2020 Election

[Dill]

(07-31-2020, 10:22 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As I said earlier, Dill's posts in this regard eerily resemble exactly what he's attempting to argue against, a "I'm right and your wrong" and "only stupid people would think that way" sort of mentality.

Dill is arguing against a right-wing style of politics which has developed largely with the internet over the last three decades, and which bears the bulk of responsibility for what I have elsewhere called "broken judgment"--the inability to separate science from religion, business ideology or Trumpism; the construction of expertise as liberal elites who "look down" on the rest of us; the inability recognize that the NYT and WaPo are more authoritative and accurate sources of news analysis and commentary than Fox, Rush, OAN, and especially Trump; and the dismissal of evidence-based arguments in favor of magical thinking, conspiracies, and name-calling with a concomitant embrace of authoritarian leadership which scoffs at rule of law. The result is a Trump "base" willing to take his and Putin's word over the US intel community, a base easily diverted from investigations into the president's conduct by the cry of "Russia/Ukraine/Pandemic Hoax."  Yes. I'm right, they are wrong about those "hoaxes," and about anthropogenic climate change.

Because Dill's posts have for years now been calls to recall standards of logic and norms of civic discourse and apply them to public discourse, not break down that discourse, they don't "eerily resemble exactly what he's attempting to argue against"--unless one just cannot tell the difference from the get go. That's the basis of "both sidesism."

You refute this position not by calling me "eerily like them," but by showing where they are right and I am wrong. Explain why it is "wrong" to believe Fauci's pandemic warnings and "right" to believe Trump's dismissals. Refute the charge that Trump's base embraces his authoritarian leadership. Pick any "hoax"--climate science, Ukrainian interference in the US election, Trump's credibility vs the US intel agencies. I don't think you can show where my use of evidence and logic parallels that of Alex Jones or Sean Hannity or Trump himself--i.e. what I am arguing against. You can claim it, always, with bald assertions, but you cannot show it.