The quote gets straight to the point about how many many MANY people treat the debate between Obamacare and not-Obamacare. I have personally heard and read writers on BOTH sides accusing the opposite side of obvious and blistering stupidity, in fact I have seen both stated just today. I have been accused of immorality because of my position in this debate and have wanted to accuse those I argued against of immorality. The quote addresses a very real situation that brings out the irrational in us, that in my opinion, helps us all to be “more wrong.”
Meanwhile, only someone who has succumbed to the partisanship, which in my opinion is easy to succumb to, would be unable to recognize the intelligence and general competence of those they disagree with. Neither Michelle Bachman nor Barack Obama would benefit at all from being kept away from sharp instruments, yet that is the kind of language this question brings out even on a board dedicated to making us “less wrong.”
For these reasons I think the quote is right on target, where the target is encouraging people to choose to be more rational about something which is virtually a basilisk in its ability to bring out the irrational in people.
how many many MANY people treat the debate between Obamacare and not-Obamacare
I wouldn’t know, beyond my expectation that the behaviour patterns match the political behaviour I expect of humans. I would certainly expect some of the humans to execute the behaviours that the author of the quote opposes.
I understand that there is a government shutdown in the US prompted by political conflict over a proposed healthcare-related redistribution of wealth. Neither of these things are especially familiar to me. Coming from one of the countries with publicly funded universal health care it is a little harder to see what the fuss is about.
The US government shutdown was something of a surprise when my facebook started talking about it. If the analogous situation occurs here (‘supply’ is repeatedly blocked) it triggers a double dissolution and everyone gets sent back to the polling booths to elect some politicians who can make a functioning government. I can at least imagine (and predict) that when the legislative process has resulted in a stand-off with a touch of brinkmanship the polarization on the issue would become more pronounced and the ‘other side’ would accused of additional immorality for not submitting this side’s power play as they clearly ought to. (Did that last addition happen by the way? I have more or less assumed that it would but my curiosity seeks calibration.)
To reiterate, I don’t disagree with the motivation of the author of the quote. I can also see the value of using details of the quote for their persuasive purpose with a political-but-redeemable target audience. It remains irrational political rhetoric but it is at least political rhetoric that is a level or two closer to the surface.
For these reasons I think the quote is right on target, where the target is encouraging people to choose to be more rational about something which is virtually a basilisk in its ability to bring out the irrational in people.
At very best it can be said to be advocating a new irrationality that is both less irrational and more palatable than the one being opposed. I suppose encouraging people to believe “Pi = 3” is an improvement over them continuing to believe “Pi = 4″… it’s approximately 6 times less wrong! I still wouldn’t call it exemplary mathematics.
the polarization on the issue would become more pronounced and the ‘other side’ would accused of additional immorality for not submitting this side’s power play as they clearly ought to. (Did that last addition happen by the way? I have more or less assumed that it would but my curiosity seeks calibration.)
If the polarization has become more pronounced, I haven’t noticed, but I’m not really sure what that would even look like at this point. But, yes, there’s a lot of the predictable “this situation is your fault for refusing to accept the conditions we’ve set for relaxing this situation!” going on.
The quote gets straight to the point about how many many MANY people treat the debate between Obamacare and not-Obamacare. I have personally heard and read writers on BOTH sides accusing the opposite side of obvious and blistering stupidity, in fact I have seen both stated just today. I have been accused of immorality because of my position in this debate and have wanted to accuse those I argued against of immorality. The quote addresses a very real situation that brings out the irrational in us, that in my opinion, helps us all to be “more wrong.”
Meanwhile, only someone who has succumbed to the partisanship, which in my opinion is easy to succumb to, would be unable to recognize the intelligence and general competence of those they disagree with. Neither Michelle Bachman nor Barack Obama would benefit at all from being kept away from sharp instruments, yet that is the kind of language this question brings out even on a board dedicated to making us “less wrong.”
For these reasons I think the quote is right on target, where the target is encouraging people to choose to be more rational about something which is virtually a basilisk in its ability to bring out the irrational in people.
I wouldn’t know, beyond my expectation that the behaviour patterns match the political behaviour I expect of humans. I would certainly expect some of the humans to execute the behaviours that the author of the quote opposes.
I understand that there is a government shutdown in the US prompted by political conflict over a proposed healthcare-related redistribution of wealth. Neither of these things are especially familiar to me. Coming from one of the countries with publicly funded universal health care it is a little harder to see what the fuss is about.
The US government shutdown was something of a surprise when my facebook started talking about it. If the analogous situation occurs here (‘supply’ is repeatedly blocked) it triggers a double dissolution and everyone gets sent back to the polling booths to elect some politicians who can make a functioning government. I can at least imagine (and predict) that when the legislative process has resulted in a stand-off with a touch of brinkmanship the polarization on the issue would become more pronounced and the ‘other side’ would accused of additional immorality for not submitting this side’s power play as they clearly ought to. (Did that last addition happen by the way? I have more or less assumed that it would but my curiosity seeks calibration.)
To reiterate, I don’t disagree with the motivation of the author of the quote. I can also see the value of using details of the quote for their persuasive purpose with a political-but-redeemable target audience. It remains irrational political rhetoric but it is at least political rhetoric that is a level or two closer to the surface.
At very best it can be said to be advocating a new irrationality that is both less irrational and more palatable than the one being opposed. I suppose encouraging people to believe “Pi = 3” is an improvement over them continuing to believe “Pi = 4″… it’s approximately 6 times less wrong! I still wouldn’t call it exemplary mathematics.
If the polarization has become more pronounced, I haven’t noticed, but I’m not really sure what that would even look like at this point. But, yes, there’s a lot of the predictable “this situation is your fault for refusing to accept the conditions we’ve set for relaxing this situation!” going on.
I suspect that for this situation to develop as it has, polarization must be very near saturation in the first place.
There’s even we’re not going to let you relax the situation until we get what we want, i.e., the Republican controlled house has been passing bills to fund parts of the government, e.g., national parks, medical research and the Democratic controlled senate is refusing to consider them. Furthermore, the president has been closing things even when it would cost less to keep them open, even going so far as to order privately run parks that lease government land to close.