Revenge of the Reality Based Community

[LuisDantas]

Let me try to put it in another way, then. This post of yours:

We will have to agree to disagree. The university setting appears every bit as stifling as think tanks to me. But even more appropriate,
I'll wager your left pinky that leftish think tanks are exactly as controlling as rightish think tanks. My evidence? Tis just human nature to
behave that way when a group with a shared agenda fights the good fight against disbelievers. Let's look at MSNBC & Fox News....what
are the differences? There is only one, ie, that they're political opposites. Other than that, they both brilliantly exhibit the many faults
of human nature & thought.

Does nothing to actually show that there is some sort of equivalency in the mistakes and misdeed from "left" and "right". It doesn't even make it clear that there is such a thing as a meaningful division between "left" and "right".

Ultimately, you are asking us to take you on your word that there is an equivalency, despite the existence of plenty of obvious abuse from Fox News and the like and such a strong lack of adequate challenge in the media that MSNBC ends up tagged with a rather artificial tag of "radicalism".

In other words, the equivalence is a premise that you are taking and inviting us to share.

I would rather see some reasons to accept your model as useful first.

 

[Revoltingest]

Does nothing to actually show that there is some sort of equivalency in the mistakes and misdeed from "left" and "right". It doesn't even make it clear that there is such a thing as a meaningful division between "left" and "right".

You are correct. And I agree that "left" & "right" are ill defined terms. But for purposes of this thread, they seem clear enuf.
The only evidence I offer is personal observation, which is all that is offered by the author of the linked article. But we're all
just discussing the issue, rather than performing or providing scholarly work.

Ultimately, you are asking us to take you on your word that there is an equivalency, despite the existence of plenty of obvious abuse from Fox News and the like and such a strong lack of adequate challenge in the media that MSNBC ends up tagged with a rather artificial tag of "radicalism".
In other words, the equivalence is a premise that you are taking and inviting us to share.
I would rather see some reasons to accept your model as useful first.

I'm expected to take the word of the article's author too. No one has presented any rigorous & quantitative analysis to show
that the right is more prone to these intellectual limitations than the left. What I object to is the unsupported presumption
that one party (the left) has "reality" on its side, & the other doesn't. Both are at odds with reality in one way or another.

I see the charge of "false equivalency" too often raised as means to deny similarities between 2 warring groups. Each side
is loath to face shared shortcomings. In forums where right wingers dominate, I see the same thing, ie, the presumption
that they are obviously correct, & that only the left uses dishonest tactics, poor reasoning, & denial of reality. They don't
like it either when I point out that they're no better than the left. People are people, no matter what side of the aisle they sit.

 

[LuisDantas]

Fair enough. I stand reminded.

 

[Revoltingest]

Fair enough. I stand reminded.

Don't give in too easily.
I know that my own grip on reality ain't trustworthy.

 

[Apex]

I watched the clip you posted. I can't be sure that it's a representative sample of the entire film, but then again, I won't be able to get those precious minutes of my life back, either. So I'm in a bit of a pickle.

Your choice, but it really isn't all that bad.

 

[Sunstone]

I see the charge of "false equivalency" too often raised as means to deny similarities between 2 warring groups. Each side
is loath to face shared shortcomings. In forums where right wingers dominate, I see the same thing, ie, the presumption
that they are obviously correct, & that only the left uses dishonest tactics, poor reasoning, & denial of reality. They don't
like it either when I point out that they're no better than the left. People are people, no matter what side of the aisle they sit.

I sometimes wish you would back up even just one BS statement of yours with hard evidence.

 

[Penumbra]

Quite an interesting article. What do you make of it?

It's interesting to see the evolving thought process from someone who was highly involved with the Republican party become annoyed at the direction of his party. He seems highly capable of objectively reviewing things, at least based on his praise of Reagan politics while also shifting towards a Keynesian outlook- it shows that he can look at things one at a time and form independent conclusions.

The country could certainly benefit from having a more rational GOP. It's always good to have two logical sides debate about the size of government. If one side tends to try to expands things for the common good, while the other side tries to keep things in check and limited, then there can be a pretty good balance.

But if one side is extremely fiscal conservative based on global and historical standards, and is very inflexible in its doctrine while refusing to budget despite having the smaller vote for the presidency and Congress, then the nation suffers. It ends up that not only do they hold up progress, but that they fail to perform their duty of being a rational conservative voice. So not only do I bemoan the fact that the Democratic party is held back by their inflexibility, I bemoan the fact that there is not a stronger and more logical Republican party.

 

[Revoltingest]

I sometimes wish you would back up even just one BS statement of yours with hard evidence.

Fair is fair.....if you offer nothing but "BS" opinions, then I should be permitted to also.
You be think'n yer all that way too much, fellla.

 

[Sunstone]

Fair is fair.....if you offer nothing but "BS" opinions, then I should be permitted to also.
You be think'n yer all that way too much, fellla.

You almost never back up a thing you say with evidence. You simply expect everyone to believe whatever you fancy is true. All rhetoric, no evidence, Revoltingest. That's your posts.

 

[Revoltingest]

You almost never back up a thing you say with evidence. You simply expect everyone to believe whatever you fancy is true. All rhetoric, no evidence, Revoltingest. That's your posts.

It's clear that you & I disagree on many things, but you have great difficulty accepting this with equanimity.
I find your evidence & reasoning generally lacking too, but I try to keep to the issues & avoid personal abuse.
You would do well to be less touchy about mere differences of opinoion, & to observe the rules.

 

[Sunstone]

It's clear that you & I disagree on many things, but you have great difficulty accepting this with equanimity.
I find your evidence & reasoning generally lacking too, but I try to keep to the issues & avoid personal abuse.
You would do well to be less touchy about mere differences of opinoion, & to observe the rules.

Nice of you to condescend to speak to me. Your rant, however, does not solve the problem of your refusing to back up your words with evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nice of you to condescend to speak to me.

This is a small town, so let's not bicker.

 

[Copernicus]

This is a small town, so let's not bicker.

While I agree with Sunstone in his criticism, I must admit that I like you and wish you a Merry Festivus, Rev. You are remarkably good at not taking criticism personally. And Merry Festivus (or 'fill in the blank') to all.

 

[Revoltingest]

While I agree with Sunstone in his criticism, I must admit that I like you and wish you a Merry Festivus, Rev. You are remarkably good at not taking criticism personally. And Merry Festivus (or 'fill in the blank') to all.

I'm up front about when I offer mere opinion. And when appropriate, I've provided extensive documentation. But it usually gets gets little notice.
(Dustin, Darkness & Wirey are notable exceptions who give close attention & thoughtfulness even when we disagree.)
Sunstone's criticism can work both ways when parties to a discussion disagree, so we ought be careful about leveling that charge. I note that in his
objections to my posts, he offered no evidence whatsoever. Even the OP's linked article was just the author's personal experience & feelings.

I thank you for your friendly post. But I constantly wrestle with inner demons, who must be quieted before my thoughts reach the keyboard. I try to be
less of a bad example, but snark still leaks thru. Oh well...happy Festivus & solstice! Our days now get longer! (Except for you doomed southerly types.)

 

[Sunstone]

Ah, the hypocrisy!

 

[Revoltingest]

Happy Festivus!