Leslie Knope in 2012

Samir Mehta | October 1, 2012
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | October 2, 2012
I'm trying to be less engaged with politics, because it makes me angry. I was all prepared to rant about Chris Christie's lies and distortions over the weekend, and his invocation of the ancient cliché of media bias, but Tony shared a convincing article that illustrates Romney's raw deal in press coverage. Fair enough; Romney's ineptitude as a candidate is part of a press narrative, blowing his minor gaffes out of proportion. If I can acknowledge that Sarah Palin's less-than-esteemed national standing is in a large part the result of how the media portray her, I can say the same for Romney.

I have some friendly discussions across the political aisle among friends, though there (as was the case on TC once), the liberals outnumber the conservatives and often drown them out, much to my disappointment. After one conservative friend stopped coming around, I learned that was told to "take a break for a while" by one of the liberals, because he was "acting like an asshole." He seemed like he was being polite and respectful, so unless I missed something, it must have been one of his opinions they found offensive, and ejecting someone for that is just wrong. I have asked around to find out who drove him out, but the person don't have the guts to identify themselves.

Anyway, I wish I had more conservative friends and acquaintances to talk to. People are rightly afraid to bring up politics any more because everything feels so hyper-partisan and ready to erupt into vicious arguments, with each side blaming the other for the very problem. The Daily Show just lampooned this pretty well. I haven't seen Parks and Recreation but it sounds like a pleasing fantasy.

Samir Mehta | October 2, 2012
[hidden by request]

Tony Peters | October 2, 2012
my problem with what passes as conservative though these days is their starting point of reality. mind you liberals can have similar problems but the sky is still blue and the grass is still green. with a lot of conservatives these days that's not necessarily true. you can't have a meaningful conversation with someone who refuses to accept that we really are better off now than we were 4 years ago....mind you I would like to sell my house and move to live with my wife which under the present administration isn't an option but history is a subject more akin to science fiction with the GOP. I look at the libertarians as closer to real conservatives these days and look at the GOP as a loose confederation of Racists, Bigots and Religious freaks....yeah I want my party back from Chickenhawks and bible thumpers. Mostly though I blame the Democrats, if they had been able to hold onto their party in the 60's we wouldn't have these evangelicals ruining the GOP today.....

Scott Hardie | October 4, 2012
In the middle of a decent article about political lies and fact-checking, Time brought up some thought-provoking research on the subject of partisan bias. I wanted to quote it here, but I would wind up pasting the entire third page, so here's a link right to it. To me, the implication is: We cling to our worldview and the media outlets that support it because doing so makes us feel reinforced and validated and calmer, even though it actually increases our anxiety over the long term because of the never-ending need to rationalize contradictory facts. It reminds me of how a freezing person might consume liquor to feel warmer, even as the alcohol paradoxically lowers body temperature and makes the cold worse.

The little-mentioned irony of this presidential election is how close together Obama and Romney are in the political center, compared to how far apart the rest of the country is. Their parties' platforms remain quite different, but the men themselves have much in common, and had even more in common before the primaries forced Romney to feign hard-right credibility. The tea party and other far-right fringe seems suitably non-plussed in their middle-of-the-road candidate, but there doesn't seem to be a huge rejection of Obama by the far left, except in certain groups (gays and Jews come to mind, for his less-than-full support regarding gay marriage and Israel). All I'm saying is, it feels silly that we (Americans) are having such a hyperbolic, heated, hot-air debate about which of these two men is superior when they're two shades of the same color.

Scott Hardie | October 13, 2012
Anna Gregoline recently shared an interesting essay by a philosophy professor in Australia, on modern society's confusion about the difference between opinions and preferences. You are entitled to your own tastes, but in his view, you are not entitled to any opinion that you cannot support with reason and defend from criticism. In these argumentative times, it can be illuminating to recognize when someone is resigning from further debate by saying "everyone's entitled to their opinion," as a sign that they have no further base from which to argue their case. It might be best to let them off the hook anyway, but they are not, in fact, so entitled.

Aaron Shurtleff | November 5, 2012
Late to the party, but I wanted to inject a little discussion here, if I may, in a friendly and genuinely non-argumentative manner...or at least that will be my intent. And if I am spectacularly wrong, I will learn something, so yay!

I have a minor quibble with the Republican starting point of reality theory spoken of by Tony. It has been my experience (and yes, the plural of anecdote is not data) that problem with the "better off than you were four years ago" comment is the left doesn't allow the right any ability to have an opinion. If you say you are not better off than you were 4 years ago, you either get painted as 1) a liar or 2) it's W's fault. Actually, let me self-edit real quick, I did once get the tried and true "well, you're in the vast minority then" (the sarcasm should be read into this). I don't know how anyone can say that absolutely everyone is better off than they were 4 years ago, or, conversely, that even if you're not, it's got nothing to do with Obama's plans, and 100% to do with W's 8 years previous. (And don't get me wrong, I am well aware that Obama has been fighting an uphill battle to fix the mess he inherited)

Meh. I think the trouble is both sides want you to focus on the differences and ignore the common ground. Even the ads I've seen (on both sides, mind you) have been pretty much "Look what a bad person my opponent is! I won't be a bad person like that. Promise!" or "My opponent has no plan for issue X. (or My opponent's plan for issue X won't work.) I do! (or Mine will!) Count on it!"

Aaron Shurtleff | November 5, 2012
Reading over the essay also got me thinking (probably incorrectly, which is why I depend on others to inform me when the thinking train has gone off the tracks!): What is the point where an opinion becomes indefensible? Using one of the quick, not elaborated on topics from the article, let's say climate change (not global warming anymore, in case you're using outdated terminology! ;) ). I mean, the article expounds on vaccines and autism, which is a easy sell for the points he is making. To my knowledge, a definitive link between vaccines and autism has never been shown, so that "side" of the argument becomes undefendable. With climate change, last I read (and if things have changed substantially, please let me know), there were scientists on both sides of that argument, some saying there is definitely a man-made problem here, and a few dissenters saying it's all part of a natural process that has been happening over millenia (but even most of them say yeah, man's not helping...). It seems like both sides can support their opinion with science (and science, ever loving whore that she is, allows this), so both sides can argue their correctness. But there is no resolution (short of name calling and belittling the validity of the other sides argument). Do you think the philophist author would allow that both sides are entitled to their opinion in such a case, I wonder? Or am I overthinking something?

Scott Hardie | November 6, 2012
More discussion is good. :-)

I hear you about the "better off four years ago" attitude. Other frustrating falsehoods asserted by the left are that Romney "only cares about rich people" and would "sell us out to big business." I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean. (Then again, both sides like to say things they can't back up.)

My understanding on climate change is that the scientific community is overwhelmingly in agreement that it's happening and humans are causing it. There are a few outlying experts who say otherwise, but you can find those on virtually any subject where there is political interest. For instance, studies have shown over and over that abstinence-only sex education raises teen pregnancy rates, but both sides have "experts" to help justify whatever programs appeal more to their constituents.

Scott Hardie | November 8, 2012
Aaron, I knew when I wrote that, but should have been clearer about it, that I missed your forest for the trees. You asked whether the essay's argument against "everyone's entitled to their opinion" still applies in situations where there is ample proof to support both sides, or multiple sides. Regardless of specific cases, I suppose (but have no idea for sure) that the philosophy professor would generally favor open, Socratic debate on the subject by experts, to see if a conclusion could indeed be reached. I bet it couldn't in many cases.