Author Topic: hey moderator  (Read 5063 times)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #50 on: October 22, 2019, 01:41:03 PM »
I’m done
I thought we were having a dialog about communication, but I used a bad example which triggered the usual response which I think proves my point.

You use a bad example which demonstrates you have already failed the "first test" on communication: You're unwilling to listen, or allow the "benefit of the doubt" while considering other factors. You've rendered your conclusion, and that's that.

Ok ok ok I get it - I should have used the word implying or insinuating vice labeling.  Trump never says what he says unless he says it. wink, wink, knowing smile.

You make it quite clear here that you already know what he and how he said it, and he meant it the way you think he meant it. Anybody who believes differently cannot see it for "the dog whistle it clearly is." As such you see no need to:
1) Give basic respect to the person disputing the claim.
2) Give benefit of the doubt. (Or simply agree to disagree)
3) Bother to listen.

With those three strikes, you're already out of the running for communication to happen.

As such:
The “left”, whatever that is, aren’t the only one that get stuck by being triggered – god I hate that I used that word. No communication is possible, conventions have been broken. Its all our nothing.

Only follows.

I understand that you think the (out of context) statement from Trump is a "dog whistle" and means something completely different from how I'm interpreting it. But at the same time, I'm seriously wondering if you've ever actually bothered to find the context in which that statement was made.

Which is rather remarkable, considering I believe the full text was made available here(or linked from here) at one point.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #51 on: October 22, 2019, 02:10:39 PM »
Quote
I understand that you think the (out of context) statement from Trump is a "dog whistle" and means something completely different from how I'm interpreting it.
The question I have, is:  is this how you believe Trump meant it?  How YOU interpreting it, could just be another way of saying, "what I would like to believe he meant".  Or "this is how I have to rationalize it". 

As much as Trump bemoans the media, he loves it.  He plays it well.  It's where he lives and breaths.  In almost any other situation I would agree with the points you are making TheDeamon.  But the man is trolling the left.  He identifies buttons and pushes them.  He wants his opponents distracted and operating on constant outrage.  It keeps him (or at least his persona) firmly in the spotlight while things continue to get done.

He gives a wink and a nod to his extreme base while tweaking his extreme opponents, leaving those few still "in the middle" parsing out exactly what he said and in what context.  Either defending or at least questing if it's really as bad as all that. 

So how does someone being targeted by outrageous statements communicate with someone deaf to the dog whistles?  Do you just insist that the whistle noise must be imagined?  I mean, one group is barking and another group is whining and acting very agitated.  They both indicate the same thing caused their reaction. 

Is the advice to ignore it?  It's not "real" because YOU are sure he didn't mean it? 

If it was JUST the tiny sliver of hyper sensitive lefties out there pointing fingers, I'd be inclined to agree.  As I've said before, there is a growing portion on both sides of the red/blue divide that are spoiling for a fight.  They both heard something. 

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #52 on: October 22, 2019, 02:15:36 PM »
If I told you that my neighbors were "people who have lots of problems who sell drugs, they're involved with crime. There are rapists. But some are good people". What kind of impression would you have about my neighborhood?

Original quote: "They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Of course he is meaning to disparage illegal migrants, although in the speech he certainly didn't distinguish illegal. He was referring to "more than Mexico. It's coming from all over South and Latin America, and it's coming probably -- probably -- from the Middle East. "

And the final piece of the whole thing:

"They're not sending you. They're not sending you."

Clearly to me, and to a lot of other people, he's describing everyone in Latin America as undesirable and inferior to his audience.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #53 on: October 22, 2019, 02:18:20 PM »
My take on it is Trump knew the MSM would take it for a "dog whistle" but didn't actually mean it that way.

Trump seems to hold to "there is no such thing as bad publicity" and throwing a dog whistle out there to rile up the media, (if the trivial number of racists go for it--whatever, they don't matter) and then use how the media reacts to it as ground to complain about a hostile press, ad nausea.

I think a lot of what Trump did was calculated to get a disproportionate and inappropriate media response to his statement. In that instance, it was a success, it just had other ramifications which Trump didn't bother to think through or give much consideration towards.

I'm pretty certain he's an insensitive jack*** in almost every respect, but I haven't seen anything to make me think he's actually a racist.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #54 on: October 22, 2019, 02:21:09 PM »
Because you assume every time he says something racist he's just playing to a crowd?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #55 on: October 22, 2019, 02:22:14 PM »
Rightleft22, I'm not trying to pick on you.  Really, please don't take offense at the back and forth above.  I just followed up on this because it's 100% about how we no longer have common facts, which inhibits from moving onto the actual debate - the pros and cons of current immigration laws and how they could be improved - by spending all of our effort on debating whether or not Trump has proven by "his own" words that he's a rascist.

This is a debate we are being fed by people who don't want us to actually debate the real issues.  They have their preferred results and we are no longer allowed to disagree.

My point on this one was exactly that.  The words are not there.  When you're arguing with the "other" side they can go and see the words that are not there and get outraged at the falsity of the claim.  However, it may be equally "clear" to the otherside that the implication is there and people are ignoring it and they get outraged at the falsity of the claim.

Would you think Trump said all Mexicans are criminals if the media had downplayed the issue?  If they had instead pointed out that he's worked with people of all ancestries, and everytime someone tried to make the assertion they had dismissed it?  Don't consider it in the abstract, do you consider Obama to be a racist based on his participation in a racist church?  Do you remember how the media in fact did the exact opposite?  They pretended that the Obama's probably missed that day of sermons, and that notwithstanding their close personal relationship with the pastor they were unaware.  And then they went further and tore down anyone that questioned it.

You really think that kind of bias doesn't show up in how we view the world?

Ok ok ok I get it - I should have used the word implying or insinuating vice labeling.  Trump never says what he says unless he says it. wink, wink, knowing smile.

Maybe, I'm not fully convinced that was the case either.  The Mexican government, prior to Trump, made almost zero efforts to prevent that kind of border abuse.  It's not surprising, organized crime is far more powerful in Mexico and control of the border is it's lifeblood.  Mexican government officials have been killed for less.  Are you really certain that the problem of hardened criminals crossing the border didn't seem like a win win for the Mexican government?  At least until the US imposed consequences?

Why exactly do we have criminals that have been repeatedly deported?  If you want to claim they aren't Mexico's problem, tell me how you think we'd react to Americans that repeatedly went into a foreign country and murdered people, and were deported back to the US.

Quote
Yes Trump has the best words, perfect, absolutely no possibility of failing to understand his meaning or intent.  "Truthful hyperbole is the best possible method of communicating and getting things done

Like I said, our politicians exaggerate and lie in virtually every public appearence.  Why is it that every sentence of Trump's gets the biased intense fact checking?  What really makes him different?

Is he really some special kind of evil?  Then why exactly was he admired - with literally the exact same personality - for decades?  Why was his show so popular?

Trump is a threat, primarily to the establishment.  He's a bigger threat to the Republicans than the Democrats.  He's utterly demolished their do nothing politics and pretty much demonstrated to their voters that they were all talk.  Sure the Democrats hate him too, but there's a reason that the deep staters (who face no elections but who are massively connected to both sides) are all working against him.  There's a reason, you have secret leakers, there's a reason that people claim the Senate would remove him if they could do it in secret.

Contrary to "popular" belief it isn't because he's especially vile, or "not Presidential," or even corrupt, it's because he's not on their team.  I think the biggest political divide is probably around whose team people think he really is on.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #56 on: October 22, 2019, 02:35:23 PM »
Because you assume every time he says something racist he's just playing to a crowd?

Every "racist" thing I've seen claimed to be uttered by him tends to have a non-racist skew that can be placed on it without any meaningful effort. And most of those statement are allegations, often from anonymous sources, which makes the veracity of the claim dubious to start with.

Most would be in keeping with his being a insensitive jack*** who generally doesn't care about how he is perceived.

Of course, I could have missed one of those racist statements he has been alleged to have made.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #57 on: October 22, 2019, 02:43:33 PM »
I'm boggled at how someone who supposedly "says it like it is" or is supposed to be a plain speaker, needs have skew applied to his words so often.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #58 on: October 22, 2019, 02:48:50 PM »
I'm boggled at how someone who supposedly "says it like it is" or is supposed to be a plain speaker, needs have skew applied to his words so often.

Even the racist interpretation in a lot of cases requires "skew" to make it a racist statement to start with.

Insensitive? Yes. Racist? Not so clear cut.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #59 on: October 22, 2019, 03:06:59 PM »
Quote
That's a problem for the political elite, cause they don't want that to happen, and particularly a problem for the Democrats are they are counting on demographic shift to deliver them a "permanent majority."  So what to do?
I gotta say, if these' "political elite" crafted this mind trap they are savants.  This is as close to perfect as it gets.  Because that sure as *censored* sounds like, "We gotta stop those Democrats so they don't taint our nations white purity!"

Well again, it sounds that way to you because you're operating on a completely different "baseline" of facts.

In a world where the parties have decisive data on the politic consequences broken down by every single racial and economic metric, the policy of illegal immigration has known demographic benefits for the Democrats.  It has nothing to do with keeping our nation pure.

We could flip the script.  End illegal immigration and maximize immigration from the same countries, same people, based on merit and hard work.  The numbers in that scenario don't play out remotely as well for the Democrats.

Why?

First, illegal immigrants are poor and vulnerable, in a way that legal immigrants of the same nationality would not be.  They are dependent on the welfare state in a way that legal immigrants would not be.  Why does that matter?  They are relying on their children, who are likely to be citizens, to protect them by changing policies in favor of their circumstances.  That's why Obama pushed both DACA and DAPA, to try and buy and cement that future loyalty.

Second, they compete with the economic lower class by undercutting wages.  This drags wages for all workers down, pulls more voting citizens into the lower class and dependent class.  Democrats bread and butter is in lower class and dependent voters.  They have no incentive to do anything but increase this voting pool.  Legal immigration does none of this, the immigrants are not undercutting legal wages, because they earn them.  Legal immigrants are not flooding the unskilled labor markets.

This isn't a mystery to the Democratic elite.  Not sure why it continues to be a mystery to the voters.

It has NOTHING to do with "tainting" some racial mix, and everything about demonizing people for enforcing laws that will impair Democratic efforts to ensure that the correct socio-economic blocks keep increasing.

Quote
Not to mention it also makes the bizzaro assumption that the Republican party has absolutely nothing to offer non-whites.

It actually doesn't do that either.  It's just an acknowledgement that those in need of handouts vote for the hand out party rather than the economic success party, and that immigrants who come on a merit based system might have a different choice.

In reality, I think 3 generations from now, the grandkids of those same Democratic voters blocks will be more Republican, hence the need to keep importing them.

Quote
Quote
If you really care why aren't you demanding your Congresspeople get to the table and fund and reform the system?  Why aren't they already doing that if this is really a battle against racism?
My preferred method is penalties to the point of asset seizure for anyone employing illegals.

Okay, but why?  Are you going to deport the illegals they employed?  Or is the goal to put the illegals permanently on to welfare and social support by making them unemployable?  Or is the goal to do so until they can be made legal?

All of that is like treating the symptom and leaving the illness alone.  Why not require proof of citizenship when accessing services?  How is that any less designed to fail?

Quote
Then we can ramp up legal immigration when the need for those workers is painfully (economically) obvious.  The use of bigger and bigger sticks while the carrots are still left out and encouraged is reprehensible.  But both sides seem to be cool with it, because that's how our economy works!  Oh well.

The use of sticks only works if it's comprehensive.  Nothing that has been proposed is comprehensive.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2019, 03:13:51 PM by Seriati »

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #60 on: October 22, 2019, 03:15:19 PM »
Quote
Why is it that every sentence of Trump's gets the biased intense fact checking?  What really makes him different? Is he really some special kind of evil?

In my opinion its because of his communication method/style/philosophy. You may be able to see past the hyperbole, but I think its understandable that many have problems doing so.  It’s as arrogant to suggest that people who have problems parsing Trump are wrong to even question it as it is to suggest that people who can look past it are wrong.  Even you it appears were triggered by words like “labelled immigrants as” and assumed my intent. It is understandable I think then that others are triggered by Trumps use of language.
 
Trump is special in that I think only he can get away with using ‘truthful hyperbole’ in the way he does. I have seen other politicians attempt it and fail bad. (The guy in the Philippines is pretty good at it) Can you imagine the stink if Obama used this form of communication to get his ideas across? Does that make him evil, no. Does it make him dangerous yes, especially as it concerns dialog.

Quote
Contrary to "popular" belief it isn't because he's especially vile, or "not Presidential," or even corrupt, it's because he's not on their team
Like I said, our politicians exaggerate and lie in virtually every public appearance

These types of all in composing, no room for a middle ground, or good faith close off dialog.  I don’t have to listen because all politicians lie and I only disagree because Trump isn’t on my team….

Does Trump communication style help him break conventions you want to see broken (still not sure what those are) and get the job done or does it get in the way?  I suspect its both.

Quote
You use a bad example which demonstrates you have already failed the "first test" on communication: You're unwilling to listen
That is quite the assumption. My intent was to discuses the problem of the method Trump communicant not to point out if I think Trump is a racist or whatever. 
Seems we both suck at listening.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #61 on: October 22, 2019, 03:20:42 PM »
Quote
Second, they compete with the economic lower class by undercutting wages.  This drags wages for all workers down, pulls more voting citizens into the lower class and dependent class.  Democrats bread and butter is in lower class and dependent voters.  They have no incentive to do anything but increase this voting pool.  Legal immigration does none of this, the immigrants are not undercutting legal wages, because they earn them.  Legal immigrants are not flooding the unskilled labor markets.

The most cynical possible view, is it not? How is that different than applying the most cynical possible view to Trump?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #62 on: October 22, 2019, 03:45:41 PM »
I’m done
I thought we were having a dialog about communication, but I used a bad example which triggered the usual response which I think proves my point.
 
The “left”, whatever that is, aren’t the only one that get stuck by being triggered – god I hate that I used that word. No communication is possible, conventions have been broken. Its all our nothing.

Is that what's happening? Or has the media and political lanscape *so* muddied the waters that the population in general is thoroughly confused and disinformed about what is and isn't reality? In my opinion your frustration here is entirely warranted, and is being directed at the wrong target.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #63 on: October 22, 2019, 04:56:02 PM »
Quote
Is that what's happening?

I can only go by my own experiences. I find it incredibly difficult to parse Trump. It requires a great deal of self awareness not to react to 'triggers' and not respond.
You think your responding but your not.

take how the words "labeled Immigrants"  derails the dialog about immigration to being about Trump character
You can argue that Trump did not label all immigrants as murders and that his intent was that we need strong immigration laws and methods to prevent immigrants that are criminals from entering into the US

Ok I agree

However he does not communicate that way. His tone, mannerisms, and hyperbole, IMO, confused that message. A message that if communicated clearly everyone might agree with. In this case I would say the hyperbole got in the way yet because its repeated is international.

A reasonable question IMO is to ask if the repetition of method means it is intentional and if so to what ends. Is their purpose other then immigration law to the method?
Maybe there is maybe theirs not, its just the way he communicates his ideas. However its clear at least half the population doesn't respond well to the method and wonder if there is more intended. Its not just a "completely different "baseline" of facts". Its a problem of communication method.

To be be frustrated and angry about that is no different then being angry and frustrated with those that have no issue with the method.
Either way the method presents a problem for dialog about the issues we say we want to talk about.

Your suggesting I should direct the frustration and blame at the "media" and political landscape, however I have no influence over the "media" or political landscape. I'm communicating here. Its happening here!

That suggestion is also negates the source. Unless your arguing that there is no issue with the way Trump communicates everyone just needs to figure it out.
OK
But removing the politics. If half the people have a problem with a method of communication should we not look at the method?


D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #64 on: October 22, 2019, 05:06:41 PM »
That was a particularly depressing lens to see Democratic party through.  I'll clue you in, but you probably won't believe me.  Some of us, no, MOST of us, actually DO give a *censored*, and aren't putting on an act to keep 'our team' in power.  I'm not sure what for... if the policies we peruse are largely all self serving and insincere?
Quote
Okay, but why?
  Because without a realistic hope of employment without going through official channels the draw of entering and living "illegally" goes away.  My sneaking suspicion is that within 2-5 years of strict enforcement, the businesses who previously exploited these people will be begging the lawmakers to fix our immigration (or at least work visa) programs.  If that requires a bit of welfare and social support within that time-frame, I think it's worth it.   
Quote
All of that is like treating the symptom and leaving the illness alone.
It's the exact opposite of that.  Trump tried to frame it as if the choice to come here could lead to unimaginable sorrow for your family.  Unfortunately it can STILL lead to amazing opportunities for a better life.  We are incentivizing breaking the law.  You are hung up on providing services to these people.  What people if they know when they get here they cannot get a job unless they enter legally. 

Quote
Nothing that has been proposed is comprehensive.
Indeed.

Quote
However its clear at least half the population doesn't respond well to the method and wonder if there is more intended.
It's worse than that.  A good deal of them don't wonder at all.  They "know" what was intended.  That's where the different set of "facts" line comes into play.  It's not ALL bull, though most of the time that just means Trump is making poop up again, in this case it really is about people hearing two entirely different messages when he speaks.  Or, more accurately, three different messages.  The middle and the extremes on both sides.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #65 on: October 22, 2019, 05:32:40 PM »
Quote
In the post-Sept. 11 atmosphere, ICE, then a new agency, set out an ambitious and opportunistic agenda. Titled “Endgame,” the strategic plan for ICE’s Office of Detention and Removal set as its goal 100 percent “removal” of all “removable aliens.” Grandparents and children, business owners and colleagues, students and caregivers: All became the targets of ICE.

But Operation Endgame did not explain how punishing and deporting millions of longtime residents would make the United States safer or somehow address the threat of terrorist violence. It simply asserted that the result of these deportations would be “enhanced homeland security” — an ill-defined goal that seemed to answer the public’s fear with aggression — and more fear — rather than sound policy.

Wow, that sounds like a Trump policy. Instead it was GWB.

How'd he get away with all that? Was the media kinder and gentler? Were the libruls more tolerant?

Nope. First, he set apart his policy by promising to increase the amount of legal immigration, making it clear that he was against illegal immigration, not immigration in general.

He said things like this:

Quote
The American people should not have to choose between a welcoming society and a lawful society. We can have both at the same time.

I wish I could find a full transcript of his Tucson speech, but I speculate that he led off talking about how our country was built by immigrants, owed a debt to them, etc. He definitely faced some backlash from ACLU and other usual suspects, but it didn't become a national frenzy.

It is the tried and true "crap sandwich" approach to communicating. Say something people will widely agree with and feel good about. Lay down the thing they probably aren't going to like. Then wrap it up with a desire to come together and solve problems. Trump leaves out the bread and just gives you the crap with no warmup.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #66 on: October 22, 2019, 05:47:22 PM »
Quote
However its clear at least half the population doesn't respond well to the method and wonder if there is more intended.
It's worse than that.  A good deal of them don't wonder at all.  They "know" what was intended.  That's where the different set of "facts" line comes into play.  It's not ALL bull, though most of the time that just means Trump is making poop up again, in this case it really is about people hearing two entirely different messages when he speaks.  Or, more accurately, three different messages.  The middle and the extremes on both sides.
[/quote]

I see, I'm assuming people, at least on this site, are aware of a problem/challenge with the communication method.
Without the benefit of the doubt that Trumps communication method is a challenge, at least for some, or denying its a problem at all, or blaming the "media" for it, is going to make dialog difficult

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #67 on: October 22, 2019, 05:52:13 PM »
Your suggesting I should direct the frustration and blame at the "media" and political landscape, however I have no influence over the "media" or political landscape. I'm communicating here. Its happening here!

It's not that complicated. You can either rail against other people who have been taught that whatever they feel is reality, or you can rail against those who taught them. I see good reason to try to make everyone around us better if possible, but if you want to blame someone, "people are crazy!" isn't going to help you. A more productive version (IMO) might be "our political institutions have let us down!" or maybe "the parties are corrupt!" And these types of complaints WILL help you, whereas railing at 'whoever' won't. Or at least, it *should* help you. It's possible that it also won't, but that would be a sign of even worse things than you think.

Quote
That suggestion is also negates the source. Unless your arguing that there is no issue with the way Trump communicates everyone just needs to figure it out.

rightleft, I think you're focusing too much on Trump. Yes, he's newsworthy, but he didn't invent confusion tactics in the public sphere, he just showed us that there is no place in America free of them. The mental combat going on against lucidity was going on before, and Trump is a symptom not a cause.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #68 on: October 23, 2019, 10:40:26 AM »
Quote
It's not that complicated

You misunderstand me.  My concern is not Trump its about communication. They are related in that Trump communication method is what bothers me.
What I am attempting to talk about is the communication method which seems impossible because any example becomes political. Which proves my point.
Parsing "Truthful Hyperbole" is difficult as it requires a great deal of self knowledge without getting triggered and missing the message. This triggering is happeing on all sides which is demonstrable on this forum.

Trumps comments on immigration is a good example as half the population will hear his words and cry foul and the other half won't see anything to be concerned about.
The issue of immigration becomes lost as we argue about what did he really say. We can blame the media for making the parsing more difficult however the responsibility belongs to each of us. I don't want to blame anyone.

The frustration I'm having is that instead of questioning the method in good faith we can't talk about it at all as its seems to be on political attack. A suckers choice IMO
(having to chose the ends or the means as either or is also a suckers choice)

Its obvious I'm not able to communicate my intentions so will step back. I obviously do not like Trump but its not political. To me their is a difference but maybe theirs not.




Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #69 on: October 23, 2019, 11:19:25 AM »
Trumps comments on immigration is a good example as half the population will hear his words and cry foul and the other half won't see anything to be concerned about.
The issue of immigration becomes lost as we argue about what did he really say.

Do you not see the conflict of interest inherent in discussions like this? People stand to materially gain by taking one position or the other. All things are not equal. Because the issues are politicized, taking a position even on what something means ends up either bolstering one party or the other, and thus gets reduced to "I can't agree with you because we would lose power if I do so." That strikes me as being an artificial situation that is avoidable, but avoiding it requires (as a country) Americans taking certain steps. You're right that the issues themselves often get lost, and I don't like it any better than you do. But the reason is because the issues end up as pawns in a literal power struggle. That's a systemic problem.

Quote
We can blame the media for making the parsing more difficult however the responsibility belongs to each of us. I don't want to blame anyone.

Players are mostly going to play the game according to what seems like the rules. Only a few people will ignore the 'intended play style' and will push the boundaries of it (some for the better, and some for the worse). If the ecosystem strongly encourages people to fight each other to gain dominance, most will do that. And it's not even because they're power-hungry, but rather because the tendency will be to unconsciously give way to the current pulling them and go along with it. Most people are much more go-with-the-flow than they think they are. There are good sides to this trait, but a bad side is they can be pulled in a bad direction. You can't really blame them for that; you certainly can blame the people intentionally pulling them. I don't see why you wouldn't, frankly.

Quote
Its obvious I'm not able to communicate my intentions so will step back. I obviously do not like Trump but its not political. To me their is a difference but maybe theirs not.

You're doing fine, but if you are making a mistake it's thinking that these matters are so easy to clarify that one or two quick statements should be enough for everyone to know what you're thinking. This is the problem with soundbite culture: you think a short statement of intent somehow actually communicates intent. For someone to *really* know what they're thinking they would have to have lived your life and share all of your thoughts. All we can hope to do is give people an inkling of what's on our mind, and hope even more than we're somewhat successful. That's actually pretty tough! Underestimating how difficult communication actually is will make you more frustrated.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #70 on: October 23, 2019, 01:28:34 PM »
Quote
Do you not see the conflict of interest inherent in discussions like this? People stand to materially gain by taking one position or the other.

I see it. Its why I was attempting to address it.
If we can't find a way to communicate past that conflict of interest intellectual honest dialog can't be possible, or at least it becomes even more difficult.  The danger is that its becomes 'might makes right' and or 'loudest makes right'. Or as has been argued narrative = truth which may be how it is in this moment in time but is intellectually dishonest, narrative is not truth. By conceding to to conflict of interest and truth and not pushing back we become what we hate.

Quote
you think a short statement of intent somehow actually communicates intent

I do not think that at all. I know how hard communication is. How 8 bites of information representing a single word is 'unpacked' into thousands of bits of information. Think of the word 'God' and how people unpack that.  Its one of the reasons I dislike the communication method of 'truthful hyperbole' so much. Reasonable people on all sides are going to unpack hyperbole differently and get each other wrong.

As long as we surrender to the sucker choices in this regard I feel we all tend to make nothing will change other then the division becoming firmer
« Last Edit: October 23, 2019, 01:33:07 PM by rightleft22 »

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #71 on: October 23, 2019, 02:06:52 PM »
Quick aside, sorry:
Can anyone give me an example of another habitual/regular user of "Truthful Hyperbole"?   (A phrase I always felt was just a polite way of saying, "Ignore his spewing of BS, he's telling a story, not saying anything you are suppose to take at face value.")

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #72 on: October 23, 2019, 02:23:33 PM »
Truthful Hyperbole was coined as a method by Trump. Its been around before that ofcourse however suspect most people never heard the term before. Trump, as he writes in the art of the deal, became a master when he realized is use.

I would argue that Rodrigo Duterte communication method is close
« Last Edit: October 23, 2019, 02:26:08 PM by rightleft22 »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #73 on: October 23, 2019, 02:29:10 PM »
This thread is the first time I bothered to look up truthful hyperbole.  I'm kind of annoyed now.  It sounds to me like the phrase referred - in the art of the deal - to things like calling the new Trump tower the "biggest and the best" when it objectively was not the biggest, and best is a matter of opinion.  Is that the case?

It seems that it's being used -now- to refer to a belief that Trump is okay with lying completely.  The context on it though seemed to be that it was about selling everything as larger than life - which is literally the Trump brand.

I'm not remotely convinced that Trump is using hyperbole in many of these cases.  He's using the truth and others are drawing the hyperbolic inference.  It would help me if you clarified what you actually mean.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #74 on: October 23, 2019, 02:53:20 PM »
It's been a blast from the past visiting with you folks the past few weeks, but I'm full up on open-minded civil conversation for the foreseeable future.  Somebody send me an email if any of the usual suspects decide maybe Trump should be impeached after all.  I'll send them a box of chocolates.  But, Trump may declare martial law and disband Congress before things get that far, in which case send a box of chocolates to me in the gulag.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #75 on: October 23, 2019, 03:02:18 PM »
If we can't find a way to communicate past that conflict of interest intellectual honest dialog can't be possible, or at least it becomes even more difficult.

You're going back to the idea that "we" need to find a way to bypass the conflict of interest, but that's exactly my point: that's like saying let's bypass reality. If there factually is a conflict of interest then it *will* affect everything. There is no way to bypass that truism through force of will, any more than when people are being washed down a rushing river and the odd strong swimmer can swim to the shore, you should argue that "we need to stop being swept away by the current." What can be done might be to dam up the river, or to construct a boat or something (using the analogy). But telling the people going with the current to do better just isn't helpful. That's how currents work.

This is why I occasionally try to redirect red vs blue conversations to issues like lobbying and campaign finance, because those are flow-governing realities that trickle down to the rest of politics, and therefore to everyday conversation. When discussing FOX vs CNN and who's worse, I sometimes try to bring it back to the generalization that these are both companies with goals other than helping people, even if they might serve different masters. I keep feeling from your posts that there's a vibe of "why are people so crazy" or sometimes "it's hopeless, truth is dead" and stuff like that. Well maybe people have been driven crazy, but usually when that literally happens you need to establish a safer environment to begin treatment. That's the first step, anyhow, rather than trying to reason people out of their craze. And regarding truth being dead, that is maybe a larger issue which IMO has a technological component to it, but in any case I do think there are steps that could be taken to repair these domains, but they lie in challenging the structure we've got right now. Status quo in the system as it is will cause things - all things being equal - to continue in this direction. I say 'all things being equal' because it's always possible that some catastrophe or another unpredictable event could create a dramatic shift in public perception.

JoshuaD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #76 on: October 23, 2019, 03:06:28 PM »
I'll miss having you here, Scifibum. Maybe you'll find your way back at some time in the future.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #77 on: October 23, 2019, 05:44:46 PM »
Quote
You're going back to the idea that "we" need to find a way to bypass the conflict of interest, but that's exactly my point: that's like saying let's bypass reality. If there factually is a conflict of interest then it *will* affect everything. There is no way to bypass that truism through force of will, any more than when people are being washed down a rushing river and the odd strong swimmer can swim to the shore, you should argue that "we need to stop being swept away by the current." What can be done might be to dam up the river, or to construct a boat or something (using the analogy). But telling the people going with the current to do better just isn't helpful. That's how currents work.

Not sure I follow. Maybe its semantic because I think were aiming for the same thing.

When I say we, I mean that to make a change each of us needs to take responsibility of our own conduct in dialog. I also mean us as in this forum. If we really want intellectually honest debate, we need to be honest with ourselves when were using wide generalizations and thinking we know what the other person intention is.  If we can’t have honest dialog here its not going to happen in the wild.

Maybe that's naive however the statement “Be the change you want to see” is a truth not a choice, the "car goes where the eyes go”. The tendency is to create what we fear and were doing a great job at that.

“There is no way to bypass that truism through force of will” true, swimming against the current won’t work..  If your heading for rapids one must prepare the body, feet (foundation) first and adjust course in small ways that you can. We are, I think, both saying we need to stop being swept away, blindly tumbling over every rock that comes along.  Even in strong currents there are eddies where the current slows, places to rest even. We, us in this forum, should keep and eye out for them.

Quote
need to establish a safer environment to begin treatment. That's the first step, anyhow, rather than trying to reason people out of their craze

I agree, for effective dialog a safe environment is a requirement. If it is not reason, what do we turn to to make it safe?
« Last Edit: October 23, 2019, 05:48:25 PM by rightleft22 »

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #78 on: October 23, 2019, 11:55:07 PM »
Quote
Hate to beat a dead horse but this seems to be a phenomenon of emotionally sensitive folks on the left
Example of a statement that get's in the way of dialog. The left accused as being to easily offended while the right accuse of intentionally using language to offend and distract. We end up taking about the politics of 'offense' rather then the issue at hand.

The thing is people on the board here have been surprisingly civil in the past few years, especially if you compare it to the years prior to that. Granted, we're a smaller community now, but all the same most conversations at most reach a level of "mild taunting sarcasm" as their boiling point. Sure, that's still not ideal, but it's quite a ways away from people outright calling each other out, insulting each other based on personal secrets, and using words like "evil" and "despicable" in relation to each other. I'm really happy that sort of thing is gone. So despite the fact that many conversations do end in two sides squarely refusing to agree AT ALL with the other side, perhaps more so than in the past, it never gets nasty, so I don't really buy that things are so offensive that people can't take it anymore. I think it's more an issue that people increasingly can't stand it when others disagree with them *completely*. I don't just mean "well I sort of disagree with you on that" but rather more like "you are totally wrong and what you say is the opposite of reality." This type of statement seems unpalatable for many people now (and I'm not referring to scifi, who has always seemed reasonable).

I don't know if this affects his decision (feel free to correct me, brother) but over the years SciFi has gone from being more or less the political center of prominent Ornerians to its fringe left, while his views have not changed, remaining more or less mainstream left in national politics.   The Trump "Issue" (which I think I can sum up in Begalese: "It's the Courtesy, Stupid").. has ...

Ah forget it.  I'll miss you SciFi.

« Last Edit: October 24, 2019, 12:03:18 AM by Pete at Home »

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #79 on: October 24, 2019, 11:18:17 AM »
We should have a tribute to the fallen. I'm raising a cup (of coffee) in remembrance. This is just the start of the list. Feel free to add. Some left on their own. Some were taken from us. All are missed. Any would be welcomed back with open arms.

Daruma. Everard. Quato. Scott Stream. KnightEnder.