|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 13 2016 02:57 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2016 02:31 Danglars wrote:On August 13 2016 01:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I immediately thought Kaine seemed like a boring pick and that for this election, boring somehow equated risky. But the more I've heard him speak, the more convinced I've become that he is a good choice. He's had a questionable transition on the social issues ( gay marriage and abortion), though Trump is not an ounce better. When he was first mentioned, I read into his political history and wondered if he was really mr moderate for the election. With foreign policy in the spotlight, his record on Islamists in the Middle East is very bad ( one source apart from editorializing, it appears all this was swept under the rug). The last news story that I recall was on a strange decision while he was governor, here. It is for those reasons I question his judgment and thoroughly reject media characterization even in this election of misfits. I trust you'll find other sources addressing the same news stories if you doubt their sourced material and in-article links. If there are better sources, why didn't you use those instead? Anyways, I looked at Esam Omeish's wikipedia page. There definitely seems to be some bias in his favor on the page, but I don't see much of a problem.
It's the Muslim American society that he represented during appointment. Its an arm of the Muslim brotherhood according to US prosecutors, Chicago tribune investigative stories, and testimony, cited in the article and present in other articles I've read about CAIR and MAS in the past. Now, you might think the Muslim Brotherhood is not that bad, and if that's the case, sure defend his appointment on those grounds. He didn't have a problem appointing him and it shows a lack of judgment in that area.
I'm at work and can't look through my desktop browser history for all the articles that convinced me Caine is weak on issues related to the global fight against terrorism and cultural issues/the culture war.
|
Which culture war are you referring to Danglars?
|
|
|
Michael Moore has been in hardcore bait mode for a while now, so let's just go with that.
|
United States44203 Posts
He's a shock artist who has little support among his own side but is public enough to be invited on whenever a chat show needs a straw man. Like Ann Coulter. It's "and here, to say something stupid and misrepresent the left, Michael Moore".
|
On August 13 2016 04:20 KwarK wrote:
He's a shock artist who has little support among his own side but is public enough to be invited on whenever a chat show needs a straw man. Like Ann Coulter. It's "and here, to say something stupid and misrepresent the left, Michael Moore".
Hey, Ann Coulter is a perfect representative of the right, if Trump has taught us anything.
After all, who can deny that the media is raping donald trump? Not coulter.
Some choice quotes from her latest article :
GOP BLAMES VICTIM OF MEDIA RAPE
[...]
No one, not even Joe McCarthy, has ever faced this level of obsessive hatred from our constitutionally protected guardians of liberty in the press. Anyone else would be chewed up and spit out after one minute of such relentless attacks.
[...]
But sissy conservatives who have never faced one minute of press hostility blame the victim, saying it's Trump's fault for giving the media openings to twist his words.
[...[
Craven Republicans who blame Trump for the media's lies may as well blame a rape victim for wearing a short skirt. Except with Trump, it's the Muslim standard: They're blaming a woman's rape on being a woman.
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-08-10.html
|
She is not wrong, they are blaming trump being a idiot on a idiot
|
On August 13 2016 03:34 zlefin wrote:
Which culture war are you referring to Danglars?
The one we're presently in, naturally. Look at my first two links for what I'm talking about ... shifting positions on social issues that affect the cultural paradigm. Some in line with the Democratic party's shifted positions, some very much out of line for any political candidate claiming integrity (of course if you're running with Clinton you'll look like a saint on that score regardless.)
|
Trump casually called his supporters losers lawl
|
Norway28874 Posts
That makes me curious - who do conservatives think are the important conservative voices in today's america? Because yeah, I think Michael Moore is terrible, and ann coulter as well. I've actually been very positively surprised by Bill O Reilly - it's easy to find clips of him on youtube where he's being ridiculous, but when I've actually watched full episodes of him, he's been remarkably sane. But I'm sure there must be better ones? Preferably ones not behind a paywall. ;p
|
Don't worry trump loves the losers and the losers love trump
|
On August 13 2016 04:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
That makes me curious - who do conservatives think are the important conservative voices in today's america? Because yeah, I think Michael Moore is terrible, and ann coulter as well. I've actually been very positively surprised by Bill O Reilly - it's easy to find clips of him on youtube where he's being ridiculous, but when I've actually watched full episodes of him, he's been remarkably sane. But I'm sure there must be better ones? Preferably ones not behind a paywall. ;p
I don't know about tv but the best conservative voices I know of are usually found in the wall Street journal and the National Review
I guess for tv, maybe Chris Wallace?
|
On August 13 2016 04:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2016 03:34 zlefin wrote:
Which culture war are you referring to Danglars? The one we're presently in, naturally. Look at my first two links for what I'm talking about ... shifting positions on social issues that affect the cultural paradigm. Some in line with the Democratic party's shifted positions, some very much out of line for any political candidate claiming integrity (of course if you're running with Clinton you'll look like a saint on that score regardless.)
thing is there's multiple alleged culture wars going on at once, hence my seeking clarification; you're talking about the so-called one between "islam" and the West?
|
The problem with figuring out who "good" Republican spokespeople are is that the base instantly disowns anyone who makes any sort of reasonable gesticulation towards the center. Accordingly, we're forced to look to people like O'Reilly as moderates, and therein lies the crux of why many conservatives argue that the MSM is super slanted to the left.
|
So correct. Voting for Trump isn't a win (I know he didn't imply that). Note that Hillary Clinton is also bad, but the less evil in my opinion.
|
On August 12 2016 17:53 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't really understand what a fetishization of experts is supposed to be. Is it to trust that the people whose job it is to know stuff on a subject tend to have more informed opinions on said subject than the people who have different jobs? I find the people who distrust and discard experts when they disagree with them much more concerning than the people who take their word for granted a little too easily.
the problem is not as simple as you present it. yes people should defer to experts when they are out of their depth. the tricky part is knowing when to defer, to whom, about what.
what i mean by "fetishizing expertise" is using an expert opinion written towards a specific purpose, by one expert among many, at a specific time and place as a totem against counter-argument in a discussion that is not identical with the original context in which the opinion was written. it's not as if we had the expert here to craft a particular response to a particular person/argument in this thread.
so in a very real sense it is impossible to rely on expertise in this thread except insofar as it is possessed first-hand by thread participants: the context here will always be different. we have to rely on things like analogy, deduction, induction, etc., to apply any "expert" opinion to the discussion at hand. and that's where people who aren't rigorous thinkers have problems. they root around on google for an expert opinion that has the vague contours they want, turn it into a fetish/totem, and then they brandish it against opponents without sufficient thought about whether they and their opponent should be deferring to the expert, in this particular instance, about this particular thing. to appreciate that you have to find out what the expert is saying but also what he/she is not saying.
its obviously important to be able to defer to expert opinion, especially when you are not familiar with the subject matter, but i would argue it's more important to know when not to defer, wholesale, to "expert opinion" that may be inapposite. that requires some rigorous thinking on multiple levels. kwark, for example, was very rigorous in his application of logic at the arguably idiotic level, in hindsight, of what an individual sub sighting means for one aspect of his argument, while missing the bigger picture about his dubious premises. so its more than just rigorous logical analysis, its also a healthy skepticism, strong sense of curiosity, and a developed intuition for which aspects of the argument matter and which are less relevant.
|
On August 13 2016 05:03 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2016 04:49 Danglars wrote:On August 13 2016 03:34 zlefin wrote:
Which culture war are you referring to Danglars? The one we're presently in, naturally. Look at my first two links for what I'm talking about ... shifting positions on social issues that affect the cultural paradigm. Some in line with the Democratic party's shifted positions, some very much out of line for any political candidate claiming integrity (of course if you're running with Clinton you'll look like a saint on that score regardless.) thing is there's multiple alleged culture wars going on at once, hence my seeking clarification; you're talking about the so-called one between "islam" and the West?
That's a backdrop one, you're right, that might be relevant if Caine had strong opinions with burkas and niqabs on driver's licenses. Some European nations are having a bigger debate on that aspect. My concerns were of a more typical fare. You show interest in the other side, did you give any a read?
|
On August 13 2016 06:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2016 05:03 zlefin wrote:On August 13 2016 04:49 Danglars wrote:On August 13 2016 03:34 zlefin wrote:
Which culture war are you referring to Danglars? The one we're presently in, naturally. Look at my first two links for what I'm talking about ... shifting positions on social issues that affect the cultural paradigm. Some in line with the Democratic party's shifted positions, some very much out of line for any political candidate claiming integrity (of course if you're running with Clinton you'll look like a saint on that score regardless.) thing is there's multiple alleged culture wars going on at once, hence my seeking clarification; you're talking about the so-called one between "islam" and the West? That's a backdrop one, you're right, that might be relevant if Caine had strong opinions with burkas and niqabs on driver's licenses. Some European nations are having a bigger debate on that aspect. My concerns were of a more typical fare. You show interest in the other side, did you give any a read?
of your links, only a cursory glance. mostly still just trying to figure out which culture war you were referring to.
|
On August 13 2016 05:52 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 17:53 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't really understand what a fetishization of experts is supposed to be. Is it to trust that the people whose job it is to know stuff on a subject tend to have more informed opinions on said subject than the people who have different jobs? I find the people who distrust and discard experts when they disagree with them much more concerning than the people who take their word for granted a little too easily. so in a very real sense it is impossible to rely on expertise in this thread except insofar as it is possessed first-hand by thread participants
I think you took your point a little too far here.
|
On August 13 2016 06:18 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2016 05:52 IgnE wrote:On August 12 2016 17:53 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't really understand what a fetishization of experts is supposed to be. Is it to trust that the people whose job it is to know stuff on a subject tend to have more informed opinions on said subject than the people who have different jobs? I find the people who distrust and discard experts when they disagree with them much more concerning than the people who take their word for granted a little too easily. so in a very real sense it is impossible to rely on expertise in this thread except insofar as it is possessed first-hand by thread participants I think you took your point a little too far here.
i don't. you can mostly rely on certain opinions about certain things but to properly bring it into the discussion here you always have to at least minimally reorient that opinion in relation to the particularities of the conversation here
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
