Americans are now utterly intolerant of ever being told they’re wrong about almost anything

[Correll]

The OP is instructing people to be tolerant of being told they're wrong.

Why would someone be tolerant of being told they are wrong if they are confident they are not wrong
What kind of idiocy is that?

I'm not offended when someone tells me I am wrong. They are disagreeing with me. Big fucking deal.


I get offended when someone says that the only possible reason I could possibly disagree with THEM is because I am a Evul Racist. Or stupid. or someone other stupid shit that lefties love to say.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Writer Tom Nichols' efforts here will almost certainly be wasted, but it sure would be nice if this piece got around a bit:

Americans are now utterly intolerant of ever being told they’re wrong about almost anything

From the piece, my bold:

This isn't just human nature, but the result of a narcissism that took root in American society after the 1960s and has been growing ever since. Surrounded by affluence, enabled by the internet, and empowered by an educational system that prizes self-esteem over achievement, Americans have become more opinionated even as they have become less informed, and are now utterly intolerant of ever being told they’re wrong about almost anything.

Our republic thrives on open debate and the fair consideration of evidence. When our ability to maintain those democratic habits collapses, our system of government, along with our well-being as a people and a nation, will be in danger. There are a few steps we can take, including treating cable and the internet as we would treat our diet: by exercising portion control, healthy choices, and a varied mixture. We should especially make an effort to consider other sources that challenge us.

More important, we need to start listening to each other with a greater assumption of good will. Cable news has become a gladiatorial exercise, but that doesn’t mean each of us must approach conversation as a fight to the finish.

We must come out from behind our keyboards and smartphones and televisions and engage each other as citizens, rather than opponents. In an age of binary, win-at-all-costs politics, this is a tall order. But citizens need to be better examples to our political and media leaders than they’ve been to us.

There is still time to reconsider the path we’ve set upon in the past few decades, but one thing should be clear: We cannot continue this way much longer and survive as a vibrant democracy.
.

Nobody's more intolerant of being told he's wrong than you are.

I can always count on your thought-provoking and stimulating input, thanks.


.
.

It's a fact. You won't even debate your claims. Someone disagrees with you, or proves you wrong, and it's laughy faces,

and boasts about how you've upset someone.

It's sad and comical and in one.

And as usual, you have to take a reasonable topic and turn it personal and nasty.

What I don't know is whether you realize you're part of the problem referred to in the OP article.

My guess is that you do, which is why you had to jump and try to change the subject.

Here you go, folks, another example of the point.
.

A reasonable topic?

Making a blanket indictment of all Americans being utterly intolerant of being told they are wrong?

What's reasonable about that? Do you include yourself in that accusation?

What's reasonable about that?

What's reasonable about it is that people of integrity:

• Don't have problems with being told and then shown soundly that they are wrong.
• Don't spout off about things they don't know very well.
• Do, when they remark upon things with which they are unfamiliar, openly attest to their naivete as part of their remarks. (see the MLK, Jr. quote in my signature)
• Do rely upon and present sound reasoning for their opinions (see the Thomas G. Krattenmaker quote in my signature)

 

[Mac1958]

Writer Tom Nichols' efforts here will almost certainly be wasted, but it sure would be nice if this piece got around a bit:

Americans are now utterly intolerant of ever being told they’re wrong about almost anything

From the piece, my bold:

This isn't just human nature, but the result of a narcissism that took root in American society after the 1960s and has been growing ever since. Surrounded by affluence, enabled by the internet, and empowered by an educational system that prizes self-esteem over achievement, Americans have become more opinionated even as they have become less informed, and are now utterly intolerant of ever being told they’re wrong about almost anything.

Our republic thrives on open debate and the fair consideration of evidence. When our ability to maintain those democratic habits collapses, our system of government, along with our well-being as a people and a nation, will be in danger. There are a few steps we can take, including treating cable and the internet as we would treat our diet: by exercising portion control, healthy choices, and a varied mixture. We should especially make an effort to consider other sources that challenge us.

More important, we need to start listening to each other with a greater assumption of good will. Cable news has become a gladiatorial exercise, but that doesn’t mean each of us must approach conversation as a fight to the finish.

We must come out from behind our keyboards and smartphones and televisions and engage each other as citizens, rather than opponents. In an age of binary, win-at-all-costs politics, this is a tall order. But citizens need to be better examples to our political and media leaders than they’ve been to us.

There is still time to reconsider the path we’ve set upon in the past few decades, but one thing should be clear: We cannot continue this way much longer and survive as a vibrant democracy.
.

Nobody's more intolerant of being told he's wrong than you are.

I can always count on your thought-provoking and stimulating input, thanks.


.
.

It's a fact. You won't even debate your claims. Someone disagrees with you, or proves you wrong, and it's laughy faces,

and boasts about how you've upset someone.

It's sad and comical and in one.

And as usual, you have to take a reasonable topic and turn it personal and nasty.

What I don't know is whether you realize you're part of the problem referred to in the OP article.

My guess is that you do, which is why you had to jump and try to change the subject.

Here you go, folks, another example of the point.
.

A reasonable topic?

Making a blanket indictment of all Americans being utterly intolerant of being told they are wrong?

What's reasonable about that? Do you include yourself in that accusation?

Funny, as I write this, ten (10) other posters reacted positively to the thread, several have engaged in civil discourse, others have said that they're okay with things being the way they are. In one form or another, people are chiming in with their opinion.

Not you, though. No, you're bitching and moaning like a child because you don't like the subject of the thread. Bitch, moan, bitch, moan. Because, no doubt, you see yourself in the piece and you know they're talking about people like YOU.

Too bad. Not my problem.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nobody's more intolerant of being told he's wrong than you are.

I can always count on your thought-provoking and stimulating input, thanks.


.
.

It's a fact. You won't even debate your claims. Someone disagrees with you, or proves you wrong, and it's laughy faces,

and boasts about how you've upset someone.

It's sad and comical and in one.

And as usual, you have to take a reasonable topic and turn it personal and nasty.

What I don't know is whether you realize you're part of the problem referred to in the OP article.

My guess is that you do, which is why you had to jump and try to change the subject.

Here you go, folks, another example of the point.
.

A reasonable topic?

Making a blanket indictment of all Americans being utterly intolerant of being told they are wrong?

What's reasonable about that? Do you include yourself in that accusation?

What's reasonable about that?

What's reasonable about it is that people of integrity:

• Don't have problems with being told and then shown soundly that they are wrong.
• Don't spout off about things they don't know very well.
• Do, when they remark upon things with which they are unfamiliar, openly attest to their naivete as part of their remarks. (see the MLK, Jr. quote in my signature)
• Do rely upon and present sound reasoning for their opinions (see the Thomas G. Krattenmaker quote in my signature)

that's what's unreasonable about it because the OP's statements says no such thing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nobody's more intolerant of being told he's wrong than you are.

I can always count on your thought-provoking and stimulating input, thanks.


.
.

It's a fact. You won't even debate your claims. Someone disagrees with you, or proves you wrong, and it's laughy faces,

and boasts about how you've upset someone.

It's sad and comical and in one.

And as usual, you have to take a reasonable topic and turn it personal and nasty.

What I don't know is whether you realize you're part of the problem referred to in the OP article.

My guess is that you do, which is why you had to jump and try to change the subject.

Here you go, folks, another example of the point.
.

A reasonable topic?

Making a blanket indictment of all Americans being utterly intolerant of being told they are wrong?

What's reasonable about that? Do you include yourself in that accusation?

Funny, as I write this, ten (10) other posters reacted positively to the thread, several have engaged in civil discourse, others have said that they're okay with things being the way they are. In one form or another, people are chiming in with their opinion.

Not you, though. No, you're bitching and moaning like a child because you don't like the subject of the thread. Bitch, moan, bitch, moan. Because, no doubt, you see yourself in the piece and you know they're talking about people like YOU.

Too bad. Not my problem.
.

You're pretending to be something you're not. That's the first problem.

Tell me something I'm wrong about and we'll debate that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nobody's more intolerant of being told he's wrong than you are.

I can always count on your thought-provoking and stimulating input, thanks.


.
.

It's a fact. You won't even debate your claims. Someone disagrees with you, or proves you wrong, and it's laughy faces,

and boasts about how you've upset someone.

It's sad and comical and in one.

And as usual, you have to take a reasonable topic and turn it personal and nasty.

What I don't know is whether you realize you're part of the problem referred to in the OP article.

My guess is that you do, which is why you had to jump and try to change the subject.

Here you go, folks, another example of the point.
.

A reasonable topic?

Making a blanket indictment of all Americans being utterly intolerant of being told they are wrong?

What's reasonable about that? Do you include yourself in that accusation?

Funny, as I write this, ten (10) other posters reacted positively to the thread, several have engaged in civil discourse, others have said that they're okay with things being the way they are. In one form or another, people are chiming in with their opinion.

Not you, though. No, you're bitching and moaning like a child because you don't like the subject of the thread. Bitch, moan, bitch, moan. Because, no doubt, you see yourself in the piece and you know they're talking about people like YOU.

Too bad. Not my problem.
.

That rant proves you can't be tolerant of being told you are wrong. You never have been tolerant of any such thing.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I can always count on your thought-provoking and stimulating input, thanks.


.
.

It's a fact. You won't even debate your claims. Someone disagrees with you, or proves you wrong, and it's laughy faces,

and boasts about how you've upset someone.

It's sad and comical and in one.

And as usual, you have to take a reasonable topic and turn it personal and nasty.

What I don't know is whether you realize you're part of the problem referred to in the OP article.

My guess is that you do, which is why you had to jump and try to change the subject.

Here you go, folks, another example of the point.
.

A reasonable topic?

Making a blanket indictment of all Americans being utterly intolerant of being told they are wrong?

What's reasonable about that? Do you include yourself in that accusation?

What's reasonable about that?

What's reasonable about it is that people of integrity:

• Don't have problems with being told and then shown soundly that they are wrong.
• Don't spout off about things they don't know very well.
• Do, when they remark upon things with which they are unfamiliar, openly attest to their naivete as part of their remarks. (see the MLK, Jr. quote in my signature)
• Do rely upon and present sound reasoning for their opinions (see the Thomas G. Krattenmaker quote in my signature)

that's what's unreasonable about it because the OP's statements says no such thing.

What? Can you clarify that comment, please. What I'm getting from it is this:

What I wrote is what's unreasonable about the OPer's thesis because what I wrote isn't what the OPer said.​

????

I won't pretend that I'm wondering why it was necessary to say what I did. I would think it went without saying, actually, especially among people who want to engage in serious debate/discussion.

 

[Mac1958]

I can always count on your thought-provoking and stimulating input, thanks.


.
.

It's a fact. You won't even debate your claims. Someone disagrees with you, or proves you wrong, and it's laughy faces,

and boasts about how you've upset someone.

It's sad and comical and in one.

And as usual, you have to take a reasonable topic and turn it personal and nasty.

What I don't know is whether you realize you're part of the problem referred to in the OP article.

My guess is that you do, which is why you had to jump and try to change the subject.

Here you go, folks, another example of the point.
.

A reasonable topic?

Making a blanket indictment of all Americans being utterly intolerant of being told they are wrong?

What's reasonable about that? Do you include yourself in that accusation?

Funny, as I write this, ten (10) other posters reacted positively to the thread, several have engaged in civil discourse, others have said that they're okay with things being the way they are. In one form or another, people are chiming in with their opinion.

Not you, though. No, you're bitching and moaning like a child because you don't like the subject of the thread. Bitch, moan, bitch, moan. Because, no doubt, you see yourself in the piece and you know they're talking about people like YOU.

Too bad. Not my problem.
.

You're pretending to be something you're not. That's the first problem.

Tell me something I'm wrong about and we'll debate that.

I don't know how to debate with you. You lie and distort and toss out straw man arguments as naturally as you breathe.

You don't like the thread. Good. I'm not surprised. It's about people like you.

The rest of us will discuss the topic, you stay over there and complain.

Thanks.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I can always count on your thought-provoking and stimulating input, thanks.


.
.

It's a fact. You won't even debate your claims. Someone disagrees with you, or proves you wrong, and it's laughy faces,

and boasts about how you've upset someone.

It's sad and comical and in one.

And as usual, you have to take a reasonable topic and turn it personal and nasty.

What I don't know is whether you realize you're part of the problem referred to in the OP article.

My guess is that you do, which is why you had to jump and try to change the subject.

Here you go, folks, another example of the point.
.

A reasonable topic?

Making a blanket indictment of all Americans being utterly intolerant of being told they are wrong?

What's reasonable about that? Do you include yourself in that accusation?

What's reasonable about that?

What's reasonable about it is that people of integrity:

• Don't have problems with being told and then shown soundly that they are wrong.
• Don't spout off about things they don't know very well.
• Do, when they remark upon things with which they are unfamiliar, openly attest to their naivete as part of their remarks. (see the MLK, Jr. quote in my signature)
• Do rely upon and present sound reasoning for their opinions (see the Thomas G. Krattenmaker quote in my signature)

that's what's unreasonable about it because the OP's statements says no such thing.

What? Can you clarify that comment, please. What I'm getting from it is this:

What I wrote is what's unreasonable about the OPer's thesis because what I wrote isn't what the OPer said.​

????

Let me be blunt. There is no poster on this board more likely to throw a petulant fit over being told he's wrong than is the OP, Mac1958.

 

[JoeNormal]

I think it comes back to education and what we learn as we grow up.
People lack the necessary skills to sift information and that leads to an acceptance of persuasively written propaganda.
Its about knowing when you are being played. It irritates me.
The best selling paper in the UK is the Sun. For decades it has spread social and political shite and paid up fortunes to its victims.
But it is still the best selling paper in the UK and all politicians kiss Murdochs ring in order to get the Suns blessing.
Until we can improve our education system and get some critical thinking in there we will not improve.

Murdoch can't be long for this world, can he? (Please tell me no.) I can't think of a single human being who's done more harm.

 

[usmbguest5318]

It's a fact. You won't even debate your claims. Someone disagrees with you, or proves you wrong, and it's laughy faces,

and boasts about how you've upset someone.

It's sad and comical and in one.

And as usual, you have to take a reasonable topic and turn it personal and nasty.

What I don't know is whether you realize you're part of the problem referred to in the OP article.

My guess is that you do, which is why you had to jump and try to change the subject.

Here you go, folks, another example of the point.
.

A reasonable topic?

Making a blanket indictment of all Americans being utterly intolerant of being told they are wrong?

What's reasonable about that? Do you include yourself in that accusation?

What's reasonable about that?

What's reasonable about it is that people of integrity:

• Don't have problems with being told and then shown soundly that they are wrong.
• Don't spout off about things they don't know very well.
• Do, when they remark upon things with which they are unfamiliar, openly attest to their naivete as part of their remarks. (see the MLK, Jr. quote in my signature)
• Do rely upon and present sound reasoning for their opinions (see the Thomas G. Krattenmaker quote in my signature)

that's what's unreasonable about it because the OP's statements says no such thing.

What? Can you clarify that comment, please. What I'm getting from it is this:

What I wrote is what's unreasonable about the OPer's thesis because what I wrote isn't what the OPer said.​

????

Let me be blunt. There is no poster on this board more likely to throw a petulant fit over being told he's wrong than is the OP, Mac1958.

I guess I'll take your word for that as he and you've been here far longer than I. My own personal observations don't bear out your claim about his ebullition, but I'm just one person and I don't much pay attention to who says what, except if they say it in direct response to me or in my threads. So my personal experience is likely not the best barometer.

 

[Mac1958]

It's a fact. You won't even debate your claims. Someone disagrees with you, or proves you wrong, and it's laughy faces,

and boasts about how you've upset someone.

It's sad and comical and in one.

And as usual, you have to take a reasonable topic and turn it personal and nasty.

What I don't know is whether you realize you're part of the problem referred to in the OP article.

My guess is that you do, which is why you had to jump and try to change the subject.

Here you go, folks, another example of the point.
.

A reasonable topic?

Making a blanket indictment of all Americans being utterly intolerant of being told they are wrong?

What's reasonable about that? Do you include yourself in that accusation?

What's reasonable about that?

What's reasonable about it is that people of integrity:

• Don't have problems with being told and then shown soundly that they are wrong.
• Don't spout off about things they don't know very well.
• Do, when they remark upon things with which they are unfamiliar, openly attest to their naivete as part of their remarks. (see the MLK, Jr. quote in my signature)
• Do rely upon and present sound reasoning for their opinions (see the Thomas G. Krattenmaker quote in my signature)

that's what's unreasonable about it because the OP's statements says no such thing.

What? Can you clarify that comment, please. What I'm getting from it is this:

What I wrote is what's unreasonable about the OPer's thesis because what I wrote isn't what the OPer said.​

????

Let me be blunt. There is no poster on this board more likely to throw a petulant fit over being told he's wrong than is the OP, Mac1958.

Great. I'm sure everyone agrees with you.

Tell all your little Regressive Lefty friends about it at recess.

Thanks!
.

 

[Mac1958]

Writer Tom Nichols' efforts here will almost certainly be wasted, but it sure would be nice if this piece got around a bit:

Americans are now utterly intolerant of ever being told they’re wrong about almost anything

From the piece, my bold:

This isn't just human nature, but the result of a narcissism that took root in American society after the 1960s and has been growing ever since. Surrounded by affluence, enabled by the internet, and empowered by an educational system that prizes self-esteem over achievement, Americans have become more opinionated even as they have become less informed, and are now utterly intolerant of ever being told they’re wrong about almost anything.

Our republic thrives on open debate and the fair consideration of evidence. When our ability to maintain those democratic habits collapses, our system of government, along with our well-being as a people and a nation, will be in danger. There are a few steps we can take, including treating cable and the internet as we would treat our diet: by exercising portion control, healthy choices, and a varied mixture. We should especially make an effort to consider other sources that challenge us.

More important, we need to start listening to each other with a greater assumption of good will. Cable news has become a gladiatorial exercise, but that doesn’t mean each of us must approach conversation as a fight to the finish.

We must come out from behind our keyboards and smartphones and televisions and engage each other as citizens, rather than opponents. In an age of binary, win-at-all-costs politics, this is a tall order. But citizens need to be better examples to our political and media leaders than they’ve been to us.

There is still time to reconsider the path we’ve set upon in the past few decades, but one thing should be clear: We cannot continue this way much longer and survive as a vibrant democracy.
.

THe leftist don't have "good will" towards America or Americans.


Hillary showed that, when she told half the nation that the other half was out to get them.


Rightwinger shows that when he gloats about the glorious coming One Party State where dems will be able to dismiss the concerns of whites and rule unaccountably.


I wish that I could assume that the other has good will, but that would be me lying to myself.

At some point, regardless of which "side" is at fault, we're going to need someone to rise above this and be the first to be the adult in the room.

Unless we have decided as a country that somehow this is the most constructive environment for solving our problems.
.

Sorry, Mac, my pretending that people like Guno, and Rightwinger and Hillary have "Good will" to me, would just be me being a fool.

A big part of the problem, if not THE problem, is that a significant portion of this country believes that people like me, have no legitimacy pursuing my interests or agenda.

Indeed, that we deserve to have our interests HARMED to make up for past injustices or in the name of fairness or some such bullshit.


This IS a fight to the finish.

Well, I'm not saying that those who disagree with you are of good will. Certainly that's the problem, it's essentially the norm to NOT be.

That's pretty much the problem - no one wants to be first to put out a hand. I don't know how that gets fixed.

When you say "fight to the finish", what would that look like?
.

 

[JoeNormal]

Education does not equal intelligence.
To liberals a degree is their God.
The more impressive, the more they feel they're better than everyone else.
I went to college. Most of what I learned couldn't be used in the real world much less get me a job.

I think you are a little confused.

If anyone has turned a college degree into a requisite for employment, it's corporate America.

When the 2008 recession hit and cured me of being a Republican, there were three of us who were let go from our department for being too old when there were younger people willing to work cheaper. But I was only out of work for about two weeks, while the other two, who had just as much experience but no college degree, took months to find new jobs. 90% of jobs in our field were closed to them because they didn't have a degree.

That wasn't "liberals', that was Corporate America

Liberals run Corporate America Dude. Didn't you know that?
You could always work in another field, but that would take some changes maybe some aren't willing to make.
I noticed when I was in the Army that officers tend to think they know more than the NCOs that work for them, and it's usually the other way around.
If you want to find out something about a unit in the military the best person to go to is the buck sgt. He's the guy on the ground dealing with all of the shit firsthand. He's not giving orders, he's carrying them out. You see it doesn't matter how much education you have if you can't apply what you learned to an occupation. That takes independent thought sometimes.
Oh, and blaming the president for a recession is a copout. It takes more than one man to cause negative growth in the economy. It's usually a concerted effort.

Liberals run corporate America? Then why is it that the most blatant corporate sycophants always seem to be conservatives?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I think it comes back to education and what we learn as we grow up.
People lack the necessary skills to sift information and that leads to an acceptance of persuasively written propaganda.
Its about knowing when you are being played. It irritates me.
The best selling paper in the UK is the Sun. For decades it has spread social and political shite and paid up fortunes to its victims.
But it is still the best selling paper in the UK and all politicians kiss Murdochs ring in order to get the Suns blessing.
Until we can improve our education system and get some critical thinking in there we will not improve.

Murdoch can't be long for this world, can he? (Please tell me no.) I can't think of a single human being who's done more harm.

I would hope that a few sweaty workouts with Jerry would see for him

 

[NYcarbineer]

Writer Tom Nichols' efforts here will almost certainly be wasted, but it sure would be nice if this piece got around a bit:

Americans are now utterly intolerant of ever being told they’re wrong about almost anything

From the piece, my bold:

This isn't just human nature, but the result of a narcissism that took root in American society after the 1960s and has been growing ever since. Surrounded by affluence, enabled by the internet, and empowered by an educational system that prizes self-esteem over achievement, Americans have become more opinionated even as they have become less informed, and are now utterly intolerant of ever being told they’re wrong about almost anything.

Our republic thrives on open debate and the fair consideration of evidence. When our ability to maintain those democratic habits collapses, our system of government, along with our well-being as a people and a nation, will be in danger. There are a few steps we can take, including treating cable and the internet as we would treat our diet: by exercising portion control, healthy choices, and a varied mixture. We should especially make an effort to consider other sources that challenge us.

More important, we need to start listening to each other with a greater assumption of good will. Cable news has become a gladiatorial exercise, but that doesn’t mean each of us must approach conversation as a fight to the finish.

We must come out from behind our keyboards and smartphones and televisions and engage each other as citizens, rather than opponents. In an age of binary, win-at-all-costs politics, this is a tall order. But citizens need to be better examples to our political and media leaders than they’ve been to us.

There is still time to reconsider the path we’ve set upon in the past few decades, but one thing should be clear: We cannot continue this way much longer and survive as a vibrant democracy.
.

THe leftist don't have "good will" towards America or Americans.


Hillary showed that, when she told half the nation that the other half was out to get them.


Rightwinger shows that when he gloats about the glorious coming One Party State where dems will be able to dismiss the concerns of whites and rule unaccountably.


I wish that I could assume that the other has good will, but that would be me lying to myself.

At some point, regardless of which "side" is at fault, we're going to need someone to rise above this and be the first to be the adult in the room.

Unless we have decided as a country that somehow this is the most constructive environment for solving our problems.
.

Sorry, Mac, my pretending that people like Guno, and Rightwinger and Hillary have "Good will" to me, would just be me being a fool.

A big part of the problem, if not THE problem, is that a significant portion of this country believes that people like me, have no legitimacy pursuing my interests or agenda.

Indeed, that we deserve to have our interests HARMED to make up for past injustices or in the name of fairness or some such bullshit.


This IS a fight to the finish.

Well, I'm not saying that those who disagree with you are of good will. Certainly that's the problem, it's essentially the norm to NOT be.

That's pretty much the problem - no one wants to be first to put out a hand. I don't know how that gets fixed.

When you say "fight to the finish", what would that look like?
.

Hand for what?

When someone calls me a baby killer for being pro-choice, what is my correct response, according to Mac's rules of PC?

 

[Freewill]

Writer Tom Nichols' efforts here will almost certainly be wasted, but it sure would be nice if this piece got around a bit:

Americans are now utterly intolerant of ever being told they’re wrong about almost anything

From the piece, my bold:

This isn't just human nature, but the result of a narcissism that took root in American society after the 1960s and has been growing ever since. Surrounded by affluence, enabled by the internet, and empowered by an educational system that prizes self-esteem over achievement, Americans have become more opinionated even as they have become less informed, and are now utterly intolerant of ever being told they’re wrong about almost anything.

Our republic thrives on open debate and the fair consideration of evidence. When our ability to maintain those democratic habits collapses, our system of government, along with our well-being as a people and a nation, will be in danger. There are a few steps we can take, including treating cable and the internet as we would treat our diet: by exercising portion control, healthy choices, and a varied mixture. We should especially make an effort to consider other sources that challenge us.

More important, we need to start listening to each other with a greater assumption of good will. Cable news has become a gladiatorial exercise, but that doesn’t mean each of us must approach conversation as a fight to the finish.

We must come out from behind our keyboards and smartphones and televisions and engage each other as citizens, rather than opponents. In an age of binary, win-at-all-costs politics, this is a tall order. But citizens need to be better examples to our political and media leaders than they’ve been to us.

There is still time to reconsider the path we’ve set upon in the past few decades, but one thing should be clear: We cannot continue this way much longer and survive as a vibrant democracy.
.

Do you realize the shear irony of your opening sentence? You set up the FACT that his guy is right and any disagreement is just damn foolishness. Pretty damn funny.

Just pointing out the obvious.
.

And now you doubled down. I'll make sure I don't disagree with him or you.

 

[Freewill]

Writer Tom Nichols' efforts here will almost certainly be wasted, but it sure would be nice if this piece got around a bit:

Americans are now utterly intolerant of ever being told they’re wrong about almost anything

From the piece, my bold:

This isn't just human nature, but the result of a narcissism that took root in American society after the 1960s and has been growing ever since. Surrounded by affluence, enabled by the internet, and empowered by an educational system that prizes self-esteem over achievement, Americans have become more opinionated even as they have become less informed, and are now utterly intolerant of ever being told they’re wrong about almost anything.

Our republic thrives on open debate and the fair consideration of evidence. When our ability to maintain those democratic habits collapses, our system of government, along with our well-being as a people and a nation, will be in danger. There are a few steps we can take, including treating cable and the internet as we would treat our diet: by exercising portion control, healthy choices, and a varied mixture. We should especially make an effort to consider other sources that challenge us.

More important, we need to start listening to each other with a greater assumption of good will. Cable news has become a gladiatorial exercise, but that doesn’t mean each of us must approach conversation as a fight to the finish.

We must come out from behind our keyboards and smartphones and televisions and engage each other as citizens, rather than opponents. In an age of binary, win-at-all-costs politics, this is a tall order. But citizens need to be better examples to our political and media leaders than they’ve been to us.

There is still time to reconsider the path we’ve set upon in the past few decades, but one thing should be clear: We cannot continue this way much longer and survive as a vibrant democracy.
.

Do you realize the shear irony of your opening sentence? You set up the FACT that his guy is right and any disagreement is just damn foolishness. Pretty damn funny.

huh?

Think about it.

 

[usmbguest5318]

In much of the discussion I've encountered online, the issues involved rarely have decidedly right or wrong solution approaches. What I observe is a lack of objectively and, often enough, little comprehension of the issue itself. That is particularly so for economic topics, so much so that one is often reminded of Rothbard:

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."​

When the notion and act of taking the time to become well informed on a topic, particularly specialized ones -- not just economics, but myriad others such as climate science or psychology to name but two -- is anathema to the people discussing it, confirmation bias or not, just how is one to have any sort of productive and substantive discussion about it? One cannot.

The best one can do is learn whether and how many others seem to concur with one's own stance or a different one. Well, that's little more than a poll, which might be useful if the people polled are not topically ignorant. When the polled have only their personal experiences to guide their opinion, any position that relies on the poll's majority is nothing other than an appeal to popularity. What good is that? Quotidian are history's illustrations of base popularity's inadequacy.

Where does that enmire public policy discourse? Basically, in the realm of mere entertainment, and judging by the nature of commentary in public forums, many people take amusement in being about as profligately obdurate as they possibly can.

 

[Freewill]

Americans for the most part are arrogant

Just French-Americans.