Just that, not all your fancy strange word dances.

For instance i have no idea why you wrote your last comment or what you want me to get from that. I'm not being snarky, Ive mentioned to you over the years that the way you put words together is hard to decipher many times.

And i dont care if you want to start your OWN thread (like you tell everyone else to do) and compare democracies and governments outside of a specific political thread. But when you say ((paraphrase) 'that wouldnt have happened if you guys did x,y and z" the response you get is "we like x,y and z whether you understand our liking it or not". Have fun, i would love for you to get it out of your system.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Sure, but I (and we) live in the 21st century. :)
But the confusion is coming from older usage of terminology.
Couldn't be me. I've never heard of any definition of the word "republic" that had anything to do with democracy.
Republic: a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
Content from External Source
https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&client=ubuntu&q=republic+definition
"elected" == "democratic" even tho the word is not explicit.

The confusion is with "direct democracy":
Direct democracy or pure democracy is a form of democracy in which the electorate decides on policy initiatives without elected representatives as proxies.
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

.. and the Founding Fathers were definite - They did NOT want a "direct democracy". Some reasons are obvious if read in context: The big issue was persuading independent sovereign states to collaborate as a federation. They wanted a Republic with elected small numbers of representatives. Definitely not the mess that "everyone voting on everything" would cause. i.e. they didn't want a "democracy" which was a "direct democracy".
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
Republic: a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

"elected" = "democratic" even tho the word is not explicit.

Yes, but I don't think that's the issue. Non-republics can be democratic and have elected representatives (such as the UK) and republics may not (such as China, Vietnam, Syria, Laos, Chad, and North Korea).

Really, as I understand it democracy is a political system applied to governance and whether a country is a monarchy or a republic is a power ideology applied to nations.

The wikipedia page on "forms of government" lists the following forms of government by power source:
  • Autocracy
  • Oligarchy (including aristocracy, meritocracy, and theocracy)
  • Democracy
  • Anarchy
And the following forms of government by power ideology:
  • Monarchy
  • Republic
Under "types of democracy", where examples of each type are given, representative democracy is stated as being "almost all types of democracy". It's kind of a redundant term really.

As for whether republic or non-republic:

1664676291355.png

There really aren't that many options: you're either a republic, a monarchy, or a small handful of "other".

But I guess the issue is that the US has their own definition of the word republic beyond "not a monarchy" and neither Deirdre nor I were aware of that until today:

A distinct set of definitions of the term "republic" evolved in the United States, where the term is often equated with "representative democracy."

In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the [Supreme C]ourt ruled that the "equal rights of citizens" were inherent to the idea of a republic.

W. Paul Adams observes that republic is most often used in the United States as a synonym for "state" or "government," but with more positive connotations than either of those terms. Republicanism is often referred to as the founding ideology of the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#United_States
Content from External Source
Ya live and learn.
 
Last edited:

econ41

Senior Member
Yes, but I don't think that's the issue. Non-republics can be democratic and have elected representatives (such as the UK) and republics may not (such as China, Vietnam, Syria, Laos, Chad, and North Korea).
Exactly. And as I took for granted before this debate. I was assuming that US members posting were familiar with the issue given its historic significance in US constitutional affairs.
Really, as I understand it democracy is a political system applied to governance and whether a monarchy or a republic is a power ideology applied to nations.

The wikipedia page on "forms of government" lists the following forms of government by power source:
  • Autocracy
  • Oligarchy (including aristocracy, meritocracy, and theocracy)
  • Democracy
  • Anarchy
And the following forms of government by power ideology:
  • Monarchy
  • Republic
YES Agreed both as to power "source" and power "ideology".
Under "types of democracy", where examples of each type are given, representative democracy is stated as being "almost all types of democracy". It's kind of a redundant term really.
YES - I even listed examples at post #240 YES the term should be redundant EXCEPT - some people are confused over the basic definitional issues and the history specifically in the history of debate of the US constitutional arrangement. (JOKE >> we "foreigners" are alleged to not understand <<JOKE. Read the thread to see the confusions.
There really aren't that many options: you're either a republic, a monarchy, or a small handful of "other".
YES (There are also a small handful of "semi-direct democracies" - but let's not go there either. :rolleyes: )
But I guess the issue is that the US has their own definition of the word beyond "not a monarchy" and neither Deirdre nor I were aware of that until today:
YES. And my understanding aligns with the Wikipedia version.
A distinct set of definitions of the term "republic" evolved in the United States, where the term is often equated with "representative democracy."

In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the [Supreme C]ourt ruled that the "equal rights of citizens" were inherent to the idea of a republic.

W. Paul Adams observes that republic is most often used in the United States as a synonym for "state" or "government," but with more positive connotations than either of those terms. Republicanism is often referred to as the founding ideology of the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#United_States
Content from External Source

Ya live and learn.
Yes!
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
I get it, and their opinions are completely valid. That's completely correct, and I'd be horrified if other countries didn't think less of us after Trump. But that's the macro, and I'm talking about the micro.

Let's imagine that I go on and on about Boris Johnson to a Brit. After a time, they ask me if I can stop, because what is a headline for me is a hellscape for them. Do I say "you know, I read the news, and I know what I'm talking about here, like it or not, your country is not an isolated entity?" No. Their lived experience is greater than my news-worthiness or lofty ideals of globalism. They may have been directly affected by his policies, and I need to respect that. That's all I'm saying here.

Tell that to the Afghan girls who are forbidden to attend school due to their gender; all the Afghan women who can't leave their homes without a male escort from immediate family (if none, they're forced to marry and often subjected to 'nikkah' i.e. temporary marriages for sex to pleasure a bunch of fanatics); and the women's rights advocates who've been beaten and tortured after the Taliban took over last August. All because both Trump and Biden wanted a quick US exit from Afghanistan to pander to (domestic) voters, and lost patience in the hard, long and expensive work of rebuilding Afghanistan. Wouldn't you say their lives haven't been directly affected by US policies in a manner where "hellscape" provides the perfect label?

Yes @tinkertailor, I totally get your point and have addressed it already in my response to @Woolery in the above. And yes, there are many 'outsiders' (i.e. not all) who glibly and judgmentally offer caricaturized views on domestic issues on which many 'insiders' (i.e. not all) have a much better grasp. Such noisome commentators are everywhere, they're 'inside' and 'outside', and feel entitled to offer glib and over-confident views on virtually anything based on little or no knowledge. And yes, we do see some of that even here on MB, irrespective of political leanings or nationality.

But let's not sweep the powerfully and often devastatingly global impact of US policy-makers (and those of any powerful country) that 'you guys' elect without our leave (pun intended), for the rest of our nuisance under the ideological carpet of 'globalism'. Those Afghan girls aren't globalists. They're brave survivors and strugglers.

That we're an interdependent world that's shrunk into a neighbourhood isn't just a political cliché by the sprout-nibbling hippie but a painfully lived fact for billions of people across this one planet of ours. And the failure to see that fact by dividing the 21st century world into 'us insiders' and 'them outsiders' contributes to its continuing descent into an ever-worsening vortex of problems.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Tell that to the Afghan girls who are forbidden to attend school due to their gender; all the Afghan women who can't leave their homes without a male escort from immediate family (if none, they're forced to marry and often subjected to 'nikkah' i.e. temporary marriages for sex to pleasure a bunch of fanatics); and the women's rights advocates who've been beaten and tortured after the Taliban took over last August. All because both Trump and Biden wanted a quick US exit from Afghanistan to pander to (domestic) voters, and lost patience in the hard, long and expensive work of rebuilding Afghanistan. Wouldn't you say their lives haven't been directly affected by US policies in a manner where "hellscape" provides the perfect label?

That's exactly the opposite of what Tink is saying. In that case THIER lived experiences trump our (you and americans) reading about it in the news.

fyi, pretty much everyone i've heard speak ...dems and repubs...are pissed about the way Biden pulled out. just like pretty much everyone condemned the riot at the capital and the george floyd murder. etc. (but its not because we pulled out quickly, it would have happened if we pulled out slow too.)
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
That's exactly the opposite of what Tink is saying. In that case THIER lived experiences trump our (you and americans) reading about it in the news.

You still don't get it. Our ALL lived experiences are affected by 'your' leaders. Some just even more painfully than others. We all have a say, so quit dividing the world into 'lived experiencers' and 'non' when it concerns truly globally influential policy-makers. And why are you giving @econ41 shit for for using accurate terms? If you can't decipher articulate expression, broaden your vocabulary rather than teach everyone to be the same -- colloquial, fuzzy and rude.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Not a definition, but that the US has its own localised definition of the word "republic" different to others'.
Not sure what gave you the impression i didn't know that. (the things quoted here anyway).
and i told you in my first answer that we also have a localized usage of "state vs fed".
wikie: " where the term is often equated with "representative democracy." "

I must be typing my words wrong somehow.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
Not sure what gave you the impression i didn't know that. (the things quoted here anyway).
and i told you in my first answer that we also have a localized usage of "state vs fed".
wikie: " where the term is often equated with "representative democracy." "

I must be typing my words wrong somehow.

No, you react before you take time to read and fully fathom what's written to you. Because you're no different from the glib commentators eager to spout strong opinion on any matter while self-indulgently assuming you 'know the other guy and their lived experience better'.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
i didn't.

That's another one of your tropes. Denying what you did after being called out, although it's in plain view for everyone. As if your retrospective claims of 'but I knew that already' and 'no I didn't' carry any credibility for the honest observer of these convos. Sometimes swallowing pride and admitting you didn't know, or weren't polite, is OK. A modicum of humility and self-awareness increases respect towards you rather than decreasing it.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Sometimes swallowing pride and admitting you didn't know,
didn't know what? Rory quoted in his comment
1664690770206.png
but i know all that. so i asked him what i missed. and he still didnt answer my question.

From my perspective, you are the one not fully reading the conversation. I did not start this conversation or jump in. I was engaged to explain MY use of the word republic earlier in the thread. It's not my fault when i say "i dont understand", noone clarifies anything. If they don't want me to understand why are they talking to me in the first place?
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
From my perspective, you are the one not fully reading the conversation. I did not start this conversation or jump in. I was engaged to explain MY use of the word republic earlier in the thread. It's not my fault when i say "i dont understand", noone clarifies anything. If they don't want me to understand why are they talking to me in the first place?

You are the author of this whole derail into an argument from authority -- 'if you're not in America, shut up about America' -- whilst ignoring or grossly misunderstanding most of the substantive points made.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
That's exactly the opposite of what Tink is saying. In that case THIER lived experiences trump our (you and americans) reading about it in the news.

I was there. You read it from the news. My wife and I arranged for 5 Afghan women, mostly our former colleagues and helpers, to escape the country.

(but its not because we pulled out quickly, it would have happened if we pulled out slow too.)

No it wouldn't have. Start a thread and we shall unpack this matter with evidence. Both lived and objective.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
No it wouldn't have. Start a threat and we shall unpack this matter with evidence. Both lived and objective.
I'd be interested to learn if reality is different then what i read about in the news. Please you do start a thread. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm one of the "war-monger"* americans who didn't think we should leave Afghanistan.

*that's what im called for my view. not saying you are calling me that.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
i said if you're not in America don't psychoanalyze me in comparison to other Americans you read about in the news.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/when-conspiracists-psychoanalyze.12536/post-280515

Why didn't you cite us accurately rather than only provide a link.

Me:

"That you don't see a narcissist, untethered to principle, pathologically incapable of admitting defeat while more than capable of winning impressionable crowds by noisome lies is a rabbit hole of a whole different kind. The mainstream kind.

And psychologically not that different from the fringe kind."


You:

"if you say so. surely you know what you know what you are talking about from the other side of the world, better than i."

What you did was dismiss what I wrote solely based on a crude argument from authority rather than addressing the actual points made. What I discussed was on topic (psychology of a conspiracist). The rest was a derail into Americans and non-Americans which started from that point on.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
an argument from authority
i think i am an authority on ME. i provided a link because YOU are now not citing the convo accurately :) my way, people can go back and see what was said and judge for themselves.

I'm not a trump supporter. You lying about me and using that to equate me to them psychologically, deserves the snark you got.

end of discussion.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
i think i am an authority on ME.

Or a chronic denier of your own antics doomed to poor self-awareness.

i provided a link because YOU are now not citing the convo accurately :)

I pinpointed the derail which you started and it's now been demonstrated without you disproving your authorship thereof.

I'm not a trump supporter. You lying about me and using that to equate me to them psychologically, deserves the snark you got.

I didn't say you are. I said it's a rabbit hole to be lost in lies about stolen elections concocted by a sore loser. It's a rabbit hole to believe in disinformation presented as fact. You were uncritically regurgitating and defending those lies, able to only criticize the other side misled by propaganda whilst happily thinking you're not.

end of discussion.

End of derail I hope. Not discussion.

Some of the real lived experiences (photo courtesy by yours truly) of policies made by 'our leaders' in far-flung countries thousands of miles away from the experiencers; lived by those who have little say on anything that impacts their lives, whether caused by domestic or global players:

C3D533D0-96B7-4B36-8811-F7A1301DFC1B.jpeg

751009EE-B36D-4E28-B646-E18F86799D07.jpeg
65FB4C3C-2B11-43F1-A5A1-CC70F307CB2E.jpeg

These are impacts of mainstream rabbit holes, and mainstream conspiracist psychologies of various kinds.
 
Last edited:

tinkertailor

Senior Member.
But let's not sweep the powerfully and often devastatingly global impact of US policy-makers (and those of any powerful country) that 'you guys' elect without our leave (pun intended), for the rest of our nuisance under the ideological carpet of 'globalism'. Those Afghan girls aren't globalists. They're brave survivors and strugglers.

That we're an interdependent world that's shrunk into a neighbourhood isn't just a political cliché by the sprout-nibbling hippie but a painfully lived fact for billions of people across this one planet of ours. And the failure to see that fact by dividing the 21st century world into 'us insiders' and 'them outsiders' contributes to its continuing descent into an ever-worsening vortex of problems.
I agree completely. You'll note that all of my examples were domestic policy. Criticize us all you want for global policy, we deserve it and more. Boycott us, write letters, be vocal. Please. There are no outsiders when it comes to global warming, global humanitarianism, and general foreign policy.

My point, which you clearly understood, regards domestic policy.

And, for what it's worth, I agree with Deirdre here--I've yet to meet a single person who is proud of how Afghanistan was handled, for this and more reasons. Not among my socialist friends or the hard-right members of my extended family or anyone in between.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
I agree completely. You'll note that all of my examples were domestic policy. Criticize us all you want for global policy, we deserve it and more. Boycott us, write letters, be vocal. Please. There are no outsiders when it comes to global warming, global humanitarianism, and general foreign policy.

My point, which you clearly understood, regards domestic policy.

And, for what it's worth, I agree with Deirdre here--I've yet to meet a single person who is proud of how Afghanistan was handled, for this and more reasons. Not among my socialist friends or the hard-right members of my extended family or anyone in between.

Thank you for your clarifications. They're helpful. By the way, do you see in the psychology of the political beliefs of your socialist friends and/or hardline right family-members any similarities to ufologists or flat-earthers? I'd be curious to know and also this brings us back on topic.
 

tinkertailor

Senior Member.
Thank you for your clarifications. They're helpful. By the way, do you see in the psychology of the political beliefs of your socialist friends and/or hardline right family-members any similarities to ufologists or flat-earthers? I'd be curious to know and also this brings us back on topic.
Some of my harder socialist friends emphasize community as a news source. As such, the ones I know in Portland might, for instance, rely on underground community news sources over mainstream ones. I see a lot of "X person did Y bad thing" posts spread like wildfire, such as accusing a notable tattoo artist of being a sex offender, and I wish I got the information from a source that wasn't, a huge game of underground telephone. These sources worked well for people who chose to protest George Floyd's murder a few years back, as police are not the greatest at understanding social media and zines, but otherwise it can be a bit messy.

Regarding my family, let's just say that I just had to turn my phone on do-not-disturb last night to escape a 4-paragraph rant about how COVID escaped from a lab in Wuhan, the WHO knew the vaccine wasn't effective, and Rand Paul is somehow the answer. I love my family a lot, and I'm learning that not engaging with that sort of thing is the best for all involved.

Edit: I know Rand Paul isn't necessarily hard-right
 

Woolery

Banned
Banned
When it comes to 'what it's really like to live in the UK/US/pick your country', I would tend to agree with the gist of your argument. The locals are the real experts on that particular but important issue. (Not even going into a comparison on how much less UK issues are covered in the US media as opposed to US issues in the world media -- we're not living in isolated islands anymore.)

But on highly politicized issues the 'locals' are also more vulnerable to echo chambers and aggressive misinformation designed to target and fool 'the electrorate', rather than outsiders.

A close-range observer of a scenery in broad daylight, while wearing a virtual reality helmet over his head, is less able to see its features than a distant observer looking through a telescope with his own eyes. But if both are free from blindfolds, the local will of course be the one likelier to see the scenery and all its features clearer.

However, when it comes to globally significant public figures and leaders of superpowers, we're talking about much more than a strictly 'local' affair where the average local has 'automatically' a much better, closer and clearer access to the real person than the average non-local.

Intellectual authority to speak on any matter more than others must be earned and demonstrated. I for one was not making any such a claim of authority. But it was unmistakably suggested I have less authority than another poster by sole appeal to my location outside the US. Dismissal of voices merely by appeal to authority is a classical fallacy and hampers all learning. Especially if one is claiming authority on the basis of citizenship, on a political issue which as it happens splits the citizens of that country right in the middle, and thereby entirely obliterating the notion of 'living here makes me more right than you'.

The same applies to claiming authority based on one's expertise in a particular field. Galilei believed in astrology. Jung in the esoteric. Both greatly contributed to advancing scientific practice and non-outlandish/parsimonious theories in their professional fields. For an ignorant lay person (on astronomy, psychology, astrological myths and esoteric claims) it's not always easy to see where Jung's and Galilei's professional scientific expertise ends and where the fluff begins. Just as it isn't for the average American voter to distinguish between hard facts and subtle or less than subtle propaganda spouted by CNN and Fox News.

It is not unheard of that one can be a brilliant expert in a narrow professional field, or a great source of overall knowledge of one's native country, while simultaneously espousing religious or political beliefs that reflect a less professional methodology of establishing a truth.

I value experts on American domestic issues. And luckily there are many. Sadly few agree. I think when someone here posts their expert opinion on US domestic failures, it should not be met with indignancy when someone else asks them questions that have bearing on their depth of understanding. Such as: Do you spend much time in the region? Do you speak to many people who inhabit that region? Where do you source your information on the US?

I’d argue that Americans are not split right down the middle as you suggest. The middle is where you’ll find us. In our daily lives we help and work alongside each other despite our differences. We are all unhappy with our politicians. Now if I were back in the UK just reading a feed about the US (polarization, riots, scandals, etc.) I’d probably think the US was the most explosive, chaotic place on earth. That’s the unfortunate product of sensationalist saturation resulting from algorithmic news selection.

In my town we have many right-leaning dairy farmers and lots of left-leaning tech workers. We have plumbers and doctors and delivery people. We have immigrants legal and otherwise. We are not at each other’s throats. And we are neither calling for defunding the police nor are we trying to overturn the last election. You say it isn't for us average American voters to distinguish between hard facts and subtle or less than subtle propaganda spouted by CNN and Fox News. We may not be as simple as you posit. We are suspicious of the opinions of unnamed posters who consider themselves better informed about us than ourselves. And so we’re compelled to ask them how much time they’ve spent with us, and whether they’re among those of us who will bear the consequences of their prescriptions.

Experts are great. But when I see the majority of the posts about American domestic failures made by people from other countries (and they routinely come from the same three or four senior-member ideologue posters), those people seem to not only be astonishingly disinterested in the failures of their own countries but they also dismiss the outsized value of being a primary stakeholder in one’s own country. You could assemble a panel of the world’s foremost authorities on parenting, but I think most of us parents would balk at handing over our parental decision-making to such a panel. Factor in that these experts have never spent a day with our families nor apparently think it’s relevant, and any parent would be suspicious.

Saying that the US is facing large domestic problems (as is nearly every other nation on earth) is not insightful. It is plain. Nor is it insightful to try to “prove” conservatism is inferior to liberalism or vice versa. Much can and should be learned from both perspectives.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Edit: I know Rand Paul isn't necessarily hard-right
I imagine he is considered by most as hard right.

Even i would be ok with that description, but really i see him more like Bernie Sanders.. if right is East and left is West, I picture Rand Paul as like "hard" North east. or South east, i haven't thought through my N-S analogy. If Donald Trump is the hard right drunk uncle, Rand Paul is the hard right eccentric cousin. :)

I have a brother who is big into Rand Paul. He is definitely hard right, but has those same quirky idiosyncrasies that might make people think he is not hard right. But he is. (Not FAR right, just hard right.)
 

Woolery

Banned
Banned
Now how does one translate to the other? "Tolerance" may be a desirable characteristic to work in two directions, but facts do not. If believers think that UFOs with little green men from another planet travel the sky, most of the time that's silly but relatively benign. But if believers think that the earth's climate is not changing, it hampers any attempt to make meaningful improvements to our environment. If believers think that face masks are unnecessary and vaccinations are evil attempts to implant tracking hardware into our bodies, more people die. If believers think that "their" candidate was cheated out of an election and that the best way to settle the question is with physical violence, democracy is in peril.

"Both-siderism" is lazy thinking.

I don’t think it takes a skeptic to accept climate change or the results of the 2020 presidential election. Polls show most people accept these things, though most people do not consider themselves skeptics.

When I refer to the intolerance of skeptics, I’m referring to acts such as telling nonskeptics that they can’t be trusted to hold opinions or hold power because they do not use their brain correctly (as you did by calling my thinking lazy instead of simply relying on the strength of your argument). This is the kind of intolerance that makes people wary of skeptics.

The world isn’t divided into “believers” and “skeptics.” The great majority of us belong to neither faction and distrust the convictions of both.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
When I refer to the intolerance of skeptics, I’m referring to acts such as telling nonskeptics that they can’t be trusted to hold opinions or hold power because they do not use their brain correctly (as you did by calling my thinking lazy instead of simply relying on the strength of your argument). This is the kind of intolerance that makes people wary of skeptics.
I think you are redefining skepticism to suit your argument. You're talking about rudeness, not skepticism.
 

econ41

Senior Member
if right is East and left is West, I picture Rand Paul as like "hard" North east. or South east, i haven't thought through my N-S analogy. If Donald Trump is the hard right drunk uncle, Rand Paul is the hard right eccentric cousin. :)
A good model. The single vector left<>right is far too simplistic.
 

Woolery

Banned
Banned
I think you are redefining skepticism to suit your argument. You're talking about rudeness, not skepticism.
Sorry if I’m being lazy again. And I apologize for arguing with you so poorly. I don’t know how to put this more simply or gently. I’m talking about intolerance within skepticism.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
A good model. The single vector left<>right is far too simplistic.
was thinking of the where do you fall on the Political Compass thread. (remember the one that says Obama is further right than me). that one has north as 'authoritarian', so im thinking Rand Paul is probably South east? I'm mostly basing that on my brother and seeing Paul speak in congress a few times and question Fauchi. etc
 

econ41

Senior Member
I think you are redefining skepticism to suit your argument. You're talking about rudeness, not skepticism.
And that is underpinned by some possible definitional confusion. I'd better state it both ways. The thesis is that "scepticism" and "belief" are not polar opposites. In much contemporary usage "belief" has a connotation of "blind faith in something that is probably wrong". "Scepticism" is about not accepting anything at face value. Scepticism should favour identifying the true facts before adopting a position.

And the base position on objective fact is that a sceptic position that is factually correct outweighs a "belief" that is factually wrong. Those aspects should be objective reality. They are potentially determinable.

BUT the complications and conflicts start when we superimpose all the opinions and emotions and personal biases etc etc....
 
Last edited:

econ41

Senior Member
Sorry if I’m being lazy again. And I apologize for arguing with you so poorly. I don’t know how to put this more simply or gently. I’m talking about intolerance within skepticism.
Understood. It's not "pure" scepticism. If there is such an animal?
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I can't imagine what it would be like if someone from the other side of the political coin told me my experience was wrong.
but isn't that wrong no matter what the subject is?
telling someone how to feel or what to do (when not asked for advice) is always deeply disrespectful
(jokes about forest fires are best left to those concerned, similar to how jokes about jews are best left to jews)

that doesn't preclude me discussing US domestic issues (e.g. QAnon or election denial) on an international forum

I feel it's ok as long as it's descriptive and not proscriptive

or us rattling on about our opinions of what their democratically elected leaders do.
merkel got mentioned a fair bit

including this gem
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-angela-merkel-as-hitlers-daughter-sorcha-faal-hoax.2583/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top