01-18-2017, 02:04 PM
@ mr. masterpanthera - sorry in advance for cherrypicking. Some points, while interesting, don't really demand a response.
As for the nuance thing - I didn't really mean to tag black and white thinking as "wrong". In fact I try to be more distinct sometimes. Which doesn't mean not hearing out other sides, trying to grasp their viewpoint and be open for what they say. I might be more open minded than others, not gonna lie, I see it like that too sometimes. But it's way easier for me. I am an outsider and not part of your everyday colliding partisan stances and your whole machinery. If In were an American, I probably would be a distinct blue factionist, that's just how it is. But never mind that, for I'm not and hence I don't care on that level. Hence I'm more "open minded" strictly due to my outside position. There's not much more to it.
It would in fact derail too much if I would talk about that aspect in full detail. Let's just say it is puzzling for Europeans sometimes, the lack of middle ground that is. Red America doesn't bother with climate change, blue America suddenly wants to be a pioneer in fighting it, and now red America will probably drive everything back. Blue America (on federal or state level) in amazing quickness enforces gay marriage or marijuana legalization, Red America still talks about outlawing abortion and wants to fully repeal ACA. Compromises or middle ground is no longer part of the equation, it's really my people's ideas against your people's ideas, we take back what the other side did whereever possible, and since the fractions hardened significantly, it will stay that way.
Half of the people don't vote in that system, take themselves out of these debates, probably just frustrated. The diehard partisans still vote. Whatever people say about Trumps victory and the forgotten blue collar voters - certainly true, but the waaay bigger factor is people voting Trump for they have always voted red and will always vote red until eternity, the devil himself could run; same thing is true in blue. Out of devotion for the colour or out of despising the other colour.
Swing voters will go back and forth, opposition always attracts some, so power will always change hands between team red and team blue. It hardens stances and kills open debates, kills being open-minded. And it kills consistency, which is probably the biggest disadvantage of all. The losing side just waits fundamentally opposed, doesn't move an inch. And so does the winning side in knowing that. No consensus. And in the end, it's not just within youir parties or politicians, it's within your political system. That's the root of the problem. The politicians, the factionists, the divided society, the black and white thinking in political questions are mainly just a product of that system. Outsider again, your founding fathers were great men in their time, but now the system they drew out is severely outdated and not a fit for the 21st century America and for good politics. But if you Americans are united on one topic, it's in opposing that simple and honestly even hardly disputable fact.
The lack of nuance, now, is a "bad" thing regarding social or other issues where there is no clear-cut "truth" to be reached. To things like gay marriage there is no "truth", I happen to believe they should be granted every right, but that's a stance and not a "truth". How to fight drugs, how to deal with immigrants, what social policies should be reached or if health care should be state-run or if colleges should be free, these are all questions without an obvious "truth" to be reached. There I prefer nuance and compromise and seeing both sides, democratic processes, reaching a consensus or at least a broader support and all that.
And now back to the topic. The more "true" and "wrong" there is, the less I like the middle ground and the more I'm willing to be black and white. What taxes are necessary or how high they should be is a nunanced issue. That taxes are necessary in principle is not. They are necessary in principle, an other view is "wrong" to me. 2 + 2 = 4, that I consider a truth, and if 10% of people think it's five, I don't give a damn. I don't compromise in saying, ok, say it's 4.1 then and everyone's happy. I don't move an inch. Black and white. True and false. Climate change to me is similar, as soon as I believe the scientists that there is a problem and measures need to be taken, I don't bother about the other side's stance (unless science finds another "truth", which I suppose won't happen). The mere existence of an opposing view doesn't mean I need to acknowledge or respect it. I think it's a misleading narrative to even define the two sides of the argument as being equally valid and equally important just because both sides exist. Because there is a "truth".
You say you have no idea which side you're on? Choose the side of overwhelming evidence. You don't really see enough opinions on both sides. You have the side of the experts and the side of the doubters, and you either pick one side or stay indifferent and ignorant. Which is ok, for as you rightfully said - you have your own job and stuff to do, you can't know everything about every other topic, no time no proper education no insight. (Which in fact would be an argument for joining those who have these things due to their profession.)
But if you choose a side, I deeply believe there is just a right side and a wrong side here. The deniers' arguments can be debunked and exposed as knowledge-free in most of the cases (whenever there's a half-decent point, I still try to acknowledge that, sure. There just aren't many). In fact, how this could even be a major argument for you and others amazes me. Again, almost all the experts in the field agree. They have the data, the concept, the basic understanding, the lifetime to devote to that very topic. The opposing side claims (has to claim) that scientists are greedy and lie for the money - or that they are incompetent as no other profession. Which is kind of absurd. Just take a look at what the deniers say. They use their "common sense" to disgrace science (see the bizarre outings of Reps in Congressional hearings, snowballs and icecubes in a glass and global wobbling and all that nonsense). They claim a volcano has way more impact than we ever could have - because they simply "see it". They use debunked arguments like sun spots. They are wrong, plain and simple.
Nuance is to be applied when science admits they are not so sure about stuff either, or when some claims leave the grounds of hard facts, or when policy changes are demanded that would be devastating for the economy. One can regard with nuance wheter doomsday predictions are fair or exaggerated and to be opposed. There are all kinds of approaches regarding severity of CC, rightful reactions, policies, and they are mostly sustainable talking points. But the stance "it's a hoax" simply is not.
Now that's my take, I won't be mad if you take another one and believe the doubter nonsense, I just will tell you that it's nonsense. I won't tell you that there are nuances to the "true or hoax" debate and as a compromise between the two sides we need to do a little, but not too much or that I try to find middle ground and your opinion is just as valuable as the one of the experts. I will be very black and white on that one and believe that this is the right way to regard these problems.
As for the nuance thing - I didn't really mean to tag black and white thinking as "wrong". In fact I try to be more distinct sometimes. Which doesn't mean not hearing out other sides, trying to grasp their viewpoint and be open for what they say. I might be more open minded than others, not gonna lie, I see it like that too sometimes. But it's way easier for me. I am an outsider and not part of your everyday colliding partisan stances and your whole machinery. If In were an American, I probably would be a distinct blue factionist, that's just how it is. But never mind that, for I'm not and hence I don't care on that level. Hence I'm more "open minded" strictly due to my outside position. There's not much more to it.
It would in fact derail too much if I would talk about that aspect in full detail. Let's just say it is puzzling for Europeans sometimes, the lack of middle ground that is. Red America doesn't bother with climate change, blue America suddenly wants to be a pioneer in fighting it, and now red America will probably drive everything back. Blue America (on federal or state level) in amazing quickness enforces gay marriage or marijuana legalization, Red America still talks about outlawing abortion and wants to fully repeal ACA. Compromises or middle ground is no longer part of the equation, it's really my people's ideas against your people's ideas, we take back what the other side did whereever possible, and since the fractions hardened significantly, it will stay that way.
Half of the people don't vote in that system, take themselves out of these debates, probably just frustrated. The diehard partisans still vote. Whatever people say about Trumps victory and the forgotten blue collar voters - certainly true, but the waaay bigger factor is people voting Trump for they have always voted red and will always vote red until eternity, the devil himself could run; same thing is true in blue. Out of devotion for the colour or out of despising the other colour.
Swing voters will go back and forth, opposition always attracts some, so power will always change hands between team red and team blue. It hardens stances and kills open debates, kills being open-minded. And it kills consistency, which is probably the biggest disadvantage of all. The losing side just waits fundamentally opposed, doesn't move an inch. And so does the winning side in knowing that. No consensus. And in the end, it's not just within youir parties or politicians, it's within your political system. That's the root of the problem. The politicians, the factionists, the divided society, the black and white thinking in political questions are mainly just a product of that system. Outsider again, your founding fathers were great men in their time, but now the system they drew out is severely outdated and not a fit for the 21st century America and for good politics. But if you Americans are united on one topic, it's in opposing that simple and honestly even hardly disputable fact.
The lack of nuance, now, is a "bad" thing regarding social or other issues where there is no clear-cut "truth" to be reached. To things like gay marriage there is no "truth", I happen to believe they should be granted every right, but that's a stance and not a "truth". How to fight drugs, how to deal with immigrants, what social policies should be reached or if health care should be state-run or if colleges should be free, these are all questions without an obvious "truth" to be reached. There I prefer nuance and compromise and seeing both sides, democratic processes, reaching a consensus or at least a broader support and all that.
And now back to the topic. The more "true" and "wrong" there is, the less I like the middle ground and the more I'm willing to be black and white. What taxes are necessary or how high they should be is a nunanced issue. That taxes are necessary in principle is not. They are necessary in principle, an other view is "wrong" to me. 2 + 2 = 4, that I consider a truth, and if 10% of people think it's five, I don't give a damn. I don't compromise in saying, ok, say it's 4.1 then and everyone's happy. I don't move an inch. Black and white. True and false. Climate change to me is similar, as soon as I believe the scientists that there is a problem and measures need to be taken, I don't bother about the other side's stance (unless science finds another "truth", which I suppose won't happen). The mere existence of an opposing view doesn't mean I need to acknowledge or respect it. I think it's a misleading narrative to even define the two sides of the argument as being equally valid and equally important just because both sides exist. Because there is a "truth".
You say you have no idea which side you're on? Choose the side of overwhelming evidence. You don't really see enough opinions on both sides. You have the side of the experts and the side of the doubters, and you either pick one side or stay indifferent and ignorant. Which is ok, for as you rightfully said - you have your own job and stuff to do, you can't know everything about every other topic, no time no proper education no insight. (Which in fact would be an argument for joining those who have these things due to their profession.)
But if you choose a side, I deeply believe there is just a right side and a wrong side here. The deniers' arguments can be debunked and exposed as knowledge-free in most of the cases (whenever there's a half-decent point, I still try to acknowledge that, sure. There just aren't many). In fact, how this could even be a major argument for you and others amazes me. Again, almost all the experts in the field agree. They have the data, the concept, the basic understanding, the lifetime to devote to that very topic. The opposing side claims (has to claim) that scientists are greedy and lie for the money - or that they are incompetent as no other profession. Which is kind of absurd. Just take a look at what the deniers say. They use their "common sense" to disgrace science (see the bizarre outings of Reps in Congressional hearings, snowballs and icecubes in a glass and global wobbling and all that nonsense). They claim a volcano has way more impact than we ever could have - because they simply "see it". They use debunked arguments like sun spots. They are wrong, plain and simple.
Nuance is to be applied when science admits they are not so sure about stuff either, or when some claims leave the grounds of hard facts, or when policy changes are demanded that would be devastating for the economy. One can regard with nuance wheter doomsday predictions are fair or exaggerated and to be opposed. There are all kinds of approaches regarding severity of CC, rightful reactions, policies, and they are mostly sustainable talking points. But the stance "it's a hoax" simply is not.
Now that's my take, I won't be mad if you take another one and believe the doubter nonsense, I just will tell you that it's nonsense. I won't tell you that there are nuances to the "true or hoax" debate and as a compromise between the two sides we need to do a little, but not too much or that I try to find middle ground and your opinion is just as valuable as the one of the experts. I will be very black and white on that one and believe that this is the right way to regard these problems.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
