ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
This thread is meant to be a thread on principles and working analytical style, for the benefit of any who are new to politics and political passions. This is not meant to be controversial in and of itself, nor is it dependent on my own political viewpoint or favorite sources of information. In fact, I have had discussions especially with Real World, with whom I disagree on about everything, regarding a small subset of these ideas... and was horrified to find myself pretty much in agreement with him on the principals.
This is a thread on methodology for the newcomer. Campaigns are starting up, candidates are starting to buy their commercial time, and 08 is right around the corner. So, when digesting the raft of claims, counter-claims, and the like, what are good principals to go by?
1) The more sources, the better. The greater the spectrum of views you take in, the more likely you are to build a comprehensive mental picture of who means what by what they're saying.
2) 95% of the world is not American. Read foreign sources as well. Granted, we all root for the home team. But to get an objective impression of the Pats' chances this year, I don't go to our fan-site. I look at the Vegas line. Similarly, getting a spread of opinion (especially on foreign policy,) is a valuable adjunct to home-grown sources.
3) Track down some claims, all the way to the source. Yes, question everybody and everything. But don't rely on debunkers and debunkers of debunkers. Grab a claim on a key argument, drawn from something important to you or something in the news, and is fact-based. When both sides are reacting to a document, get the actual document. A report or summary is often a good starting ground. This gives you an idea who is spinning the full document how. The more often you do it the better. But [Your favorite news source] spin, [you favorite candidate's spin], etc., needs to be calibrated in a hands-on way. Even if you don't have the time to do it regularly, doing it a couple of times is incredibly instructive.
4) Take note of Ad Hominem arguments. A politician's political stances are what will affect his handling of his office. His record reflects his stances. Where he gets his money bears on how he will perform in office. Etcetera. But ad hominem attacks ("Against the man," as opposed to countering his arguments,) are almost completely content-free from a learner's/voter's/activist's perspective. What are his views? What is his record? Do you agree or disagree with him? These are the important things. The more ad hominem attacks, the more bankrupt the argument from first principles tends to be.
5) On Every Issue, Somebody's Gut is Dead Wrong. We've been talking for a while in this country about the importance of "the gut" in the field of politics (i.e., instinct, first-blush reactions, etc.) But on every issue, "guts" seem to align on at least two sides (that's why they're called issues.) The brain is the best analytical organ we've evolved, not the gut, even using gut as shorthand for "subconscious systems of value judgment." The conscious, reasoning mind is at least one thing that separates us from the lower animals. You may not trust the conscious reasoning mind either... but I'd hold it in higher esteem than something my cat has evolved to an equal level as me.
And those are my ideas for dipping a toe into that cesspool that is politics.
Good night, and good luck.
PFnV
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
This thread is meant to be a thread on principles and working analytical style, for the benefit of any who are new to politics and political passions. This is not meant to be controversial in and of itself, nor is it dependent on my own political viewpoint or favorite sources of information. In fact, I have had discussions especially with Real World, with whom I disagree on about everything, regarding a small subset of these ideas... and was horrified to find myself pretty much in agreement with him on the principals.
This is a thread on methodology for the newcomer. Campaigns are starting up, candidates are starting to buy their commercial time, and 08 is right around the corner. So, when digesting the raft of claims, counter-claims, and the like, what are good principals to go by?
1) The more sources, the better. The greater the spectrum of views you take in, the more likely you are to build a comprehensive mental picture of who means what by what they're saying.
2) 95% of the world is not American. Read foreign sources as well. Granted, we all root for the home team. But to get an objective impression of the Pats' chances this year, I don't go to our fan-site. I look at the Vegas line. Similarly, getting a spread of opinion (especially on foreign policy,) is a valuable adjunct to home-grown sources.
3) Track down some claims, all the way to the source. Yes, question everybody and everything. But don't rely on debunkers and debunkers of debunkers. Grab a claim on a key argument, drawn from something important to you or something in the news, and is fact-based. When both sides are reacting to a document, get the actual document. A report or summary is often a good starting ground. This gives you an idea who is spinning the full document how. The more often you do it the better. But [Your favorite news source] spin, [you favorite candidate's spin], etc., needs to be calibrated in a hands-on way. Even if you don't have the time to do it regularly, doing it a couple of times is incredibly instructive.
4) Take note of Ad Hominem arguments. A politician's political stances are what will affect his handling of his office. His record reflects his stances. Where he gets his money bears on how he will perform in office. Etcetera. But ad hominem attacks ("Against the man," as opposed to countering his arguments,) are almost completely content-free from a learner's/voter's/activist's perspective. What are his views? What is his record? Do you agree or disagree with him? These are the important things. The more ad hominem attacks, the more bankrupt the argument from first principles tends to be.
5) On Every Issue, Somebody's Gut is Dead Wrong. We've been talking for a while in this country about the importance of "the gut" in the field of politics (i.e., instinct, first-blush reactions, etc.) But on every issue, "guts" seem to align on at least two sides (that's why they're called issues.) The brain is the best analytical organ we've evolved, not the gut, even using gut as shorthand for "subconscious systems of value judgment." The conscious, reasoning mind is at least one thing that separates us from the lower animals. You may not trust the conscious reasoning mind either... but I'd hold it in higher esteem than something my cat has evolved to an equal level as me.
And those are my ideas for dipping a toe into that cesspool that is politics.
Good night, and good luck.
PFnV
I'll Drink To That
__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)
In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself
What, because I went elsewhere to get an opinion of the Pats' chances this year?
Absolutely. Under the Patriots' Act of 2007, BB and Pioli have the right to monitor your internet access, see whether you are reading PFW or SI and question you if you have friends who are Redskins fans; I'm guessing that someone in VA has friends who are Redskins fans.
They can also test your loyalty to 2 gap 3-4 and ask you what Justin Rogers likes to hunt. Apologies to Harry for the Football references!
I would second PFnVA's point about references and ad hominem attacks. I tend to take note of those guys on both sides of the political divide who use a variety of sources to back up their points.
I also read the posts of those who make their point without use of the word "moron" or similar. In both cases, it sometimes means that I have more time for some of my political "opponents" than my political "friends".
__________________
The blog of our recent trip to The States (September and October 2012):
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I would add that every newbie should keep in mind that liberals are more likely to be correct than conservatives. Their warnings about President Bush were very prescient.
I would add that every newbie should keep in mind that liberals are more likely to be correct than conservatives. Their warnings about President Bush were very prescient.
My advice is that anyone who gets too hung up on where their idology falls on some scale isn't worth talking to.
My advice is that anyone who gets too hung up on where their idology falls on some scale isn't worth talking to.
Amen. Doh! Sorry for the religious overtones!
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
Political Newbie Advice
Linear Mode
