dc_dux

It has been suggested that links be limited to relevant and reputable sources. A noble and reasonable suggestion, but how is it possible when some here consider any source critical of Bush to be leftwing media hogwash? Is Michelle Malkin, Drudge or the Wash Times more reliable than the NY Times, ThinkProgress or the Wash Post?

The probem here is not Host's posts (some of which I read and some I dont) ..or Ace's simplistic analogies, or any one single poster. IMO, the problem is unwillingness by some to have reasonable discourse BASED ON FACTS when the source is challenged.

I dont claim to be the best role model, but I do try to back up my comments with facts. When I see a post that is entirely false, (more often than not, the product of right wing blogs) I will challenge it with relevant and reputable sources, for which I am then criticized for "threadjacking" or responded to with snide remarks and more false information.

Maybe others here have suggestions on how to regain a sense of decorum and a place to exchange reliable and relevant information expressing opposing views. First and foremost, it takes an open mind and a willingess to accept that some positions on an issue (as opposed to an opinion) may not be supportable by the facts.

I am out of ideas.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

host

....I'm not....what can you expect, though....when in the 3D world,

.....you get this "op-ed" column....in the nation's "newspaper of record":
...and it's opposite, on a "liberal" politics blog:
...my point is that IMO, the opinion at the link assumed to be more "credible", the Washington Post link, is not....in this case it is deliberately misleading.....and....unless you know that it's author, Ms. Toensing, and her husband, Joe diGenova, were described in the same newspaper, in 1998 as:
....Mr. Johnson, on the other hand, although posting from a "blog", seems to be who he says he is....a former CIA agent turned political pundit, who was in Valerie Plame's training class at CIA, in the mid '80's......

My "solution" is to post "in depth" support for my points and opinions....

I have more to say, (of course....)but I'm distracted, thinking about the irony that the point of my post on this forum before this one was that the "establishment" in the US has a tendency to discourage / banish political discourse from the "left" of "center-right"....

roachboy

creating this problem was a major goal of the conservative media apparatus over many years. it was a space that enabled the right to borrow something from marxist ideology critique and stand it on its head: the right boiled ideology critique down to a simplistic forumla that relativized all information sources by claiming that all of it is equal in that all of it is political--and by "political" they meant "not conservative"---so it followed from there that the right would argue, not that conservatives needed to read critically what information they encountered (why do that?) but instead that since all information as political, and since, in the fantasyland of the american extreme right, conservative viewpoints were marginalized, that it followed that conservative political propositions built into the information itself can function to legitimate information provided to the conservative faithful.

this has created a real problem around agreement as to the legit-ness of any given information source.
and it has had the desired effect: cutting conservatives off from information streams that would provide it with problematic information, replacing them with other streams that do not.
so it follows that political conversations across positions end up being hamstrung more often than not.
in my more paranoid moments, i think this was a good part of the point of this tactic relating to information.

i dont really know what to do to address this. the meta-debates about information sources are endless in here, and they do not seem to get anywhere because even if you crush any number of sources in the course of a debate, you never get to the dispositions that informs their usage.

but this is a direct consequence of choices made by the conservative media apparatus aimed at opening up a space for its own brand of reactionary infotainment to be taken seriously (somehow).

it is very strange.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Halx

I'm less concerned about reputable, and more concerned with relevant. The information can always be debated, so long as it is relevant to the discussion and not overbearing in volume. Brevity will spur the discussion.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

ubertuber

Not to mention that something is not true just because someone else says it is.

I think that the quality of the original thought in a post is what drives a thread - links and quotes are there for references, not content.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

dc_dux

Halix...your thread on President 2.0 provides an example of the problem.

It went off course when magictoy offered a post that was completely baseless:

If you do not consider the right to keep and bear arms a freedom you should be enjoying, then Obama is right for you.

If you think that a black child of Michael Jordan is more deserving of a place in college than the white child of Joe Lunchbucket, then Obama is right for you.

Neither claim can be supported with any factual information. Should I have qualified my response by saying anyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts?

Was is a threadjack for me to challenge these false assertions?

When I was further confroted by dk and marv with mocking responses, I provided more FACTS.

Yes, what followed was a further threadjack by all of us, but is it not relevant to set the record straight even if it takes the thread further off course?

What is more important...keeping a thread on the OP topic or shedding light on bullshit when it is presented as factual?

Why should I or anyone who really wants an honest debate bother to contribute if there are restrctions that allow bullshit to go unchallenged?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

highthief

Bingo! This encapsulates the preferred method of message board debating, IMO.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

aceventura3

Here is what I got out of the above.

I am smarter than you. When I challenge your source that is o.k., but if you challenge my source you are wrong. And one other thing, while I am at it here is another personal attack on Ace, eventhough my attack adds no value to my point.


Here is a very simplistic thought. Give credit when good points are made. Also, conceding to the obvious allows the discussion to progress. I often give "simplistic analogies", because of what appears to be fundemental disagreements on obvious points. For example at some point everyone would agree to take preemptive military action against a looming threat. So when people pretend that they would not, that makes me want to challenge their position. If that point was conceded, a more indepth discussion would occur without "Ace's simplistic analogies" when I participate in a discussion.

Some information is political. I have often acknowledged that some "conservative sources" I have given has been political (i.e. - discussions where I provided info on global warming and and Walmart), however, I have yet to see the same kind of acknowledgement about a "liberal" source. I can see conservatives being guilty of what you suggest, but guess what. Perhaps liberals are guilty of it too.

I call it hypocrisy.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Halx

dc_dux, magictoy got a warning for thread derailment. However it is everyone's responsibility not to get swayed.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

dc_dux

Ace..i am sorry you see it that way.

I encourage you or anyone to challange any factual declaration I make or any source of mine with FACTS of your own and if yours have more merit than mine, I am man enough to admit it or to discuss it further. When you resort to comparing Saddam to a grizzly bear (or was it polar bear) caged in a zoo or comparing a corporate ceo to a babysitter, I think it is simplistic and irrelevant to any reasonable discussion. It is not a personal attack on you. It is a critique of your methods of discourse.

I have also crtiticized as many of Host's sources as I have your conservative "opinion" pieces (from IBD and other sources) as not being factual.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Halx

I briefly had this idea to declare a day where you could not post any source material, all posts had to be in your own words, referencing an idea.

Then it hit me that politics without reference is philosophy.

Profound, no?

It's the "I've got the support of all my buddies" mentality that make politics what they are. Me being me, it kinda makes it that much more interesting to argue without sources. However most internet debaters won't even pay attention to a post unless it has some blowhard's stamp of approval on it.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

dc_dux

Halx...I dont think it is irresponsible to correct a statement that is clearly incorrect and unsupportablee with the facts, even at the expense of temporarily diverting or swaying a thread. The truth should be more important than allowing misinformation to be spread.

But it is your forum and your rules. I will try to be more circumspect (but I am a stubborn old cuss when it comes to the truth)

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Halx

By all means, correct the guy. But there are ways to do it while maintaining a quality forum. All you need to do was, instead of hitting "Reply" - hit "New Thread"

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Willravel

Halx, I think it might be political science.

Ace, as a conservative you're outnumbered something like 12:1 here, so why are you surprised when you get run over? That's the nature of the beast.

dc, I find myself agreeing with you, but there has to be some wiggle room on whether a source is reputable, even if we're quoting something mainstream. A lot of people quoted very reputable articles back when Jessica Lynch was in the news....only to find out that everyone was wrong. The real problem is that very few of us are journalists, and very few of us have a real connection to a source on a story. I happened to know people in Lebanon when Israel invaded a few months back, so I knew my information was correct and up to date. A lot of the information on that story was sourced from Israeli news organizations, though, so while my information was correct, the prevailing understanding was wrong and I was thus considered wrong. This is a complicated problem that does not have one solution. Simply speaking, the answer is to do your best and keep and open mind, but that seems an inadequate response to the situation.

Lizra

That sounds interesting....whatever it would end up being.
Stuff means more to me when it's coming first person, pure....probably a little on the simple side I guess ....but I can really build into something off my own experience and ideas. I can more easily see when I need to redirect myself too, if I'm not muddled by other people's agendas.

__________________
Happy atheist

dc_dux

Maybe what is needed is a sticky Fact Check Thread, where anyone can post corrections to misinformation or blatant bullshit (as opposed to opinions) on other political threads. (...in reference to post #x on thread "abc", the following information is not supportable with facts and I offer (this) as more in line with the truth).

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

When I have posted IBD pieces, I have also clearly stated they were from the editorial page. I often do it to show a different point of view based on the same set of facts on a given issue, not to prove factual truth.

If I have ever failed to do that, please show me. I think most know the difference between an editorial and factual based research, eventhough facts may be quoted in an editorial.

Again, my analogies are pointed to the extreme because posters often take extreme positions that don't stand up. For example wanting controls CEO pay but no controls on the pay of others including babysitters. When people say they get the point, I don't spend time thinking of analogies.

I am not surprised. I am disappointed by some who on the surface pretend to be interested in open honest debate and then easily get offended when challenged. I have also notice when I make afew good points here and there they run from the discussion or make personal attacks. I have had several tell me my beliefs were not sincere, or simple try to tell me what I really think, inspite of what I actually state.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Elphaba

I like this idea. It keeps the OP clean from a major threadjack with a small post "I disagree, but don't wish to threadjack. See FCT, post #..."

Hal: You are so wrong about this, that I strongly suggest that you return this forum to those mods that have been doing so well in maintaining civility while moving the topic forward. A lock down and a warning in one day. My, my.

Profound, good lord no. Oblivious, yes. Insulting blowhard, it's all you, baby.

I have a very serious question about your presence in this forum. Why? You hate the forum, and despise some of the members that post here. If you had a sincere interest in politics, you would never had made the observations and comments above.

Is it your intention to demonstrate how you want this forum to be moderated from now on? If this forum was not meeting your expectations during the last year, I believe, we, the regular posters here, deserve an explanation of what your problem is with Politics.

If it is your intention to shut down Politics, as you have stated in the past, please understand that political issues encompass all aspects of our life. Shut down this forum if you wish, but political issues will bubble up elsewhere on this board. I suppose you can lock down all political topics from now until eternity from showing up in your other forums, but this forum keeps those issues in one area.

You idea of Evolution? I guess that only applies to titties & twats. I don't see you supporting the discussion of conflicting ideas on the effects of the new global economy and the politics that support it. How about the war on Iraq, and now Iran? Are you interested in the treatment of our returning wounded soldiers? Why can't we resolve the mideast crisis? Can we avoid a massive deflation of the dollar?

Politics is messy. There is no one answer to all of the problems that face our government at this moment. The divisiveness that you complain about here, is no less or more than that being experienced across the country.

We are a deeply divided country that needs to find common ground when ever we can. Are you open enough to include something that large on your board? Or is it too big for your original vision of "tits and twats?"

Yes, it was my purpose to offend you to get your attention. Now, respect the opinion of your mods that have moderated this forum, successfully.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Carno

I find it laughable that you think people find common ground in the Politics forum.

You must have been born yesterday.

Halx

You're talking to me about my ideal, while you purposefully attack me?

Elphaba, you're mislead about my intentions. You obviously disagree with my methods, but you should never doubt the direction I want to move in. If you doubt that, then it puzzles me as to why you are even here. One minute I hear from you that this forum isn't worth your time. The next minute you're preaching to me like I'm up in your nest. One minute I hear I've neglected it. The next minute I hear I'm handling it too much.

Maybe if you weren't so threatened by me, you'd keep your head on straight. The warnings I've passed out are for policy infractions and ignored past demands. And while we're at it.. moderation? What moderation? Maybe you've come to enjoy the complete lack thereof, but I want a clean forum, not a free-for-all.

You've got this lense that you like to view me through. It's unwaveringly negative, I can do no right. You are a prime example of someone who loves themself too much to sympathize with their opposition. I'm here because I care, not because I want to shut this forum down. How crazy do you have to be to think that?

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Elphaba

Thank you, Carno, for that insightful contribution. Particularly since you rarely post in this forum. You and I have found common ground about how laughable a post can be in Politics.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Willravel

There are always going to be people talking with their eyes shut and their fingers in their ears. They live in all areas of the political spectrum, usually residing, though, on the outermost parts of an issue. It would be good to ignore these people, as a way of passively denouncing their methods. There are also people who tip toe in politics and really aren't in there for the heavy hits like you or I. One part of being a member of the community is recognizing that some people should be given some level of comfort in discussion. An example would be some of the newer members, who we don't want to scare away. Meanwhile, people that you know can take it are here also. I'm always up for pulling out the big guns and going head to head, and there are a lot of other people out here that feel the same.

Personal attacks are wrong and should always and without exception be dealt with as a broken law. If you feel you've been personally attacked, contact the moderation staff. There are a ton of good people here to monitor and make sure that is dealt with.

Elph....shh!!! Hahaha. I happen to think our moderation is second to none, and that a few complainers are making the situation seem much, much worse than it really is. Things really aren't that bad, but don't jinx it by bringing up that "shutting down politics" stuff.

Carno: people do find common ground in Politics. People even find common ground on polarized issues from time to time. I would have to ask if it was you that was born yesterday, because you seem to have forgotten about all the wonderful discussions in politics. Do you remember the "Common Ground" project? For a time, we have peaceful threads on various subjects and all was right with the world. Look at the non binding resolutions thread going on right now. It's peaceful, it's mature, it's informative. Look at " What happens if the Middle East fights a major civil war?". It's a divisive issue, and there is nothing in there but good discussion. Let's leave the exaggerating about how bad politics is to the politicians, and let's do everything we can to keep Tilted Politics a place where people can come to simply discuss politics.

Elphaba

This response of yours is beyond my comprehension.

- Why do you confuse my post with an attack? Please read it again.
- I can't be misled by your intentions or direction, if you have not articulated them for this forum since your board shakeup?
- Nonsense. Please show were I said any of these things:
-You believe that I am threatened by you? How curious in that I feel completely comfortable in confronting you. It would seem that your idea of keeping my head on straight is defined by agreeing with you in all things.
-You say that there was no moderation in Politics, and a free-for-all? I am very supportive of the mods you assigned to that forum. It appears you are not.

And your final comment If I were so unwaveringly negative, would I have participated in a positive way in the topics you started in Politics? I welcomed your participation, in case you didn't notice. I love myself too much? I ask you the same question you asked me..."How crazy do *you* have to be to think that?"

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Carno

I can agree that certain subjects aren't as bad as others, but in my opinion, they are just peanuts in the shit. The threads that people go into not thinking that they know everything are vastly outnumbered by the threads where people post like they do.

I'm not trying to attack anyone, I'm just calling it like I see it. I read the Politics forum quite a bit, but I don't post because I really don't like getting involved in long, drawn out discussions with people who act like religious zealots. I find that I learn just as much without posting.

Elphaba

Carno, you are a very intelligent man with a depth of experience that isn't often found in Politics. I would urge you to start your own topic and define how you want it to be addressed.

Respectfully,
Pen

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Halx

You're blowing up while I'm doing my job. Simple. Let's stop pretending we're not doing/saying things that we actually are. Please refer to the discussions in General Discussion where you stated the previously noted phrasings. Keeping your head on straight is seeing things clearly, which you are not doing because you come to this forum every night looking for the latest "action" that you can speak out against. You continue to contradict yourself by saying you are positive about my presence, yet you accuse me of being here only because I hate this forum.

Do I need to put out a report for you to know what my intentions are? I've been running this site for over 5 years, I don't need to restate its values when they have been the same the entire time. The moderation has been close to nill lately; not because everything is fine, but because the few mods who were patrolling Politics have either gone inactive or have backed off because of overall lack of staff action. If you want to construe that as lack of support, then that's just another negative interpretation of my actions that you use to convince yourself that you're talking sense.

You confront me because you have people to impress. You're going to deny this. If it wasn't for them, you'd do the right thing and talk with me in private. This public outburst is unnecessary posturing considering what you're asking. You participate positively when I post as a member, but get bent when I post as a moderator; that's not a hard phenomenon to understand. You have a game you want me to play.

The bottom line is I'm laying down the law. That law is meant to improve the standard of conversation around here. It has to do with the quality of posts and the intuitive structure of a forum that invites new users to the fold. If you have specific actions that you don't agree with, please bring them to my attention. Otherwise, you're just waving your arms, jumping up and down, and screaming incoherently.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Elphaba

There is so much here that is of your own imagination that I simply can't answer why you assert/attribute things to me that have never been my intention or claim.

You or anyone else can test your claims against my post history.

Regardless, if this is an example of how you wish to promote your new Politics direction to encourage new member participation, I will end my posts here. It seems best.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

pan6467

No Host's posts aren't a problem, one can just scroll down and ignore them. However, I do believe for the sake of space, time and perhaps encouraging people to read them, Host could post a synopsis, highlight what is said in his own words, how he got to his belief and show links for those questioning him.

It's not very creative, showing open mind or productive to just cut paste an article(s) in a thread and say, "yeah, what this says." That can be done by anyone .... to go to an extreme, I'm sure Men Boy Lovers can do it, Nazis can do it, anyone with half a brain can cut, paste and post. Doesn't even take that much time.

But to delve deep, paraphrase, show how a certain article has affected you views and how you have come to the conclusions you have requires some thought, effort and time.

If all TFP were to just copy and pastes articles and post "Yeah, what this said." we wouldn't last very long. Politics is dying, one for this reason and two because everyone has taken sides and we all know where the other stands now. When someone does put forth a good debate or topic of thought it is quickly hijacked by others for their own purposes and the thread loses it's meaning (ahem "President 2.0").

Ace and I have had great debates and I have learnt a lot from him. I have nothing but respect, and his "simplistic analogies" aren't an issue... but what they are in response to maybe. Simple, non-thought provoking or black and white get simplistic, non-thought provoking, black and white answers.

Finally, one of the problems in Politics is the fact people refuse to accept "I feel....", "I believe and this is why....", as "worthy" enough for them to reply without attacking.

POLITICS IS NOTHING BUT THOUGHT, PHILOSOPHY, PERSONAL EXPERIENCES AND A PROPOSED WAY OF GETTING THINGS DONE.... (IMHO).

So when someone says, "Gun control is wrong/right, abortion is wrong/right, bush is a dunce/a genius, etc" we need to debate what is said, express why we feel the opposite way..... why we feel the opposite may not have anything to do with facts.... it just maybe our life experiences.... how the fuck do expect hard facts from that? Or how the Hell can you rip someone and tear them apart because of something they have experienced?

This Politics forum used to be rough, but it allowed the exchange of ideas, creativity and most importantly it made you THINK..... somewhere we lost that... somewhere in time people here came to believe all that mattered was being able to say "yeah what this says."

Was there a lot of links and pasting back then? Yes, but they also included original thought and expressions. The biggest thing we lack here now... and the lifeblood of a thriving forum.... we can thrive again.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Hanxter

there is no "NEW" politics direction... it's the same it's always been... chaotic

the point here is relevant substance not detours from the topic at hand...

we're talking about about apples and someone wants to explain the sex life of an orange... that's fine, but please do it with a new thread...

exactly!!!

loquitur

I am somewhat amused by the statements of some about "facts" and how their opinions are based on them.

I read a <i>lot</i> of different sources of news and opinion every day, precisely because no one outlet is reliable. I start the day with the NY Times, finish it with the NY Post and read lots of stuff in between. After a while it becomes easy to hear axes grinding when you read stuff, and often you can almost see the reporter straining to be "fair" while still stating the news from his/her viewpoint.

The point being that there is a level at which all factual reporting is refracted through the eyes of those reporting it, which is why it's important to read the words of lots of observers if you want to have a chance of knowing what is going on.

As for the opinions, I have come to the conclusion that opinions do not follow logically from facts. Opinions are formed by the confluence of temperament, predisposition and experience. Different people find different things significant; different people find different things persuasive; different people have different priorities. People differ in their openness to new experiences and arguments. And different people will draw different inferences from the same facts.

So reading how some people here say the facts support them, and some sources are good and others are bad really just makes me laugh. They are, to a large extent, self-selecting for confirmation of their pre-existing views.

shakran

I think we're all looking at this wrong. The politics board has a bad rep with a lot of the users and I frankly don't know why. Of COURSE we fight in here. That's an integral part of politics. It's called "debate" people, not "let's all get along and hug each other and give each other puppies."

Is politics for everyone? No, but then I don't spend much time in Trampoline either. To each his own. If you want everything to be pleasant and rosy, maybe this forum isn't for you but believe it or not, some of us LIKE debate, and can argue with each other without it turning personal.

But as long as we're going to have this debate forum, there are basic rules of debate that we should follow. Citing sources is one of them. I can argue that Bush shouldn't be president because he was the Grand Dragon of the Texas KKK, but if I don't cite a source on that, people won't, and should not, take it seriously. (No, he wasn't, if you were wondering).

We get too many people coming through here making outlandish claims and failing to back it up. Am I gonna waste time debating their points when it's not even clear that their points even happened? Of course not. Cite your sources or don't be surprised if your ideas are rejected out of hand.

And while we're on the subject of citing sources, digg, fark, and especially wikipedia are NOT legitimate sources. They can point you in the direction of a legitimate source, but anything that's written and edited by anonymous people on the internet is automatically suspect.

In short, if you want to get into a political debate, you should know what you're talking about, be able to PROVE that you know what you're talking about, and you should EXPECT to have your ideas attacked. That's the definition of a debate.

mixedmedia

There is just as much opinion, hearsay and outright distortion of left-leaning facts tossed around as there is on the right. I don't know how many times I've heard people say that GWB is dumb on this board. Does one not need facts to back this up?

I have to admit that I very rarely read host's lengthy citations and articles. And his bolding of "relevant" passages doesn't help. I'm not interested in being swayed...or even particularly swaying the opinions of someone else. I prefer to read for myself and draw my own conclusions based on instinct, reflection, experience and the gathering of information...on my own.

I think Pan and Hal are right about politics largely being discussions of philosophy. ANYONE can find the information out there to make their opinions look like fact. From my perspective the totality of politics today cannot be summed up FACTUALLY within the realm of one particular American political point of view. In other words, I think both "sides" are full of shit because they are in the business of being "right." Which is impossible. I've grown very tired of that opportunistic game of connect the dots.

Just my take on it all...........

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Jinn

The inherent flaw in your logic, your posts in this thread, and this idea is simple; the number of true "facts" in Politics is tiny. Things like dollars spent and bills voted on are sometimes correct, but assumptions about how things happened are always conjecture and not fact. Even how someone acted is not a factual composition, but a summary of information and biases. Just because you want to call some things facts and other things opinions does not make them truly so. Try to recognize that even encyclopedic 'facts' are biased by their writers, too.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

reconmike

The question is what IS factual, just because it is written on the net, or in a newspaper does that make it fact? Prime example, the old grey lady's Jayson Blair, if I was to use his articles in a post does that make it fact or relevant?

Case in point, some experiences I have had in the Marine Corps were reported on extremely incorrectly, but they they were printed in major newspapers, how do I dispell what was written without being able to find a source with the correct information? I know it is true because I lived it, but I can't prove it.

I have ben coming to this board long before there was even a tilted politics,
and I have never seen this board as bad as it is,
some of the threads are just ridiculous, I could post that Clinton is satan himself and probably find a blog or article to cut and paste the crap out of it to back it up, and then challenge
everyone to disprove it.

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

shakran

well, to say that Bush is dumb is an opinion. So you need facts to support your opinion. You don't need to find some reliable source that comes straight out and says "Bush is dumb." But if I were to say Bush is dumb, I would cite things such as his (mis)handling of Iraq, Katrina, the war on terror, his inability to extemporaneously string 5 words together without losing his train of thought, the fact that he said he doesn't read newspapers or in fact expose himself to any news media, the fact that he refused to fire Rumsfeld until it was too late for his party, and countless other facts which would back up my opinion.

dc_dux

I agree with much of what has been said about the interpretative nature and source of "facts". However, I do believe that even in politics, many facts, beyond dollars and votes, are irrefutable but are often manipulated and/or intentionally misrepresented by one side or the other for political gain.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

roachboy

one of the potentially interesting things that politics can take up as a problem is exactly that question, mike: what is a fact?

i dont think the answer obvious at all. and there is a whole series of other problems that go along with very basic categories that people use to organize their views of the world--what is an event? where does one stop and start? what do you think motivates human action in the world? what roles do ideologies play in that? what are ideologies? how do you dismantle them and to what end? for example.

does anyone seriously think that these questions can be addressed with exclusive reference to their own direct experience?
if you do, i think you are dreaming.

this is one of the reasons why politics detached from philosophy is incoherent--politics is a type of philosophy.
but philosophy is not just pulling claims out of your ass with no reference to anything else--and eliminating supporting information is not a way to unleash creativity--it is a way to avoid central questions and use that avoidance as a pretext for retreating into a private world of private fantasies about a private world that you confuse with the world that other people know about.
that is not philosophy: it is a form of dissociation.
why would you want to encourage dissociation?
if you want that, it is easy enough to find: go to a bar. it is easy peasy to find yourself snared there into some drunken rant that starts of being about some political question but which quickly degenerates into a long tiresome story about me me me.
the problem in a bar is that these tedious scenes are often difficult to leave.
with their written duplicate in a space like this, leaving is easy.

information is critical--but it is also obviously problematic.
so it makes no sense to treat information uncritically.
one problem with debates here is that there is no agreement at all about how to handle information. but that's fine--this is a discussion board and not a political philosophy class--but it also generates problems, and one of these problems is at issue in this thread--there is so little agreement not only about how to handle information but also about what politics is (and what philosophy is) that it has to be chocked up to the creativity of all of us that anything ever happens in here at all.


==============
here is a definition that i am kind of attached to:

creativity is a matter of interacting with constraints. it is not about the elimination of constraints: it is about working within them/around them/through them and ending up in a place that you did not expect to, that goes beyond what is comfortable.
it is *not* about simply repeating what you already know.
it is *not* about eliminating what makes you uncomfortable.
it is a process of interaction with material that pushes you outside these comfortable internal limits.
information, with all the problems of mediation that come along with it, is a constraint.
processing information can be a creative undertaking--IF you allow that processing to get beyond teh simple repetition of a political line that you are comfortable with.
i do not always manage this in this forum. i dont think anyone does, particularly not during periods where they get the idea that they are talking largely to themselves.
no friction=no creative action.

==============

i think that pan is right in a way: any statement that gets generated about information provided can have the phrase "i think that..." attached to it--it always implicitly is there--whether you include it or not is just a matter of style, not of content.

===============

i think this debate supporting information yes/no is a wholly false one.

the question of differing types of information that folk present as if there were no differences in types of information is a problem, but usually it is sorted easily in the course of debates themselves.
problematic information usually grinds debate to a halt pretty quickly because they end up being about the fact that the information is problematic.
that should function on its own as a brake on the types of information that folk post.
i do not see the problem with that either.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

loquitur

FWIW, here is how I view "facts" after 22 years of law practice. Most cases I work on don't involve disagreements about basic things that happened. There are some differences in the details and at the margins, but basically we know what happened: it's almost impossible to get around your paper trail. Where the disagreements come in is about what the facts mean -- which ones are significant, which chains of causation and reasoning are convincing, which POV is most reasonable.

Outside the legal process, though, there is no discipline on how to get and use facts. So there is an awful lot of cherrypicking, discounting of sources, and so on. The sources are themselves considerably less than totally reliable - back when I was working in the courthouse, I found that newspaper articles about hearings I was at were never more than 85% accurate.

That's why it's important to get your news from multiple sources.

pan6467

With all due respect Shakran, that is elitist bullshit and a reason why this poltics forum is dying.

If someone posts something YOU (a collective YOU, not a personal Shakran attack of YOU) believe to be BS.... IGNORE IT. Don't attack the person, don't play holier than thou and rip apart what they say..... just simply move on. It amazes me the people in Politics that would rather have you sit down and shut up than to speak and give your opinion..... Thought it was a free country and one had the right to speak thier opinion without being harassed for it.

Again, 99.99% of politics is based on people's feelings, experiences and personal beliefs..... if a person just gives opinion, who cares, everyone has one and facts can be backed up, just look at global warming.

But gun control, abortion, the war etc....... IT IS ALL OPINION, I don't care if you have 10 pages of facts.... I can find 10 pages to back me up and show you wrong. And if we just post the articles and synopsi then we haven't proven anything. But were we creative, did we add anything, did we show why we believe what we do.... because in the end that is what it all comes down to..... what you believe, why you believe that way and how you got to that belief. The rest is just BS that isn't hard to find collobrating stuff on.

I said it before and I'll say it again, Politics became an elitist, BS, look down your nose, same people posting and they have to post in every thread for fear someone will think they don't care, and they have all these posts but say so very little.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

pan6467

....... double post for some reason.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"