This post was so much funnier when I thought you were referring to the Washington Blade.
Bush has been so Christlike in office, hasn't he? Always extending the hand of friendship to Democrats, and always getting hurt by it. So sad.
The question for me when I see something like this is whether or not someone actually believes what they're saying. If not, it doesn't trouble me, it's just a sign of the debasement of political discussion. I might or might not hope that someday, someone that surpassingly cynical is going to recognize what happens if you treat the public sphere like a toilet.
But if they really believe that this is the way things are, then I kind of die a little inside. Because I don't know any way to talk to someone whose cognitive filters are that powerful. I feel like I could say, "green grass!" and they'd hear "hard-boiled eggs!"
Because I don't know any way to talk to someone whose cognitive filters are that powerful. I feel like I could say, "green grass!" and they'd hear "hard-boiled eggs!"
Welcome to my world.
Two things which are clearly equivalent through the power of Easter baskets.
Oh, I think Mr. Mohler is a true believer.
"Always extending the hand of friendship to Democrats, and always getting hurt by it nailed to a tree."
and always getting hurt by it nailed to a tree. logging national forests."
an education bill ladened with money
Too late for some, it would seem.
"But if they really believe that this is the way things are, then I kind of die a little inside. Because I don't know any way to talk to someone whose cognitive filters are that powerful."
Yeah, it's difficult to see any response that makes sense other than to hope that there really aren't very many of these people. Unfortunately, that may be overly optimistic.
10- what's Bush's approval rating? I think that would be a pretty fair proxy.
11: 30%, I think. But that number's probably a low estimate of the people we're talking about; some people don't like to be associated with failure, even when they agree with the person who has failed.
Really, The Editors should get some federal grant money to investigate the BTK-WB.
re: 11
I think we're back to the Kung Fu Monkey's 27% crazification factor or the Editors' BTKWB limit again.
I don't think comment 12 was written by a real shark. Someone is sock-puppeting.
Threadjack: The Chopper Effect still works! I accepted an offer for a new position with a new company on Friday. Thanks to all for the positive vibes a few weeks ago!
I can't tell you how much fun it's going to be to quit when my boss calls me back.
16- well, but you provided links, so the pnwage was incomplete, at best. I though SCMT was refercing radio call letters or something.
I think I noted before, that while I was driving my last GOTVs on election day last November, and it was obvious that the Democrats would win big, the question was asked on our local station, of an observer who would know, although whether he was an evangelical himself or a reporter who covered them I don't remember, where they were? His answer as to why they hadn't turned out was "George W. Bush was not on the ballot."
In the course of that conversation it occurred to me for the first time that there were people who thought of Bush as something like Jesus. This comparison would not have occurred to me in a million years, and I still can't wrap my mind around it.
And congratulations, Chopper.
As always when the letters from the Blade appear, I'll note that the Blade is the best newspaper in Ohio*. What would the BTKWB number be in a world where people actually knew what was going on? And while we're dabbling in the power of counterfactuals, what would the BTKWB number be in a world where there really was a powerful and intentional liberal bias in reporting?
* Although the Akron paper has an awesome sports page.
Chopper is Christ-like! For his first miracle, he cured a ham.
Congrats, Choppo.
As for Mr. Mohler, I'm sure he believes completely what he writes. I just wonder if he exercises his capacity for self-delusion in other parts of his life. Margot from HR, who volunteers at the soup kitchen, she really just likes to sleep with homeless guys and get abortions. Everybody likes me; a lot. Etc.
More seriously, again with the hate and anger; it's really distressing how much this guy hates "liberals" and not really on any policy grounds, but because he believes that they have malign intent. This is what talk radio feeds and reinforces. (Also why I'm always trying to think of non-malign reasons for things the Bushies do, difficult though that may be....)
back to the letters to the Blade:
We are now engaged in World War III, which will determine what civilization and what culture will be dominant when children born today are middle-aged. We are involved in a fight that will determine what you shall read, watch on TV, where you'll worship, who can vote, what your wives and daughters will be able to do, what kind of school your children will attend, and what kind of music you'll listen to.
If we lose this war, which may last longer than our revolution, America will undergo changes, especially changes for homosexuals and Hollywood, more drastic than those planned for us by our enemies in World War II.
Sweet.
On the BTKWB front, it's harder and harder for me to believe that X% of the population really does think Bush has done a fantastic job. Rah and I were chatting about this the other day and he suggested that there is some percentage of the population that is just eternally willing to give someone another chance and that some portion of the BTKWB X% actually don't think Bush has done a good job but don't want to walk away from that always-another-chance position they take. To be honest, I'm 100% OK with there being those people in the world. I probably don't like their politics, but I'm glad for a spirit of forgiveness and second chances, even misguided ones, sometimes.
On the other hand, I think it's probably important to remember that some Y% of the people who disapprove of Bush are entirely in agreement with his policies and think he's just a fuck-up at implementation or they think his policies don't go far enough. It is a sad but vital truth that his disapproval rating is not directly equal to the percentage of the population to the left of Bush.
homosexuals and Hollywood
I really hate unnecessary repetition in an otherwise perfect sentence.
More seriously, again with the hate and anger; it's really distressing how much this guy hates "liberals" and not really on any policy grounds, but because he believes that they have malign intent.
Why? That's more or less how I feel about the Southern Republicans. I'm not even sure it's "malign intent"; it's "such a different and wrong value system that they are likely to do bad and even evil things because they are trying to be good."
I find the desire to be loved by everyone surprising coming from you, ogged.
We are involved in a fight that will determine... what your wives and daughters will be able to do
It's good to know that gay marriage Of the Future! will enable the Toledo Blade's female readers to marry chicks, and then reproduce using parthenogenesis. I am going to pretend that this will lead to Hera-worshipping and Paradise Island rather than "Houston, Houston, Do You Read?"
Congrats, Chopper!
I think it's a safe bet that when someone is behaving (or voting) totally irrationally, that it's fear-based. Speaking loosely, the fear is that life, the way it was when you were happy and five years old, will be utterly destroyed.
And this applies to both Mr. Mohler and SCMT in 33.
Actually, I take the letter in 30 to be reciting a version of the islamofascist threat. So your wives and daughters will go under the veil, and homosexuals and Hollywood will suffer disproportionately despite, now, undermining our resistance.
such a different and wrong value system that they are likely to do bad and even evil things because they are trying to be good
Maybe this is right, but since they're wrong on so many facts, I'm more inclined to think that there's more common ground on "values" than it seems.
Not that facts and values can be so neatly separated, but it's easier (you'd think) to change someone's mind about facts than values.
36: It definitely describes my motivation. But the pretense that fear is by its nature irrational is...umm...irrational. Mr. Mohler and I have different descriptions of the risks facing the me (or him), the culture, our country, etc. The main difference is that I'm right.
Also, this page contains letters from Ned Braunschweiger and Erhard Kock.
Fear isn't the opposite of rationality, but it does operate more primally than reason does. Reptillian brain and stuff like that.
Of course you're right. I know that, silly.
Just saying that when something is fear-based and then people mask it with some hastily drawn-together "rational" arguments, poking holes in their arguments sort of misses the point, until you address the underlying fear.
How (how!) did I miss the letter in 30.
Then there's this from today's Durham Herald-Sun:
I was reading with enthusiasm the article "More fats can be good for you" in the April 5 Herald-Sun, looking forward to losing weight by eating more fats. It sounded really yummy and, after all, the diet guru putting this idea forward, Deborah Arneson, has been doing clinical studies on the subject for more than 20 years, so she must know what she is talking about.
Imagine my disappointment and disillusionment whan I came to the section where she explained why she is opposed to measuring body weight. In her response, she pointed out that "One cup of water weighs a quarter of a pound." No, a cup of water is eight ounces, and eight ounces is a half a pound, not a quarter of a pound. I find it difficult to put much credibility in the diet plan of someone who claims to have conducted clinical studies for 20 years, but who does not know that a cup = eight ounces = half a pound.
No wonder she doesn't believe in measuring body weight. Apparently she is not alone in her confusion, since neither the reporter nor the editors of the article caught the error.
I think that's subtle pro-metric-system propaganda.
Just saying that when something is fear-based and then people mask it with some hastily drawn-together "rational" arguments, poking holes in their arguments sort of misses the point, until you address the underlying fear.
This is one of the things that annoys me the most about these people. There is nothing to be afraid of. Sure, their fear is being played upon my political figures and the media, but, at base, they need to also be pretty damn fearful to start off with to be taken in by this stuff.
The same phenomena, in a different guise, is present here in the UK, too. Our government's law and order policies seem largely driven by a particular form of pernicious bourgeois cowardice.
We just don't get the good stuff down here that The Blade gets. I'm going to write a letter proposing an exchange program.
37: That's my reading also, that the author in question is saying as explicitly as he can manage without barfing a little that as much as he finds me and the rest of the Donohue caricatures to be vile aberrants that if we think things are bad now, under his booted heal, we ain't seen nothin' yet.
47: Agreed, fear seems to be the underlying factor. But that doesn't so much annoy me as mystify me. What is there to be afraid of? What's at the root of it?
booted heal
For the injuries caused by the boots, I suppose. Gah.
There is nothing to be afraid of.
Well, it's the fear that the lifestyle you were taught at a very young age might have been flawed. Hence life in vain, flawed as a person, all that good stuff is enough to get anyone's shackles up.
The thing is, you can't change anyone's mind without addressing the underlying fear. 9/10ths of addressing the fear is making them feel heard. People get shouty and repetitive when they feel like they're not being heard, like these shouty, repetitive Republicans.
(The key is: you don't have to solve the underlying fear, just acknowledge that it's scary. Hence the old racist will be a lot more tolerant if someone grants him the acknowledgement that the task he's facing is challenging and daunting.)
a particular form of pernicious bourgeois cowardice
I feel, and I know I'm not the only one, that the safer and more predictable life gets, the worse this effect is.
I generally find "Cognitive Dissonance Theory" a bit too vague and underspecified to really work as a satisfying explanation for things in the real world, but it does seem to cover a good portion of the variance here.
I mean this is totally classic. When the facts line up against your beliefs, change the facts, not your beliefs. There's a certain segment of the population who actually gets more supportive of Bush the worse things get.
What's even weirder to me is that Clinton was once up around 80% approval wasn't he? And that was only 8 years ago. We are a strange and fickle people.
you don't have to solve the underlying fear, just acknowledge that it's scary.
See, that's something I'm not prepared to do without a struggle. The fact that they find things scary reflects badly upon them and I don't see why I should pander to that.
Again, the same thing applies with the UK political situation. Every time some New Labour talking head appears on the telly and tries to justify some piece of draconian legislation on the grounds that upstanding home-owning middle-aged white people are afraid of teenagers/black people/immigrants/muslims/the poor/homeless people (or whatever) and that it's the governments duty to allay those fears I don't think acknowledging the 'legitimacy' of those fears is the way to go.
I suppose I can see that a pragmatic case can be made for that acknowledgment, at some level or another, but it sticks in the craw.
We are a strange and fickle people
And we are singing, singing for our li-ee-i-ives...
Clinton was once up around 80% approval wasn't he?
he topped out at 73% just after impeachment. Clinton left office with a 68% rating, which was the highest for a departing president since Eisenhower.
The fact that they find things scary reflects badly upon them and I don't see why I should pander to that.
I just mean, it's scary to be confronted with a situation that requires you change, and hence many people find it too scary to take on. Not that we should indulge their avoidance fantasies. Compassion not pandering. (Man I'm sounding too mushy for my own tastes.)
I generally find "Cognitive Dissonance Theory" a bit too vague and underspecified to really work as a satisfying explanation for things in the real world...
I'm so the opposite. I sometimes just marvel at how accurately "resolving cognitive dissonance" seems to capture people's behavior.
"I'm so the opposite. I sometimes just marvel at how accurately "resolving cognitive dissonance" seems to capture people's behavior."
It's not that it's not accurate in a broad sense, it's just that its not a very deep explanation. It can get a bit circular in terms of when it applies and when it doesn't, and for whom.
I just mean, it's scary to be confronted with a situation that requires you change
I'm not even sure this is true.
These people aren't being asked to change their lifestyles, they are being asked to give up their belief that they have the right to dictate how other people can live their lives. Well, sod 'em.
59, 60 - no, I'm right. See how scary you two are finding just dropping your beliefs and agreeing with me? Just try it, it'd make this discussion go much smoother.
People fearful of carp should ask themselves whether they really should involve themselves in these discussions.
seek only to further their lust for power by character assassination
My libido for power is low. More lust, please.
I don't fear carp, I just disapprove of their lifestyle.
66 -- Hah! we're making progress.
Fine, I'll cave on the carp issue.
Happy?
58: "resolving cognitive dissonance" Yeah. IMX, the CD theory applies to enough situations that looking for dissonance when one encounters the irrational is a good problem-solving trick. It's not perfect but it sure is useful.
Yay Chopper!
I wrote my chair yesterday and told him I'm not coming back for real and for sure. I feel kinda bad, but not on my own behalf at all.
Re. 3 and the whole "fear" thing, I think that's all just too simple: "they're dumb and afraid, and we're smart and clear-sighted." I'm afraid of shit like global warming.
I think that reactionary pro-Bush types specifically, and the people who write letters to the editor that make one smack one's forehead generally, are partly simply ignorant--which isn't necessarily b/c they deliberately filter what they know. I mean, if you watch basic tv and read People magazine and pretty much take advantage (and why not?) of the fact that we're a rich-ass country and you can live pretty comfortably without going out of your way to find stuff that isn't handed to you, it's pretty easy to be ignorant.
So I think it's partly that, and partly in some cases (maybe most of the angry ones who bother to write letters to the editor) a genuinely felt sense of *something* being wrong. It might be a threat, hence fear, but it might not be only a sense of threat. Blah blah cultural studies fishcakes, but doesn't it seem a lot of the time like you can "read" people trying to articulate things they're not quite sure how to say in those things? Like, it's true: the Democratic leadership *is* out to make Bush and the Republicans look like chumps. I happen to think this is a good thing b/c they've been fucking shit up, but I can also kind of understand why the *narrative* they've been presenting, of some "higher" truth/power above mere politics, is attractive to people and why they want to blame the messenger for pointing out not only that the Rs are connsumate politicians, but also for being (if anything) more honest about the juxtaposition of political and ideological goals. No?
re: 70
Yeah, but the point isn't that no-one rational should ever fear anything, ever, but rather that sensible rational people don't fear shit that's not actually frightening.
71: But change *is* frightening, and it's not irrational to be bothered by the fact that Our Leaders are at least as interested in power for its own sake as they are in the things they claim to want power for.
The most venal power hungry fucks are on *their* side of the fence, for fucksake.
73: But they aren't, really. The venal power hungry fucks are on "their" side because pretending to be is how they got to power. No wonder those people feel insecure and defensive.
I'm just not prepared to empathize with 'em, much. Seriously.
It's part of my "untrue things you really believe" stuff. I have to believe that in the end it all makes sense and we'd all be good if only we were properly educated.
Plus a lot of the people I know, including some in my own family, are like that. And I need some explanation for why they aren't really bad people, despite it all.
I don't know about B, but for me having near loved ones, functional in other ways, among them makes empathizing necessary. It isn't only background; I don't know what it is.
re:76—should have looked on preview. Obviously thinking along the same lines.
Plus a lot of the people I know, including some in my own family, are like that. And I need some explanation for why they aren't really bad people, despite it all.
See, cognitive dissonance theory really is useful.
re: 76
Yeah, I think neil's cognitive dissonance comment in 79 is apposite.
Not wanting to insult your family, obviously, but the 'they are really bad people' line sometimes is the appropriate response. There are degrees of badness, obviously, and holding somewhat odious views about one or more things isn't the worst thing in the world, but I (personally) can't empathize with them to the extent that I withdraw my assessment of them as, essentially, wrong and not just factually wrong but morally wrong.
the 'they are really bad people' line sometimes is the appropriate response I'm missing the utility in that broad classification. I mean, I could still use them instead of sandbags if the levees break or for food after "The Big One" hits, right?
I'm not understanding your snark ...
It wasn't supposed to be a utilitarian calculation, but you get that, right?
80: I'm not saying it's not morally wrong; I'm saying it's not beyond comprehension, and it's probably not something that I wouldn't be capable of in other circumstances.
"Secret Sharer" time again. Really, the fact that my brother and my sister are both, in different ways, on the other side of this dissonance drives home to me the precariousness of belief and understanding.
Returning to my earlier threadjack, back from the dentist a few hundred bucks lighter: thanks, everybody!
re: 83
Comity. It's not beyond my comprehension either, I just don't think the fact that it's explicable is exculpatory.
Fwiw, that follows from more general (philosophical) views that I have about responsibility and its relationship to explanation.
82: I'm really wondering about the meaning of "bad" or "good" person and if it's worth trying to make the classification. I know too many people who are great for some things and horrible for others, who I can count on in some situations and not in others, and so on.
re: 87
Well, yeah. I mean, there can be people who hold repugnant political views, but who are wonderful parents, or dedicated charity workers.
I know a fair number of people of the type you're talking about here (relatives and family friends). My understanding is that they're very good about nearby things, and bad about distant things, in the sense that carpet-bombing foreign lands can't upset them. Their cruelty comes in part from ignorance, but they're deliberately ignorant (the way some drunks commit crimes when drunk, but still get drunk). They want to be ignorant because life is happier if you don't know certain things. I think of them as selfish that way, in addition to being cruel.
Altogether I am pretty hard-core about this. It's always assumed that these are poor uneducated people and somehow excusable for that reason, but a lot of them are very prosperous and fairly well educated (most of the ones I know). I really think that their political bullet vote outweighs everything else they do. I do avoid them, because if I spent more time with them I'd probably start making excuses; it's like I'd end up implicating myself because Nazi Aunt Gertrude was such a warm person.
re: 89
Yeah, I'm definitely at your end of the 'understanding and empathy spectrum'.