Slouching Towards Oblivion

Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

A Top 10



Ten lies about guns that are intended to fog up the debate.

Forbes, Chris Ladd:

Lie #1: There is no connection between mass gun ownership and gun deaths.
It seems obvious that a country flooded with guns will have higher rates of gun deaths than countries with few of these weapons. Why are land mines and hand-grenades forbidden in the so-called “Land of the Free,” despite their obvious value in home defense? Because everyone understands that placing these killing machines in circulation would get a lot of people killed. So why don’t we recognize the same problem with guns?

Lie #2: We don’t need stronger gun regulation because gun violence is declining.
This lie is fun because of the way it depends on careful framing. Gun violence, defined as crimes committed with guns, has been declining for decades. That makes sense, since crime in general has been declining for decades.

Lie #3: We didn’t have this problem “in my day” because people loved Jesus and didn’t play violent video games.
According to Franklin Graham, gun violence happens because Americans “turned our backs on God.” His “kids these days” explanation of gun carnage is a favorite of drunk uncles in MAGA caps all over the country. Though these claims frequently sour Thanksgiving dinners, they lack empirical support.

Lie #4: The Second Amendment blocks gun regulation.
Americans happily place curbs on our rights to religious freedom, blocking people from committing acts of violence, fraud or abuse in the name of faith.

Lie #5: The solution to gun violence is more gun ownership.
This lie would be too bizarre to earn column space, but politicians are actually using it build policy, putting guns in places like schools, churches and bars. There is no empirical basis for the claim, but it is sometimes accompanied by one misleading data point.

Lie #6: Chicago has tight gun restrictions and mass gun violence. Ergo, gun laws don’t work.
Chicago’s seemingly intractable problem with gun violence is one of America’s fondest fascinations. It’s also a myth. Chicago has more gun murders than other large cities like New York and Los Angeles, thanks mostly to its long, unsecured border with North Alabamastan (sometimes called Indiana). However, Chicago’s murder rate still lags far behind the nation’s leaders, many of which are in red states with loose gun restrictions.

Lie #7: We should enforce existing gun laws before imposing new ones.
Calls for more determined enforcement of existing gun laws are the most darkly cynical lie in the debate over guns. Our gun laws are carefully crafted to be unenforceable.

Lie #8: We need guns to protect ourselves from the government.
Until 2008, no federal court had ever recognized an individual constitutional right to own a firearm. If anyone imagined that the Constitution protected a right to use violence to overthrow the government, that idea was put to rest in 1794, when George Washington marched an army across Pennsylvania to squash citizens’ “Second Amendment remedies.”

Lie #9: No legislation can curb gun deaths in the US.
Americans now have more guns in circulation than citizens. No credible regulatory scheme, no matter how smart or ambitious, is likely to bring the rate of gun deaths in America in line with global standards anytime soon. Whatever we achieve politically in the near term can only be a down-payment on a better world for our children.

Lie #10: Americans oppose tighter gun regulation.
When presented with concrete proposals to regulate guns, majorities of Americans almost always favor them. That support is so universal that it spreads across partisan lines. In fact, a ballot proposal on gun control passed in Nevada of all places. More than 90% of gun owners support universal background checks. A majority of Republicans support a national gun registry.



Friday, November 03, 2017

A Quote


You won't find anything in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos.
--Jim Hightower

We have to figure out how to get past that thinking without believing we can make a compromise on facts that's worth a shit.

2+2=4. 

Not 5. 

And it serves no good purpose to "compromise" at 4½. In fact, it does us all harm.

The answer is 4, and no other answer will do.  Because if you start with a false premise, it's all but impossible to arrive at a true conclusion.

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Arguing The Real Shit

We need an honest debate, and we need to know how to conduct ourselves in an honest debate - a debate that stands a chance of moving things forward - we can expand a little on the rules and the weird shit we need to watch out for.

Here's a taste:


Thursday, September 14, 2017

Rerun

One from way back - Jay Smooth explains the difference:


Slightly more recent - Jay offers up the proposition that when we're trying to have the Race Conversation, we need to move away from the Tonsils Paradigm towards the Dental Hygiene Paradigm.

Monday, July 17, 2017

Something To Watch For


I've posted some links to Logical Fallacies, hoping to keep myself up with debate tactics that're less than honest - so I can avoid using them, but to remind myself to look out for them being used against me so I can counter them.

Here's the big one that Cult45 trots out almost every time:


And then this popped up for me on Wikipedia today:

What-About-ism

Usage by Donald Trump[edit]

U.S. President Donald Trump has been accused of employing whataboutism in response to criticism leveled at him, his policies, or his support of controversial world leaders.[80][81][82] During the 2016 presidential election, Trump was accused of using the technique to defend his support of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who has been accused of human rights violations. When The New York Times asked about Erdoğan's treatment of journalists, teachers, and dissidents, Trump replied, "When the world looks at how bad the United States is, and then we go and talk about civil liberties, I don't think we're a very good messenger."[83]
When criticized or asked to defend his behavior, Trump has frequently changed the subject by criticizing Hillary Clinton, the Obama Administration,[81] and the Affordable Care Act.[1] When asked about Russian human rights violations, Trump has shifted focus to the U.S. itself,[80][20] employing whataboutism tactics similar to those used by Russian President Vladimir Putin.[19][82]
After Fox News host Bill O'Reilly and MSNBC host Joe Scarborough called Putin a killer, Trump responded by saying that the U.S. government was also guilty of killing people.[20][84][85] U.S. Senator Marco Rubio also criticized Trump for his use of the technique.[86] Gary Kasparov commented to Columbia Journalism Review on Trump's use of whataboutism: "Moral relativism, 'whataboutism,' has always been a favorite weapon of illiberal regimes. For a US president to employ it against his own country is tragic. Trump repeating Putin’s words—and nearly Stalin’s—by calling the press the enemy of the people, has repercussions around the world."[36] In addition to Trump, other Republicans, including Dana Rohrabacher, have utilized whataboutism in response to criticism of Russia.[87]

I followed a link from the citations on the Wikipedia page and found these on YouTube (part 2 has the What-About-ism thing):




And oh yeah - here's Olbermann from Oct 2016:


Pleasant dreams, kids.


Sunday, July 02, 2017

Social Good

This is a new one for me - Social Good Now on YouTube



hat tip = FB pal Carol B

And the first one ties in with Michael Shermer's explanation of Type 1 and Type 2 Logic (or Cognition) Errors:



So, you don't have to sit around wondering why so many "conservatives" reject your arguments even though what you're saying is accurate and provable. 

And also too - you don't have to wonder why so many of those "conservatives" are at least pretending to be devoutly Christian. They've been thoroughly conditioned to accept religious nonsense without evidence - why would they need facts when deciding what Political Religion to follow?

Let's review:
What are the tools we use to detect lies?
a) the absence of confirming evidence
b) the presence of conflicting evidence

What do Faith and Ideology often demand that we disregard?
a) the absence of confirming evidence
b) the presence of conflicting evidence

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Today's Winner


From HuffPo, this one wins the internet for today:

I don’t know how to explain to someone why they should care about other people.
--and--

There are all kinds of practical, self-serving reasons to raise the minimum wage (fairly compensated workers typically do better work), fund public schools (everyone’s safer when the general public can read and use critical thinking), and make sure every American can access health care (outbreaks of preventable diseases being generally undesirable).

But if making sure your fellow citizens can afford to eat, get an education, and go to the doctor isn’t enough of a reason to fund those things, I have nothing left to say to you.


...establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...

How does "I'm good, fuck y'all" fit with the basics of our founding document?

Saturday, March 18, 2017

Another Podcast

You Are Not So Smart --David McRaney

Watch out for 2 things: the Backfire Effect, and the Information Deficit model


"Sometimes a man wants to be stupid if it lets him do a thing his cleverness forbids"
--John Steinbeck
And now we are a little less dumb.

Wednesday, February 01, 2017

And It Comes Down To This?

Yeah, that's great, CNN - super classy.

Because we haven't made politics into enough of a fucking joke yet.

Sunday, October 09, 2016

Debate Recap


No quarter. No mercy. No prisoners. Lay waste, leaving nothing but ash and the tears of impotent rage.



We don't have to like it. It's not fair that we have to do it, but it's our turn.  We are called to make this right again.  This is our time, and so this is our fight.  We rise to the challenge.  We will not be beaten.

Wednesday, October 05, 2016

Today's Tweet

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Attempting A Modified Dahmer Defense

Trump: 
Hillary is hitting me with tremendous commercials, some of it said in entertainment, somebody who's been very vicious to me, Rosie O'Donnell, I said very tough things to her, and I think everybody would agree she deserves it, and nobody feels sorry for her. I was going to say something extremely rough to Hillary, to her family, and I said to myself, I can't do it. I just can't do it. It's inappropriate. It's not nice, but she spent hundreds of millions of dollars on negative ads on me, many of which are absolutely untrue.
The guy is a 6-year-old who throws himself on the floor kicking and screaming if you don't tell him what a good little boy he's been because he didn't take a shit on the dining room rug and then wipe his ass with the cat. 

All That Blow

Sounds like pretty much every party I went to in the late 70s.

All That Winning

Sunday, September 25, 2016

Today's Tweet

Thursday, February 25, 2016

One Last Shot

Conventional wisdom has it that tonight's shit fight at the monkey house GOP Debate could be the last time we see what's left of that ol' gang of our'n. 

And in keeping with the best of all possible traditions, Matt Taibbi has issued the following update on the rules of the game:

TAKE A SHOT:

1. The first time (and first time only) one of the candidates compares himself to St. Ronald Reagan.

2. When Ben Carson complains that nobody's calling on him.

3. At the phrases "Great state of Texas," "Don't mess with Texas," or "Everything's bigger in Texas." Double if that last one comes from Trump in a suggestive tone. Triple-shot if Trump says "Everything except Marco is bigger in Texas."

4. If Cruz mentions he's from Texas more than five times. Take an additional shot for each time after that.

5. Every time someone jokes about Jeb Bush no longer being there. Double if the essence of the joke is that it's hard to tell the difference.

6. When Kasich makes a speech or comment whose essence is, "Well, excuse me for being sane, but…" Drink also if a moderator calls Kasich a "moderate."

7. When anyone calls anyone else a "liar."

8. Whenever any of the non-Trump candidates calls him a "closet Democrat" or "not a conservative."

9. Whenever anyone mentions Cruz's "dirty tricks."

10. When Carson recites lines from the Bible or the Constitution.

11. When any candidate mentions being the son/grandson of a hardworking bartender/mail carrier/housecleaner/etc. and therefore is not just a believer in the American Dream, but a product of it.

12. Whenever Trump mocks someone's poll numbers.

BONUS DRINK:

Players may want to make side-bets as to what happens more often: Cruz reminding the audience that he's Texan, or Trump reminding them that Cruz is from Canada. We can have a bonus shot if Cruz mentions his Texan-ness only to have Trump immediately call him a Canadian Texan.

Lastly, I propose we create a toast in honor of the recently fallen. Instead of saying "Cheers" or "Prost," we might say, before drinking, "Chris Christie was a federal prosecutor."



(Read more: Rolling Stone)

Saturday, February 13, 2016

Debate Tweets