Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
“People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?” Rodney King 5/1/92
The arguments and divisions politically here and throughout this country are rampant and destructive. Anger and hatred of others of differing opinions rises at times to fever pitch and I admit that I am part of the problem as much as anyone else is. This is a somewhat different piece in that I am going to present some national problems, as I see them and elicit your comments on them, in an attempt to discover whether there is some common ground agreement, on some things plaguing our society. While I am more interested in whether or not people agree that these are indeed problems for us all to consider and work to solve, it is certainly apropos for people to comment on what they believe the solutions to be.
This is an experiment on the viability of people agreeing on the premise that a problem exists in a given area. We cannot begin to resolve issues, unless we first agree that they are issues to be contemplated by the entire body politic. My hope is to engender real, civil discussion and perhaps at the end reach something like consensus. This is not a plea for Bi-Partisanship because to me that is a fantasy, whoever may utter it. To be “partisan” is to hold strong opinions and srong opinions do not resolve themselves into agreement. The resolution reached by “partisans” is always one of compromise, without either side changing their core beliefs, but agreeing to take part of the loaf. I am “experimenting” to see if many of the diverse viewpoints represented here can at least agree that a specific issue is indeed a problem, or if it is indeed an issue. Beyond writing this, I will not take part in the ensuing discussion, since the formulation itself indicates my views on whether these are indeed problems. I will limit my questions to legal issues, with no particular order of importance intended.
A. Does the fact that we have the highest incarceration rate of any nation in the world indicate a problem?
B. Given the overcrowding and long delays inherent in our legal system, do we need to do something to reform it?
C. Have our Constitutional Rights been diminished?
D. Has the policing authority both State and Locally been extended beyond permissible bounds.
E. Has the War on Drugs been a failure and added to addiction rather than restricting it?
F. From the perspective of criminal/civil procedure, has the Right to Privacy been terminated and/or restrictively diminished?
G. Does State and Federal Government have the right to criminalize non-coercive sexual acts between adults?
H. Should the States and Federal Government admit the “War on Drugs” is a failure and seek new methods to deal with addiction?
As an illustration of what I am looking for I will present this. FFLEO and I both voted for Barack Obama, even though FFLEO and I have very different political and partisan beliefs. Yet we both agree that he has been an awful President. Where we respectfully disagree is that he has stated he will never vote for Obama again and I have stated I might, if there are no alternatives that seem viable. The most important element is that we, though vastly different politically, agree on the nature of the problem. With that agreement, there comes a mutual respect and a future hope of resolution, even though one is not now apparent or even likely. If there is no agreement on whether something is at least a problem, then the legacy of that disagreement is ongoing, unresolved strife.
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
Bob,
You have fallaciously misrepresented my positions ever since we first started to tangle*. I have pointed it out on occasions too numerous to count. You are intellectually dishonest and have some profound misunderstandings of physics (I can only guess at what the rest of your mind holds… other than the massive idol of Kant). As I have repeatedly pointed out, I wasn’t obnoxious until AFTER I HAD MADE MY ARGUMENT. At that point, I saw no reason not to comment on those I saw as bad actors – all this happened before you and your massive ego swooped in. Yes, I was snarky, I was mean, I was arrogant – but none of you have provided any argument that I was wrong. Why is that?
I’m happily returning to my delusions (you wouldn’t believe the size of my delusions right now – or are they possibilities?) now, Bob – I’ll let you know how that works out for me.
*I would note that you hardly ever argue about positions or beliefs of your own – you just attack other people’s arguments most of the time (if your arguments regarding Dr. Jones and his “thermite” dust are any indication it’s because you suck at it…). That strikes me as pretty cowardly – just my opinion.
Slarti: “Since everything you said is based on a fallacy”
That’s a lie and you know it. Everything I said was the truth and you did nothing to refute it save your making your false accusation above.
Anon called you out for making an obnoxious remark and I simply showed how you failed to make an argument in the process.
Only in your world Kevin, can a person be deemed a ‘bad actor’ for telling you the truth about yourself.
Enjoy your delusions.
Thanks Gene H.
@slarti, “Good luck eradicating snark from the intertoobs…”
I can’t. But I can tell people that I would otherwise respect that their behavior wrt snark overload is bogus.
Sadly, it’s mainly a demonstration of Sturgeon’s law but it has taken some otherwise very fine sites, and decreased the snr to where the sites are damage that I have to route around.
anon,
I just reviewed my participation in this thread and found that I did not instigate the devolution of the discussion and that it also occurred after I had decided that the answer to the implicit question of the thread was no – substantive discussion cannot occur in the presence of bad actors. I never claimed to be a saint and I think it’s funny how you try to put me and OS on pedestals so you can try to knock us off. I claim to be a scientist – lots of scientists are assholes (Feynman wasn’t a saint either, by the way…) and that doesn’t mean that they are bad scientists. I applaud Mike Spindell’s effort here, but I believe that the empirical evidence is clear – the kind of discussion that I wish to have is much more easily accomplished in the absence of those such as Bob, Roco, tom, and yourself. So I’m going to go try having discussions without people like you and see what happens. Maybe I’ll write a paper about it someday…
Regarding your latest comment: I have identified a different problem with the thread than you did. I can fix what I see to be the problem and plan on doing so. I suggest you try to do likewise. Good luck eradicating snark from the intertoobs… 😉
Bob,
I’d already decided that tom’s comments were worthless before the discussion about the D-K effect arose – and I had made substantive responses to brief criticisms up until that point. Since everything you said is based on a fallacy, I’m just going to ignore it. But thank you for giving me further empirical evidence demonstrating that productive discussion cannot survive bad actors.
Bob Esq:
“The true relevance of Dunning Kruger here goes to the issue of Kevin’s poor argumentation skills and the irony in his failure to become aware of his mistakes due to his own arrogance. ”
And why I posted the study above about knowledge in one realm not necessarily transferring well to another.
Like anon I to am tired of having discussion stifled by throwing that around like a fishwife with carp.
Roco,
It doesn’t matter what study Kevin and OS cited and what you’re arguing in particular is irrelevant. This is a simple issue of argumentation procedure. Again, what Anon said is dead on balls accurate.
It bears repeating:
In lieu of addressing his opponent’s argument, Slarti resorted to an insult unfounded by reasons for said insulting claim.
Slarti: “If it is being used to RIGHTLY dismiss INFERIOR arguments then it is a good thing”
Arguing is reason giving; and Slarti gives no reasons to support his claim that his opponent made an inferior argument.
The true relevance of Dunning Kruger here goes to the issue of Kevin’s poor argumentation skills and the irony in his failure to become aware of his mistakes due to his own arrogance. This is the same arrogance that causes Kevin’s addiction to special pleading.
anon, it was undoubtedly a WordPress hiccup. I have had the same thing happen to me several times. It seems totally random, as far as I can tell. No rhyme or reason.
anon,
I was just in the moderation queue and you didn’t end up there, but for some reason, your D-K comment did get flagged as spam. It’s likely a WordPress bug, but your comment has been removed from the spam filter and should appear shortly.
@slarti
“That’s bullshit and you should be honest about it. What you were doing was making a snarky comment that one of the commenters was an idiot.
Yes, OS and I were making a snarky comment about someone being an idiot – which is not inconsistent with my characterization above. ”
It’s totally inconsistent with all the values you would claim for yourself or have us believe about you or OS.
And it’s a waste of everyone’s time.
And it’s beyond ridiculous you would do this in a thread that asks “can we all just get along” and try to justify to us all that you are reasonable for doing so.
What you do is ensure we are all divided and conquered and you help to perpetuate the power disparities that probably all of us reading Turley’s blog would like to put an end to, regardless of our political affiliations.
@OS,
I answered you, but the comment never posted. In the past 48 hours, I seem to be having problems getting some comments to post. Some I can fish out of the chrome input field cache, but they still won’t post, because wordpress then says I’ve already posted the comment.
I am not sure if I’ve been flagged as spam, banned, or whether it’s certain keywords I’ve included. I don’t know if it’s a wordpress bug, but it sure is annoying.
It was a real good response to until wordpress went beep beep beep.
Slarti, I was tempted to reply, “I don’t know.” But I won’t. Come to think of it….
Hhmmmmm….
OS,
I don’t feel strongly about it. But I have had it with snark. It’s mostly used to not listen to people, to not engage with people, to dismiss people without a second thought. That’s basically a waste of my time as well as rude. I especially dislike it when it comes from self-claimed liberals with claims they are more tolerant, more nuanced, more reality based than others.
I come from an era in which an argument was a collected series of statements intended to support a proposition. It wasn’t the automatic ad hominem and bullying we see today.
Instead of pondering if a certain post is a DK post or not, which in point of fact you cannot tell over the net, I would prefer you just state you think person X is an idiot, beneath you, and their contributions deserving only of contempt. But you are too cowardly to do that, and so instead you use snark as a proxy and as a dog whistle.
What I would actually prefer is what Mike and even rafflaw were getting at, a conversation, discussion or even argument amongst people that would other seem to disagree.
Calling out DK and Denier and Fascist and Atheist and Democrap and Libtard and Teabagger and Rethuglican and Misogynist and Soros and Koch and Creationist and Conservatard and Bitter Old White Guy and Palinista and Teahaddist and Alinsky and Ayers and Communist and Socialist and all that crap is crap.
It’s crap dude and it keeps us divided and conquered and it keeps the Man and the Corporations laughing to the bank.
Over the weekend at Salon, a mother was very concerned with what to do if her daughter grows up to be a Republican. Salon thought this was fit to print.
Roco,
I asserted that it was MY OPINION that anon didn’t understand Dr. Feynman – either I’m lying or my assertion is true.
anon said:
OS,
I wonder if these people are so concerned about the D-K effect because, deep down, they believe that it is true and that it reflects poorly on them…
(how was that for snark?)
anon, you apparently feel strongly about that issue. We come back to the original point. An argument or expression of an idea is NOT an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. First of all, an idea or opinion cannot be such an effect. However, the opinion may be the RESULT of the D-K effect. There is a difference.
@slarti,
“In fact, we were pointing out that, in our opinion, some of the inane comments were likely examples of the D-K effect. ”
That’s bullshit and you should be honest about it. What you were doing was making a snarky comment that one of the commenters was an idiot.
And that’s the common reason why at sites all across the net, people bring up the Dunning Kruger effect. It’s just a sarcastic way of dismissing someone as an idiot.
You’re upset with me because I called you and OS on it and now you’re trying to justify it.
Don’t justify it. Just say, “welcome to the net”.
And understand that a lot of us see that sort of crap for what it is. Snark. And not an argument.
(It is also pretty darn trite for reasons given above.)
“Dr. Slarti, do you suppose our friend Tom has heard of the Dunning–Kruger effect? If not, perhaps he should reflect on it a bit.”
Slarti:
If your assertion is true then it is true. Although if your assertion is wrong it does not mean you are a liar. You are just incorrect.
Your opinion that anon does not understand Dr. Feynman is an opinion. I have listened to Dr. Feynaman on Youtube, I certainly understand what he has to say on Physics up to a point and the non-Physics ideas are certainly understandable.
You have no knowledge of what anon knows or doesnt know and I have no knowledge of what you know or dont know. How do i know your level of knowledge in Physics is sufficient to understand what anon knows or doesnt know? You are asking me to take on faith that you know enough Physics to say anon doesnt know what he is talking about.
OS,
Exactly – but why should they bother responding to what was actually said?
FWIW, I was pointing out that some arguments probably had their genesis in the D-K effect. An argument or point of view itself is NOT an example of the D-K effect.