Trash Reasoning and Political Extremism

[oldbadger]

If I may, I think it may be about public perceptions of political extremism and the violence that comes with it. That is, the people who are ostensibly using "trash reasoning" are not necessarily violent terrorists or extremists themselves. It's their interpretation and analysis of these incidents which are being called into question.

In the case of the would-be hospital bomber, I would say that definitely qualifies as political extremism of the most heinous sort. Even among extremists, that seems pretty severe. I won't try to analyze the mind of the individual who was planning this attack, although I'm glad he was caught before he could carry it out. Whether it was due to his politics - or whether he's just a sick, mentally-unbalanced individual - that's hard to say.

In the case of the Lysol-spraying woman, it's more a case of impulsive and explosive anger at not being able to buy an extra can of Lysol. I think the latest euphemism these days is "microaggression," but of a more apolitical variety. Politics aside, we live in a capitalist society where whole generations have been raised in the Land of Plenty, with the belief that anyone is allowed to buy whatever they want in whatever quantity they want (although there are certain notable exceptions to this rule). So, when people are told they can't have something, they get upset.

Actually, we could probably expect more street-level incidents if shortages and rationing continue. My dad told me that, back during WW2, people accepted rationing with the idea that we all have to pull together. But now, today's generations just don't have that mentality; it's all "me first" and screw everyone else. I read about hospital employees having fist fights over a shortage of masks.

People are stressed out, anxious, and scared, and this will certainly take its toll on their ability to reason and think rationally. Sadly, I would expect more incidents like this. I don't know if I would call it "terrorism" or "extremism" or just plain "insanity" - although I suppose the terms could be associated with each other.

Thank you for your post.
That was most interesting., But is that exactly what @Sunstone is trying to communicate to us all?

How would you precis your post, above?
That might clarify your points very well.

 

[Stevicus]

Thank you for your post.
That was most interesting., But is that exactly what @Sunstone is trying to communicate to us all?

How would you precis your post, above?
That might clarify your points very well.

Well, maybe it's a long-winded of saying that we should all try to keep our heads even if everyone around us is losing theirs.

 

[Watchmen]

I'm incredibly impressed! Foolish me did not realize until now that my effort to bend over backwards to point out that both sides engage at times in trash reasoning was in reality a thinly disguised attempt to bash Republicans! My gods, but you are brilliant to see that! Especially since there is absolutely not a single mention of Republicans in the entire thread. I am in awe of your intelligence!

Stop pretending. It’s unbecoming.

 

[Sunstone]

Stop pretending. It’s unbecoming.

You're just sniping and no longer deserve my attention.

 

[Yazata]

A note about including the Drudge Report in the list of media outlets that are notable for being highly partisan...

Beyond that, the same people usually point out that the Report will link to both a reputable source on the Left and a disreputable source on the Right in such a fashion as to likely give the impression that both sources are of equal merit.

The association of "reputable" with "left" and "disreputable" with "right" looks to me like an expression of your own pre-existing biases.

I agree that not every "source" (of what?) is equally persuasive or credible, but I don't think that the credibility variable correlates with political ideology in quite the way you seem to think it does.

When it comes to factual coverage of breaking news events, a airliner crash for example, all of the cable news networks really are of roughly equal merit. They tell you what what airline it was, where it crashed, number of casualties, whether any distress calls were made, and all of that kind of information. They all have roughly equivalent photos and video of the crash scene.

Where the the cable "news" outlets differ is how they fill all the time when no breaking news is happening. That time is typically filled with opinion, with what they call "analysis". That's where the choice of topics becomes the editors' choice and isn't dictated by real-time events. And journalistic opinion is almost always politically loaded these days. A procession of pundits cross the screen, again giving their own opinions, opinions that are obviously chosen to advance the editors' own political views.

For the above two reasons, the Report has a reputation as partisan despite being "merely an aggregator".

When the phrase "has a reputation" is used, an intelligent person should always ask 'reputation among whom'? I hope that you can recognize that all journalistic outlets are going to have reputations for bias among those who don't happen to agree with their particular presuppositions.

I do agree with you that the Drudge Report has biases of its own. That bias is displayed by the stories the site emphasizes, by the headlines they are given and so on. My own opinion is that Drudge is way too sensationalistic and I'm put off by the site's faintly apocalyptic tone. There's always the sense that it's the "last days" and we are on the edge of doom. Always 'worst-case' scenarios. I used to look at Drudge every day, but I rarely have in recent months.

It might also come as a surprise to those who live in leftish thought-bubbles where everyone thinks alike and conservatives only exist as caricatures, but the Drudge Report is increasingly controversial on the right.

 

[Revoltingest]

This whole thread of yours is a veiled attack on Revoltingest, isn't it?



The association of "reputable" with "left" and "disreputable" with "right" looks to me like an expression of your own pre-existing biases.

I agree that not every "source" (of what?) is equally persuasive or credible, but I don't think that the credibility variable correlates with political ideology in quite the way you seem to think it does.

When it comes to factual coverage of breaking news events, a airliner crash for example, all of them really are of roughly equal merit. They tell you what what airline it was, where it crashed, number of casualties, whether any distress calls were made, and all of that kind of information. They all have roughly equivalent photos and video of the crash scene.

Where the "news" outlets differ is how they fill all the time when no breaking news events are happening. That time is typically filled with opinion, with what they call "analysis". That's where the choice of topics becomes the editors' choice and isn't dictated by real-time events. And journalistic opinion is almost always politically loaded these days. A procession of pundits cross the screen, again giving their own opinions, opinions that are obviously chosen to advance the editors' own views.



When the phrase "has a reputation" is used, an intelligent person should always ask 'reputation among whom'? I hope that you can recognize that all journalistic outlets are going to have reputations for bias among those who don't happen to agree with their particular presuppositions.

I do agree with you that the Drudge Report has biases of its own. That bias is displayed by that stories the site emphasizes, by the headlines they are given and so on. My own opinion is that Drudge is way too sensationalistic and I'm put off by the site's faintly apocalyptic tone. There's always the sense that it's the "last days" and we are on the edge of doom. Always 'worst-case' scenarios. I used to look at Drudge every day, but I rarely have in recent months.

It might also come as a surprise to those who live in leftish thought-bubbles where everyone thinks alike and conservatives only exist as caricatures, but the Drudge Report is increasingly controversial on the right.

The OP clearly stated that this thread has nothing to
do with me or my thread (which was his example of "trash").

I wondered too about what appeared to be the characterization
of these frequent Drudge Report links as "disreputable" right wing
sources....
NPR, The Atlantic, Washington Post, New York times, CNN, MSNBC
(Btw, entertaining headlines are a Drudge Report signature.)

Even though Mr Drudge personally does the aggregating, he
doesn't alter their articles. So their perspectives still shine thru.
So obviously, I'm misreading something (just as I initially &
mistakenly thought this thread might have been posted with
my thread in mind).

But what would the alternative "reputable" sources be?
Should we read only those approved sources?
What about the who & how of this determination?
Take their perspective, agendas, & inferences as The Truth?
Should we never use news aggregators because they all
have their agendas? But all sources have agendas?
These are the questions which occurred to me.
Perhaps he answered them, but I missed any useful
advice....just angry criticism of those who think differently.

Btw, I also get news provided by my friends in the loyal
opposition here on RF. Getting variety is better than
having faith in a few (which risks echo chamberization).

 

[Watchmen]

You're just sniping and no longer deserve my attention.

And you never deserved mine. Bye.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

When it comes to politics, none of us need be too proud of our intellectual prowess. To steal from Abraham Lincoln, "All of us are dumb some of the time, some of us are dumb all of the time, but we are not all of us dumb all of the time."

Having said that, I do believe it can be reasonably argued that we live in a day and age when being dumb is almost systematically encouraged by highly partisan media outlets such as Alternet, Fox News, the Huffington Post, the Drudge Report, and so forth. Those sources dumb us down -- and that's not just my opinion. Scientific studies have shown that at least some of them actually make people less likely to know the truth than those folks who consume little or no news from any media source at all.

In short, trash reasoning is rampant these days and often fueled by media outlets. Talking heads that cannot themselves reason well do not encourage their viewers to reason well. Most people do not learn how to reason in university courses in logic, general semantics, or some other such disciplines. They learn to reason by observing and aping the way other people reason.

In a very rough and approximate sense, the large group of people who reason like trash when it comes to politics can be further divided into at least two subgroups of people:

(1) Those folks whose reasoning about politics is trash but who cannot help it that their reasoning is trash, and

(2) Those folks whose reasoning about politics is trash but who can indeed help it that their reasoning is trash. ​

There are also those who get personally offended when they see their political identity insulting and trash reason in order to feel better. They may or may not understand they trash reason.

I've found myself doing this, and I am not even registered as either D or R. I tend toward the Big Ds though, primarily because they tend to support environmental and social equality.

I do however find they are just as guilty of political pandering and hypocrisy as the Rs and so I remain unwilling to commit to any party. (And I LOVE parties!)

When I find myself trash reasoning I do my best to swallow my pride and admit to superior reasoning or steer towards a middle ground.

 

[Revoltingest]

The association of "reputable" with "left" and "disreputable" with "right" looks to me like an expression of your own pre-existing biases.

I agree that not every "source" (of what?) is equally persuasive or credible, but I don't think that the credibility variable correlates with political ideology in quite the way you seem to think it does.

When it comes to factual coverage of breaking news events, a airliner crash for example, all of the cable news networks really are of roughly equal merit. They tell you what what airline it was, where it crashed, number of casualties, whether any distress calls were made, and all of that kind of information. They all have roughly equivalent photos and video of the crash scene.

Where the the cable "news" outlets differ is how they fill all the time when no breaking news is happening. That time is typically filled with opinion, with what they call "analysis". That's where the choice of topics becomes the editors' choice and isn't dictated by real-time events. And journalistic opinion is almost always politically loaded these days. A procession of pundits cross the screen, again giving their own opinions, opinions that are obviously chosen to advance the editors' own political views.



When the phrase "has a reputation" is used, an intelligent person should always ask 'reputation among whom'? I hope that you can recognize that all journalistic outlets are going to have reputations for bias among those who don't happen to agree with their particular presuppositions.

I do agree with you that the Drudge Report has biases of its own. That bias is displayed by the stories the site emphasizes, by the headlines they are given and so on. My own opinion is that Drudge is way too sensationalistic and I'm put off by the site's faintly apocalyptic tone. There's always the sense that it's the "last days" and we are on the edge of doom. Always 'worst-case' scenarios. I used to look at Drudge every day, but I rarely have in recent months.

It might also come as a surprise to those who live in leftish thought-bubbles where everyone thinks alike and conservatives only exist as caricatures, but the Drudge Report is increasingly controversial on the right.

Trump is in the news for anger at negative coverage by Drudge....
Conservative news mogul Matt Drudge fires back at Trump, says his web traffic is at record levels - CNN
I'd noticed many stories critical of Trump over
the years, but it's lately been on the increase.
Very odd for some to see this as a right wing bias.
Or is it that they don't actually read the Drudge
Report, & just repeat what they hear elsewhere.