Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So true. Lately, right wingers have been critical of left wingers for ridiculing them for opposing opinions. I think the ridicule comes less from the disagreement (I disagree with people I still respect quite often) than from the willful ignorance of the facts that shape the opinion.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.
My wife tells me I am wrong all the time. She is even right sometimes
My wife tells me I am wrong all the time. She is even right sometimes
Spousal wrongness doesn't count. LOL You have to live with that person. Sometimes it's not about who or what is right or wrong. It's just about being able to get a good nights sleep and not having someone so pissed off at that sleeping in the guest room is safest for you both. LOL
Okay...sure...whatever....I don't think my jocular response hit the mark...Oh, well....moving on....My wife tells me I am wrong all the time. She is even right sometimes
Spousal wrongness doesn't count. LOL You have to live with that person. Sometimes it's not about who or what is right or wrong. It's just about being able to get a good nights sleep and not having someone so pissed off at that sleeping in the guest room is safest for you both. LOL
We have to live with our neighbors too
Too late.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.
.
And as usual, you have to take a reasonable topic and turn it personal and nasty.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.
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)
What? Can you clarify that comment, please. What I'm getting from it is this:that's what's unreasonable about it because the OP's statements says no such thing.
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.
\Just French-Americans.Americans for the most part are arrogant
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.
He does this all the time. He doesn't address the issue, he just gets pissy and makes it personal.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)
What? Can you clarify that comment, please. What I'm getting from it is this:that's what's unreasonable about it because the OP's statements says no such thing.
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.
And you have contributed to the discussion in no meaningful way whatsoever.
So true. Lately, right wingers have been critical of left wingers for ridiculing them for opposing opinions. I think the ridicule comes less from the disagreement (I disagree with people I still respect quite often) than from the willful ignorance of the facts that shape the opinion.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.
If I have time to chase it down, I will. A particular poster repeatedly accused me of liberal elitism for belittling him (he thought for disagreeing rather than for his willful ignorance of the subject).So true. Lately, right wingers have been critical of left wingers for ridiculing them for opposing opinions. I think the ridicule comes less from the disagreement (I disagree with people I still respect quite often) than from the willful ignorance of the facts that shape the opinion.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.
Can you provide an example of that, please?
Just a look at any college campus of today, and you can see how closed minded and intollerant both the staffs and students have become.
It's pretty hopeless.
Hope you guys get it straightened out someday. My opinion is it won't happen.
r.
And if we had run dipshits like Kasich or Rubio against Hillary they would have lost. You sucks tried furiously to tell us Trump would assure a loss and look what happens.
There's a cause and effect involved in everything and this is no exception.
If I have time to chase it down, I will. A particular poster repeatedly accused me of liberal elitism for belittling him (he thought for disagreeing rather than for his willful ignorance of the subject).So true. Lately, right wingers have been critical of left wingers for ridiculing them for opposing opinions. I think the ridicule comes less from the disagreement (I disagree with people I still respect quite often) than from the willful ignorance of the facts that shape the opinion.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.
Can you provide an example of that, please?
accused me of liberal elitism
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.
This is off-topic. Not sure if I've told you this before, but with the words you're using and whatnot, only 5% of people in the world will understand your posts. It's better to use to use simpler, straightforward language if you wish to gain an audience of any size whatsoever. I think it was someone else I told that; Now you've been told, and believe me, this is the voice of experience talking.
You can still make the same points, but you need to use a more universal vocabulary.
JoeB131 and NYcarbineer have been the most profligately obdurate in this thread so far, do you agree?
It's not that you aren't using the correct terms, but more people would understand you if you seek out words that mean the same thing and are more universally utilized.
....you need to use a more universal vocabulary....It's not that you aren't using the correct terms, but more people would understand you if you seek out words that mean the same thing and are more universally utilized.
if you wish to gain an audience of any size whatsoever
JoeB131 and NYcarbineer have been the most profligately obdurate in this thread so far, do you agree?
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.
.
Obviously the point of the piece has gotten right past you. Zoom. Color me shocked.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.
.
Great, you can now regale us of a time when a fellow poster told you that you were wrong and you agreed with them.
