[mikeh]

 nige1, on 2016-December-05, 19:52, said:

Et tu Brute

Few read all BBO threads and I don't defend the opinions of JonOttowa or Kaitlyn.
However, Jonottowa and Kaitlyn aren't stupid. Nor are they liars.

I am not suggesting that K has ever lied...she has regurgitated lies but I accept that she is sufficiently credulous to believe them, given that she appears to be surrounded by similarly credulous people. But what evidence do you have for the astounding assertion that jon is neither a liar nor stupid? I could, possibly, be persuaded that he is stupidly wrong, and thus not a liar, or that he is lying through his teeth, for reasons that escape me, and not stupid. But to be neither, given what he has written? I mean, even tho I have not read anything he has posted for days now, the earlier evidence seems pretty damning.

Of course, one has to understand that a lie is not limited to a statement that A is B, when we know that it is not. It is also a lie to knowingly, and with approval, quote a lie or endorse or retweet a lie.

You have, yourself, agreed that jon's statements and endorsement of statements about fraudulent voters is unpersuasive, but you can't dodge the bullet by calling jon's statements 'opinions'.

You may not like it, but it is as deceitful to utter an opinion that no honest person could hold as it is to state as a fact that which no honest person could believe to be true.

Opinions when based on bias, bigotry, prejudice and the desire to disseminate untruths are lies, not miraculously made valid, honest, worthy of respect or true by being hidden behind the guise of opinion.

Of course, if you disagree, show us your reasoning.

[Winstonm]

This is encouraging.

[y66]

From Why Does Donald Trump Lie About Voter Fraud?:

Quote

This is how voter suppression efforts start. First come the unverified tales of fraud; then come the urgent calls to tighten voter registration rules and increase “ballot security,” which translate into laws that disenfranchise tens or hundreds of thousands of qualified voters.

That’s already happened in Wisconsin and North Carolina, in Ohio and Texas, where Republican lawmakers pushed through bills requiring voter IDs or proof of citizenship; eliminating early-voting days and same-day registration; and imposing other measures. Virtually all these laws aimed at making voting harder for citizens who happen to be members of groups that tend to support Democrats.

While federal courts have struck down some of these laws, more keep popping up. In Michigan, lawmakers are pushing to fast-track a voter-ID requirement even though there was no evidence of voter impersonation there. In New Hampshire, the incoming governor, Chris Sununu, wants to do away with same-day registration, also despite the lack of any evidence that it resulted in fraud.

Reality is beside the point. Dallas Woodhouse, the executive director of the North Carolina Republican Party, recently told The New Republic, “Whether there’s widespread voter fraud or not, the people believe there is.” It doesn’t seem to matter to G.O.P. leaders that election officials around the country of both parties have confirmed that there was no fraud on Election Day. What matters to them, as strategists have long known, is that Republicans do better when fewer people vote.

[Kaitlyn S]

 mikeh, on 2016-December-05, 21:48, said:

You may not like it, but it is as deceitful to utter an opinion that no honest person could hold as it is to state as a fact that which no honest person could believe to be true.

Do you think that Sean Hannity is stating things he believes to be false or do you think he believes what he says? Same with Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Savage, Levin, etc.?

Because much of what Jon says, I've heard from some of these people also. I'm sure that much of what Sean Hannity says you would say is an opinion that no honest person could believe to be true. I also think that Hannity thinks that everything he is saying is true. So is he being deceitful? I don't think so - if you say what you truly believe, even if there is some guy out there named Mike H. that says that no rational person can believe that, how is that being deceitful?

[mikeh]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-06, 00:20, said:

Do you think that Sean Hannity is stating things he believes to be false or do you think he believes what he says? Same with Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Savage, Levin, etc.?

Because much of what Jon says, I've heard from some of these people also. I'm sure that much of what Sean Hannity says you would say is an opinion that no honest person could believe to be true. I also think that Hannity thinks that everything he is saying is true. So is he being deceitful? I don't think so - if you say what you truly believe, even if there is some guy out there named Mike H. that says that no rational person can believe that, how is that being deceitful?

I strongly suspect the Hannity's of the world know full well that they are telling a lot of lies. Hannity has found an extraordinarily lucrative gig, earning 29,000,000 a year ranting about how the media elites are lying to the great American public. Limbaugh is, IMO, the same. He has become extremely wealthy preaching lies to his audience. These guys are the equivalent, morally, of the prosperity gospel fraudsters who con the poor and gullible into sending them part of their social security checks.

Con men and, to a far lesser degree, con women have long been a part of the American religious and political scene, to a degree far greater than in most western countries. I'm not sure why. The way your country fetishes freedom of speech, so that there are virtually no constraints on lying for profit may be part of it.

Your problem, which is now unfortunately likely to have horrific consequences for the world, is that you view making statements with no objective basis in reality as equal in value to statements based in reality. It's all a matter of opinion.

I can't help but wonder how much religion plays into this. Not any specific religion, just religion as a concept. All religion relies upon a lack of critical thinking in its adherents. Believers are literally told that reason is the enemy of faith. When one is raised from early childhood to reject thinking, to depend on faith in what others tell you, despite the lack of any factual basis for doing so, then it becomes easy to extend that gullibility to other areas of life.

The USA has far higher levels of religious belief than any other western country. Correlation doesn't prove causation, and I am no sociologist nor anthropologist but I do find the relationship to be plausible as one possible factor. I note that you describe yourself as a Christian, so we seem to have at least one datum point, lol.

[kenberg]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-06, 00:20, said:

Do you think that Sean Hannity is stating things he believes to be false or do you think he believes what he says? Same with Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Savage, Levin, etc.?

Because much of what Jon says, I've heard from some of these people also. I'm sure that much of what Sean Hannity says you would say is an opinion that no honest person could believe to be true. I also think that Hannity thinks that everything he is saying is true. So is he being deceitful? I don't think so - if you say what you truly believe, even if there is some guy out there named Mike H. that says that no rational person can believe that, how is that being deceitful?

First things first. With regard to the gunman at Comet Ping Pong, it doesn't matter whether Hillary and an aide were running a child sex ring. He does not get to come into the restaurant with a gun and start shooting.

Now for someone passing on such fake news. If he is passing on news that he has good reason to believe is false, this makes him a very bad person. But suppose he believes it. Why would anyone then listen to such an idiot?

I'll give you two low key actual stories that will illustrate my point.

Story 1: Many years back Chinese success at table tennis was much in the news. John, Chu and I were chatting about this and Chu explained that the name ping pong (it is a coincidence that ping pong arises here also) comes from the Chinese. Ping means left, pong means right. John and I chuckled and we went on to discuss other matters. Later John came to tell me that a mutual friend, call him X, had just told John about this really interesting fact that Chu had told him about the origin of the name ping pong. Good grief!


Story 2. One year the state finances were tight and we profs didn't get a raise. None of us did. One of my politically active colleagues, call him Y, was a strong supporter of the governor. He explained that the governor had done his very best. The governor announced that the faculty would receive no raise, fully expecting that the people of the state would find this so horrible that they would demand that we get raises. The governor was completely shocked when this uproar did not happen, but he had done his best. Y explained this view repeatedly to anyone who would listen.


Now who would I trust in important matters? Chu, not Y. I easily give the ping pong story four Pinocchios even though I have never checked it with anyone. But I think Chu can tell truth from fiction and would not jerk me around on an important matter. I think Y actually believed his story. But whether he did or didn't his ideological bias makes him completely unreliable..

I read conservative columnists. For example, I recommend the column today of Michael Gerson
But I don't read, or listen to, someone who either can't tell truth from fiction or who doesn't care. Ii is a close call whether "can't tell" or "doesn't care" is the worse trait.

[hrothgar]

 jonottawa, on 2016-December-05, 15:51, said:

Apologies if I've posted this video already, but I don't believe I have.



I think it's fair to say that a typical member of the Alt Right in America is very much like a typical Zionist Likud party member in Israel. They love their country. They want to protect their culture. They oppose significant immigration of people who aren't like them because they don't want their children and grandchildren to be dispossessed or to be a 'minority in their own country' (with all that entails.) And they BOTH would strenuously (& justifiably) oppose being described as 'neo-Nazi.'

Comment 1: I think that RIchard Spencer is a far better spokesman for the "Alt Right". He is the acknowledged leader and coined the term.

Here;s a good NYT article. http://www.nytimes.c...trump.html?_r=0

And some video excepts complete with "Hail victory", comments about the "Lügenpresse", and quotes like the following

"“America was, until this last generation, a white country designed for ourselves and our posterity...It is our creation, it is our inheritance, and it belongs to us.”

https://www.youtube....h?v=1o6-bi3jlxk

Comment 2: I see very little difference between the far right of the Likuid and the Nazi's other than their choice of targets and the constraints that the international community imposes.

[y66]

From The Great Gatsby:

Quote

Most of the big shore places were closed now and there were hardly any lights except the shadowy, moving glow of a ferryboat across the Sound. And as the moon rose higher the inessential houses began to melt away until gradually I became aware of the old island here that flowered once for Dutch sailors' eyes – a fresh, green breast of the new world. Its vanished trees, the trees that had made way for Gatsby's house, had once pandered in whispers to the last and greatest of all human dreams; for a transitory enchanted moment man must have held his breath in the presence of this continent, compelled into an aesthetic contemplation he neither understood nor desired, face to face for the last time in history with something commensurate to his capacity for wonder.

What is the case for continuing the fake exchange of ideas in this thread about Trump, hate, lies and the decline of values that once inspired our immigrant ancestors to come here and is now driving at least one of the most thoughtful members of our community away? I'm not talking about honest expressions of exasperation, insight, fear, optimism or even anarchistic fantasies which I find interesting.

[hrothgar]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-06, 00:20, said:

Do you think that Sean Hannity is stating things he believes to be false or do you think he believes what he says? Same with Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Savage, Levin, etc.?

Because much of what Jon says, I've heard from some of these people also. I'm sure that much of what Sean Hannity says you would say is an opinion that no honest person could believe to be true. I also think that Hannity thinks that everything he is saying is true. So is he being deceitful? I don't think so - if you say what you truly believe, even if there is some guy out there named Mike H. that says that no rational person can believe that, how is that being deceitful?

If you would prefer to be characterized as stupid rather than a liar, that's fine...

[helene_t]

 kenberg, on 2016-December-06, 07:25, said:

Ping means left, pong means right.

I don't think this is true. Left and right is something completely different in modern Chinese.

http://lawprofessors...rigin-of-p.html

[Winstonm]

 mikeh, on 2016-December-06, 03:16, said:

I strongly suspect the Hannity's of the world know full well that they are telling a lot of lies. Hannity has found an extraordinarily lucrative gig, earning 29,000,000 a year ranting about how the media elites are lying to the great American public. Limbaugh is, IMO, the same. He has become extremely wealthy preaching lies to his audience. These guys are the equivalent, morally, of the prosperity gospel fraudsters who con the poor and gullible into sending them part of their social security checks.

Con men and, to a far lesser degree, con women have long been a part of the American religious and political scene, to a degree far greater than in most western countries. I'm not sure why. The way your country fetishes freedom of speech, so that there are virtually no constraints on lying for profit may be part of it.

Your problem, which is now unfortunately likely to have horrific consequences for the world, is that you view making statements with no objective basis in reality as equal in value to statements based in reality. It's all a matter of opinion.

I can't help but wonder how much religion plays into this. Not any specific religion, just religion as a concept. All religion relies upon a lack of critical thinking in its adherents. Believers are literally told that reason is the enemy of faith. When one is raised from early childhood to reject thinking, to depend on faith in what others tell you, despite the lack of any factual basis for doing so, then it becomes easy to extend that gullibility to other areas of life.

The USA has far higher levels of religious belief than any other western country. Correlation doesn't prove causation, and I am no sociologist nor anthropologist but I do find the relationship to be plausible as one possible factor. I note that you describe yourself as a Christian, so we seem to have at least one datum point, lol.

Quote

"I know marks. I know where that streak of larceny is in his heart, I know just how wide it is. I know what he hungers for, whether he knows it or not. That's showmanship, son, whether you're a politician running for office, a preacher pounding a pulpit...or a magician. You find out what the chumps want and you can leave half your props in your trunk." - Robert A. Heinlein

The followers of Hannity do not grok the con.

My own view about Hannity is that I don't care if he believes or doesn't believe his stories - I question why anyone would watch someone who is so obviously biased as to be inherently untrustworthy. In my life I have discovered that there is always much more to learn. Because of that, I have the advantage of realizing that anyone who says "I know" or "I am right" or "I have the answer" is running a scam, regardless if believed or not.

It is the same reason I do not watch Rachael Maddox or care much for the opinions of Bill Maher. I like my op-eds to be clearly marked as such.

[hrothgar]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-06, 00:20, said:

Do you think that Sean Hannity is stating things he believes to be false or do you think he believes what he says? Same with Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Savage, Levin, etc.?

I think that Hannity has an extremely strong profit motive to lie, as does the rest of the folks that you mention.
Moreover, I think the prevalence of scams to sell gold, survivalist kits, and direct mail fund raising indicates just how far they are willing to go to turn a dishonest buck.

Enshrining a low grade grifter like Trump in the presidency would seem to be the logical progression for the Republican party.
Too bad there are so many rubes in the Midwest

[nige1]

 mikeh, on 2016-December-05, 21:48, said:

I am not suggesting that K has ever lied...she has regurgitated lies but I accept that she is sufficiently credulous to believe them, given that she appears to be surrounded by similarly credulous people. But what evidence do you have for the astounding assertion that jon is neither a liar nor stupid? I could, possibly, be persuaded that he is stupidly wrong, and thus not a liar, or that he is lying through his teeth, for reasons that escape me, and not stupid. But to be neither, given what he has written? I mean, even tho I have not read anything he has posted for days now, the earlier evidence seems pretty damning.

Of course, one has to understand that a lie is not limited to a statement that A is B, when we know that it is not. It is also a lie to knowingly, and with approval, quote a lie or endorse or retweet a lie.

You have, yourself, agreed that jon's statements and endorsement of statements about fraudulent voters is unpersuasive, but you can't dodge the bullet by calling jon's statements 'opinions'.

You may not like it, but it is as deceitful to utter an opinion that no honest person could hold as it is to state as a fact that which no honest person could believe to be true.

Opinions when based on bias, bigotry, prejudice and the desire to disseminate untruths are lies, not miraculously made valid, honest, worthy of respect or true by being hidden behind the guise of opinion.

Of course, if you disagree, show us your reasoning.

I've admitted I don't understand US politics but take almost any other controversy on BBO, where members attack each other as stupid or lying e.g.

• Frequently mikeh and I use the same words with different meanings. Does that make either of us liars?
• Atheists on this forum seem to demonstrate more bigotry and intolerance than theists. I guess mikeh might disagree. If so, I would not call him a liar.
• I disagree with mikeh about the merits of GM foods. I accept that I might be wrong but that doesn't make me a liar.
• Mikeh disagrees with Al U card about the causes of Climate Change but bright scientific friends agree. They also condemn wind-farms as a waste of money. Again they might be mistaken but they aren't stupid liars.
• Isaac Newton's belief in Alchemy does not imply he was stupid or a liar.
• Perhaps more relevant to BBO: In law discussion groups, I advocate clarifications and simplifications. When my suggestions are condemned as BS, do you expect me to agree?
• Typically, when a player calls the director because he suspects that an opponent might have used UI from what he claims to be a long tank, his opponents will deny that there was any hesitation at all. Who's lying?
• One last example. Mike says "Opinions when based on bias, bigotry, prejudice and the desire to disseminate untruths are lies". Of course, I accept that you lie if you deliberately disseminate what you know to be untruths. That just begs the question. I still maintain that many of our opinions are based on bias, bigotry and prejudice. Some of them might also be true.

IMO, mikeh underestimates our human propensity to rationalize -- to believe what we want to believe.

In any case, I would rather discuss issues, than the shortcomings of those who express opinions about them

[mikeh]

 nige1, on 2016-December-06, 10:42, said:

I've admitted I don't understand US politics but take almost any other controversy on BBO, where members attack each other as stupid or lying e.g.

• Frequently mikeh and I use the same words with different meanings. Does that make either of us liars?

No. It means we disagree about language...about what a word means. What on earth does that have to do with whether either of us is stating something that we either know to be untrue or, and this is a little more subtle, something that we don't know one way or the other, and don't care. In law, at least in countries that inherited a common law approach to jurisprudence, one commits civil (not necessarily criminal)fraud when one says something that is false and has said it with a 'reckless disregard' for whether it is true. It is for the court to assess that factor, using what is called an objective test. Would a reasonable man....

Quote

Atheists on this forum seem to demonstrate more bigotry and intolerance than theists. I guess mikeh might disagree. If so, I would not call him a liar.

I do disagree. I think that most theists display an astounding arrogance....easily the equivalent of most atheists, tho I concede that my arrogance tends towards the high end of the spectrum. Think about the arrogance inherent in believing that any human, let alone the believer in question, is the object of the creation of the universe! Think about the arrogance inherent in claiming that I and only those who think like I do will live forever in heaven and the rest of you will burn in hell forever (or whatever equivalent your particular religion espouses). The universe is some 13.4 billion years old, iirc, and comprises a near infinite volume of space and contains an essentially infinite number of stars, planets etc, and all of this was created in order that we should exist? Billions of stars, billions of planets. novas and supernovas, quasars, nebulae, etc all for no purpose at all, other than to impress us....even tho most of it happened billions of years before 'us' existed?

And you call atheists arrogant?????

Quote

I disagree with mikeh about the merits of GM foods. I accept that I might be wrong but that doesn't make me a liar.

I agree that a difference of opinion here doesn't make either of us liars. This is a value judgement. There is always some risk of unintended consequence in any human activity. I happen to think that, properly regulated, GMO foods can provide us with needed resources. That doesn't mean that I endorse the predatory practices of some of the GMO companies, nor that I am blind to the risks, especially of promoting monocultures.

Quote

Mikeh disagrees with Al U card about the causes of Climate Change but bright scientific friends agree.

[jonottawa]

 hrothgar, on 2016-December-06, 07:58, said:

Comment 1: I think that RIchard Spencer is a far better spokesman for the "Alt Right". He is the acknowledged leader and coined the term.

Here;s a good NYT article. http://www.nytimes.c...trump.html?_r=0

And some video excepts complete with "Hail victory", comments about the "Lügenpresse", and quotes like the following

"“America was, until this last generation, a white country designed for ourselves and our posterity...It is our creation, it is our inheritance, and it belongs to us.”

https://www.youtube....h?v=1o6-bi3jlxk

Comment 2: I see very little difference between the far right of the Likuid and the Nazi's other than their choice of targets and the constraints that the international community imposes.

I see your NYT & raise you an NPR.

What You Need To Know About The Alt-Right Movement

"Most of its members are young white men who see themselves first and foremost as champions of their own demographic. However, apart from their allegiance to their "tribe," as they call it, their greatest points of unity lie in what they are against: multiculturalism, immigration, feminism and, above all, political correctness."

I think that's a reasonably fair description (I'd quibble about the feminism part because the Alt Right is very pro-female, just very much anti- 3rd wave feminism.) Especially the "above all, political correctness" part. We don't hate other cultures, we just don't want our culture to be extinguished by other cultures. Look at what Merkel of all people is doing now. To me it's far preferable to help Muslim people & Muslim refugees in Muslim countries. It's not fair to EITHER SIDE to invite them to the West & then tell them that they can't wear burqas or whatever. But above all, we want to be able to have an honest debate about this without being treated like I've been treated in here.

I appreciate your intellectual consistency on the 2nd point. I'm curious if your fellows agree with your comment.

[mikeh]

To Kaitlyn and nige1: here is something you may or may not enjoy, but that I think is something that explains my views better than anything that I have written:

http://www.theconver...ur-opinion-9978

Don't be put off by the title...it isn't as arrogant as it may seem to you.

edited to correct the link, I hope

[Winstonm]

This, from MikeH's link, is about the most important life lesson one can learn, IMO:

Quote

....philosophy teachers owe it to our students to teach them how to construct and defend an argument – and to recognize when a belief has become indefensible.

[mikeh]

 helene_t, on 2016-December-06, 09:36, said:

I don't think this is true. Left and right is something completely different in modern Chinese.

http://lawprofessors...rigin-of-p.html

I admit to reading quite far into the piece before I clued in. Thanks for the link

[diana_eva]

 nige1, on 2016-December-05, 19:52, said:

Et tu Brute

Few read all BBO threads and I don't defend the opinions of JonOttowa or Kaitlyn. For example, Cherdano's argument against the likelihood of appreciable immigrant voter-fraud persuades me.

It's fair to question facts and refute arguments. In the context of friendly intellectual debate, however, I feel it's wrong to label (libel) fellow BBO-members as stupid Nazi liars or worse. We all make mistakes and some of us cling to irrational beliefs. However, Jonottowa and Kaitlyn aren't stupid. Nor are they liars. I doubt Cherdano really believes that they are. For instance, to deliberately deceive educated BBO members with statements that you know are untrue seems an unlikely tactic. Perhaps, some of their cartoons are intended as humour

IMO, vituperation detracts from rational debate -- polarising opinion and hardening prejudice.

Nige, I'm usually on your side and hate to see a relatively new poster put off by "the usual gang" as you call it. But you're falling for Jon's drama role here, he lumps himself with Kaitlyn as the poor mistreated voices against the tide, when it's not the case.

Kaitlyn is NOT in the same league with Jon at all, even if he would like for us all to see how mistreated K is. Jon is the target of the attacks, Kaitlyn mostly gets calls to stand up by what she posts and stop hiding around the bush with claims like "oh it doesn't matter what I believe but here's another story about aliens having group sex with Hillary that all my friends believe and they are so smart and educated". But other than this WC stuff she is respected as a thoughtful and valuable member of the Forums and we would all hate to see her gone bec of politics.

[masse24]

And from the comments below MikeH's link:

"People are entitled to their opinions, no matter how wrong those opinions are. They don't, however, have an automatic entitlement to be taken seriously."