Citation of point?

[JackLuis]

Recently on this forum I've seen many requests for citations, often rudely put.

Usually the requester, refutes the validity of the citation because of the bias of the writer of the citation. This can come from other writings of the cited or logical refutation of the points made.

Few times have I seen citations that are irrefutable due to the reputation of the expert. While JBJ may question anything we all know he's just ...Noir.

However this 'tube from world renowned intellectual who has studied peer reviewed evidence explains the current state of our Presidential selection process.

Yes Noir/Jimmy I know you disagree, but fuck you too.

 

[JackLuis]

This has been recognized for some time here from 1985 is another discussion for intellectual consideration.

 

[phrodeau]

In the mind of a conservative, no citation is irrefutable. Pull out the Gospel, and they'll show you a picture of Jesus with a gun.

 

[KingOrfeo]

In the mind of a conservative, no citation is irrefutable. Pull out the Gospel, and they'll show you a picture of Jesus with a gun.

I'm afraid it might be much worse than that.

Researchers have long worried about the connections between democracy and public knowledge. For obvious reasons, an informed electorate is a key part of a strong and effective democracy. Voters need to have relevant facts in order to make good choices at the polls. But research by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler explains that there is a vast difference between an uninformed public and a misinformed one. An uninformed public is ignorant, but a misinformed one is delusional—and that’s far more dangerous.

This distinction is essential. An uninformed voter can have contact with the truth and learn from it, but a misinformed one already believes an idea that's wrong. Think of Cruz’s delusional comments about climate change, the number of IRS agents, and crime rates rising in areas with stricter gun control laws. Each of these examples indicates a whole new level of political “lying,” since each represents fiercely held beliefs with no basis in fact. This is not a case of simple stupidity. It’s a case of deeply believing something that’s just wrong.

If you care about truth and think it should influence political decisions, this is highly disturbing. But it gets worse. Nyhan and Reifler further suggest that those who hold misinformed beliefs are even less likely to learn from correcting information than those who have no clue.

That means that for those who think like Cruz, there is virtually no amount of data, reality checks or facts that can persuade the deluded citizen to give up his false ideas. This is the mindset of the Tea Party, the Koch brothers, and many on the far right. Nyhan and Reifler refer to this as “motivated reasoning.” What they find is that people who are attached to falsehoods perceive any correcting information as partisan and flawed. So conservatives don’t perceive science as information. To them, it’s just a liberal agenda. In other words, they don’t believe the truth.

Not only do those with false beliefs practice “motivated reasoning,” we also now know that any challenge to their beliefs is likely to backfire. Nyhan and Reifler found that when conservatives who thought there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were exposed to news stories correcting that view, “the correction backfired.” That is, “conservatives who received a correction telling them that Iraq did not have WMDs were more likely to believe that Iraq had WMD than those in the control condition.”

Exposure to the truth not only failed to adjust their views to reality, it actually made them believe in their false ideas even more strongly. This is why Cruz’s candidacy is really scary. This is not a case of a politician strategically using lies to advance a career; his whole career is dedicated to advancing a political platform built on a delusional view of the world. The catch is that to those who think like Cruz it isn’t delusional, it makes perfect sense.

Cruz’s misbeliefs are part of a longer story of how the GOP has come to be redefined by a vocal, aggressive, highly visible faction that has decided that any facts that contradict their worldview are merely liberal bias. This is what Stephen Colbert called “truthiness.” Think back to the lies of Paul Ryan at the 2012 RNC or to Anderson Cooper’s confrontation with Michele Bachmann over her penchant for lying. Recall also the research showing that viewers of Fox News actually know less about the world than people who watch no news of any kind.

 

[RobDownSouth]

By the time information gets to Lit, chances are it's gone through three levels of abstraction.

An example.
Say a firearms manufacturer announces a recall of defective guns.

• Level 1: Smith and Wesson announces recall of defective guns.
• Level 2: Murican Thinker breathlessly claims government confiscation of SOME guns has begun
• Level 3: Ishmael or Miles announces the government has confiscated ALL guns and Obama deserves impeachment

Simply put, any time a member of the whackadoodle right makes a claim WITHOUT a citation, there is nearly 100% chance they are exaggerating something trivial in the daily news cycle.

 

[JackLuis]

Corporate Attack on Education, Chomsky

How the capitalists control the 99%. It is just easier to indoctrinate instead of educate.

I expect that many will refute this but I want to see their citations and logic before I'd change my mind.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

By the time information gets to Lit, chances are it's gone through three levels of abstraction.

An example.
Say a firearms manufacturer announces a recall of defective guns.

• Level 1: Smith and Wesson announces recall of defective guns.
• Level 2: Murican Thinker breathlessly claims government confiscation of SOME guns has begun
• Level 3: Ishmael or Miles announces the government has confiscated ALL guns and Obama deserves impeachment

Simply put, any time a member of the whackadoodle right makes a claim WITHOUT a citation, there is nearly 100% chance they are exaggerating something trivial in the daily news cycle.

http://www.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/201548/rs_499x269-150508135926-635620729938086797257271204_anigif_fa53e92a46e157698f9f8077c582c7a2-3.gif

 

[JackLuis]

I guess there are no intellectuals on this board. No one objected to his points, or commented on the logic of his arguments.

Yet Trump's demented pandering is sucked up by the Rethuglican Right and proclaimed to be TRUTH, when it makes no sense nor advances the cause of civil life.

Carson make outragious statements about God and people will actually vote for the imbecil.

I am losing my faith in the American people.

 

[midwestyankee]

I guess there are no intellectuals on this board. No one objected to his points, or commented on the logic of his arguments.

Yet Trump's demented pandering is sucked up by the Rethuglican Right and proclaimed to be TRUTH, when it makes no sense nor advances the cause of civil life.

Carson make outragious statements about God and people will actually vote for the imbecil.

I am losing my faith in the American people.

Whose arguments and points?

 

[JackLuis]

Whose arguments and points?

The person in the cited lectures. I guess you missed them?

 

[midwestyankee]

The person in the cited lectures. I guess you missed them?

I, for one, rarely disagree with Chomsky on politics. I used to hold a position when I was studying linguistics that called into question his early work on what came to be called transformational grammar, but in his recent work on politics and social society, he's got my support completely.

 

[JackLuis]

I, for one, rarely disagree with Chomsky on politics. I used to hold a position when I was studying linguistics that called into question his early work on what came to be called transformational grammar, but in his recent work on politics and social society, he's got my support completely.

About the only thing I disagree with him on is WTC#7. He completely missed the point on the Why, Who and How. But he's not an expert on everything.

He does have a good understanding of propaganda uses, and mass communication as a form of societal control though. Most of what he spoke about was confirmed in my own reading of the imperial wars of America, (1898-2015).

 

[dan_c00000]

In the mind of a conservative, no citation is irrefutable. Pull out the Gospel, and they'll show you a picture of Jesus with a gun.

Have you seen the cover of that thing recently?

 

[midwestyankee]

About the only thing I disagree with him on is WTC#7. He completely missed the point on the Why, Who and How. But he's not an expert on everything.

He does have a good understanding of propaganda uses, and mass communication as a form of societal control though. Most of what he spoke about was confirmed in my own reading of the imperial wars of America, (1898-2015).

Agreed.

 

[phrodeau]

Have you seen the cover of that thing recently?

I am genuinely surprised that God does not make an appearance, and Satan does.

 

[Misshotndeep]

Hi everyone!

 

[JackLuis]

Hi Misshotndeep.

Here is Westly Clark's take on the state if the Republic. And his solutions.

Wesley Clark, "Don't Wait for the Next War"

Good stuff.

 

[Aella_]

Corporate Attack on Education, Chomsky

How the capitalists control the 99%. It is just easier to indoctrinate instead of educate.

Wow this thread.
Indeed. Personally, I came across Noam Chomsky's talks on youtube only by accident, a year ago, and they broadened my mind and almost changed the way I see things … I wish I knew about him when I was younger. I can only imagine his impact on the younger generation, if they weren't so kept in the dark about him by the mainstream media,

The other great intellectual that completes some of his ideas, imo, is Henry Giroux. His recent talk:
Henry Giroux: Where is the Outrage? Critical Pedagogy in Dark Times
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CAxj87RRtsc

((P.S.: sorry about tresspassing & blabbing, but the GB has been a bit boring over the last day or so.))

 

[Nathan_Brazil]

Democracy (even our version of it) allows everyone to vote. Even the stupid ones.

So don't be surprised or offended when 30% of the GOP would consider voting for a guy who reads Old Testament legends, and ignores everything that contradicts said verbal legends.

Letting these people vote is baked in. Maybe we can reach their children.

 

[JackLuis]

Wow this thread. -
((P.S.: sorry about tresspassing & blabbing, but the GB has been a bit boring over the last day or so.))

Don't be sorry, I enjoyed the lecture, although he uses overly long sentences. THis will 'turn off' many of our less intellectual brethren who can't process sentences longer than five words.

I'm not surprised the GB can be boring. That is why I put up this thread, to attract those who want to discuss real issues, instead of the Trumpeting of Derp we see in our normal political conversations on Lit.

Welcome Aella!

 

[Aella_]

Don't be sorry, I enjoyed the lecture, although he uses overly long sentences. THis will 'turn off' many of our less intellectual brethren who can't process sentences longer than five words.

I'm not surprised the GB can be boring. That is why I put up this thread, to attract those who want to discuss real issues, instead of the Trumpeting of Derp we see in our normal political conversations on Lit.

Welcome Aella!

Many thanks for that.

Then I might start posting in this forum, from time to time. Because I particularly enjoyed (for slightly different reasons) your and Hard_rom's threads.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

the obama kind are unable to think for themselves. they drink the juice and live the party line

they are ignorant socialist pawns

Recently on this forum I've seen many requests for citations, often rudely put.

Usually the requester, refutes the validity of the citation because of the bias of the writer of the citation. This can come from other writings of the cited or logical refutation of the points made.

Few times have I seen citations that are irrefutable due to the reputation of the expert. While JBJ may question anything we all know he's just ...Noir.

However this 'tube from world renowned intellectual who has studied peer reviewed evidence explains the current state of our Presidential selection process.

Yes Noir/Jimmy I know you disagree, but fuck you too.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Democracy (even our version of it) allows everyone to vote. Even the stupid ones.

So don't be surprised or offended when 30% of the GOP would consider voting for a guy who reads Old Testament legends, and ignores everything that contradicts said verbal legends.

Letting these people vote is baked in. Maybe we can reach their children.

wow, you are kind of mentally fucked. how much juice do you smoke? clearly you are a rachael MadKow listener.

 

[Nathan_Brazil]

Sorry friend. I never feed trolls.

 

[JackLuis]

Iran deal shortcomings due to Republicans.

Chaney implicated!