Getting the Lies Out of Politics and Media (troper think tank)

Seeing way too much false equivalency in this thread for my liking.

The generalities aren't helping either. If you think there are specific issues where scientific fact-checking wouldn't be useful because of significant controversy in research, maybe point them out.

For a contrary example, it would be nice if we could get the news media as a whole to admit that human-caused climate change exists in a meaningful sense, given that every single reputable scientific organization that has anything to do with climate has acknowledged this.

Economics would probably be an example of a place where fact-checking would prove difficult because of how heavily politicized it is, but difficult != useless.

It's okay if people still have leeway to hedge and try to introduce ambiguity into things that really shouldn't be ambiguous purely for political convenience. Truthfulness oversight entities don't have to be perfect, just good enough to keep obvious bullshit from flying for long enough for an entire subculture to orchestrate itself on a foundation of bullshit. Then you let education empower people enough to apply critical thinking skills to the people they vote for to take care of the rest.

edited 21st Aug '12 9:08:45 AM by Karkadinn

The current ideology on Republican ideas is not valid. Cutting spending in a recession does not work. Thus, not both sides are valid. End of story. Please stop the false equivalency-it's embarrassing.

Do all that, and you might actually have a great foundation for a nation.

Anyway, skipping a bit ahead. What would the implications of this be?

What are the Pros?

What are the Cons?

The problem is that the Republican ideology does not conform to reality. They've made it abundantly clear they know this and just don't care because they want to remain in power through any shady means are necessary. Listening to them and giving them any benefit of doubt is an exercise in stupidity.

Well...they are honest about themselves?

No, they only make it clear indirectly-they don't actually SAY "our ideology is shit."

Fox is dedicated to promoting the view that the Republicans are right and they outright lie and distort to do this. I think the fact that they need to resort to stuff like that proves the Republicans don't really have a sound ideology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

And I like how it only took until the top of the third page to devolve into the usual "Republicans are objectively wrong in every way; stop defending them."

edited 21st Aug '12 10:00:26 AM by Boredman

Argument from fallacy is only a fallacy if you presume that the conclusion is false because of the fallacy. However, what's actually going on is that you are proving that the conclusion is not true. Due to the DELUGE of contrary evidence and reasoning, if a position is not proven true, it is generally held to be false, barring sufficient reason to suggest otherwise.

In short-don't throw Argument from Fallacy around when it's not appropriate. That's just sophistry.

Boredman: If republicans are wrong and shouldn't be defended, then to not say that would be a lie by omission. If Republicans aren't wrong, shouldn't a decent argument be able to be made that they're not?

Now, maybe that's unfair. You can ask "what specific issues do you insist Republicans are wrong about? I can't prove that they're not wrong in the general abstract, that's totally unfair!" and that'd be valid. But I've already given a pretty strong example about how deficit hawkism is counterproductive.

We can also discussion the "issues" of global warming and evolution.

edited 21st Aug '12 10:25:53 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

Well looky here:

And you haven't given evidence for anything here. You just said "It doesn't work". That's not even an argument.

edited 21st Aug '12 10:29:15 AM by Boredman

DAMMIT MAN, THE REPUBLICANS ARE WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING!

THE REPUBLICANS ARE SCUM, AND THEY NEED TO BE TREATED LIKE SCUM.

I DEMAND THAT THIS TROPER BE PERMA-BANNED FOR HIS HEINOUS CRIME OF DEFENDING REPUBLICANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I NEED SCISSORS! 61!

edited 21st Aug '12 10:42:06 AM by DeviantBraeburn

I wonder if Tomu is ever going to get tired of being forced to constantly re-explain things he's already elaborated on countless times for the sake of people just entering into a thread with little to no background on the metadiscussion. Even just a week's lurking would give you a lot of context to where you wouldn't feel the need to ask especially obvious questions.

We need to have some method of discouraging analyzing posts based on a vacuum where that poster's posting history is nonexistent, because that just forces repetition in debate to the point of insanity.

Post thumped for defending Republicans

Oh, sorry. I forgot how this forum's discussions are completely balanced and host a perfectly diverse number of political views, especially in the political threads.

edited 21st Aug '12 10:49:22 AM by Boredman

The above posters are dealing in hyperbole, but not by much. In whatever context you choose to place it, the main posters on this thread are arguing the following:

• We are gathered to agree on ways to get the lies out of politics.
• We are unquestionably correct, and they are unquestionably wrong.
• Arguments cannot actually be marshalled against us, save with the aid of lying.
• Ergo, getting the lies out of politics = forbidding arguments against us. The only real question is, how?

You'll forgive me if I'm not very interested in the details of how you wish to proscribe reasoned disagreement, or define it out of existence and then proscribe that.

edited 21st Aug '12 10:54:37 AM by Jhimmibhob

Were more balanced than most forms. But that says more about the quality of Internet forums than it does about us.

edited 21st Aug '12 10:55:35 AM by DeviantBraeburn

Again, if ANYONE has specific examples where they think the Republicans are worth defending, where there is genuine scientific/factual ambiguity rather than intentional dishonesty, or on the contrary major platform issues where the Democrats are being intentionally dishonest, then bring those issues up. Generalities do nothing to further discussion.

Gun Control.

And "the Fast and the Furious" (Yes, the Republicans were being hypocritical, but that doesn't mean they were wrong)

Okay, and do you have examples of Democrats using falsehoods within, let's say, the past five years, to support unreasonably and counterproductively harsh gun control measures?

From where I'm standing, it seems like a largely abandoned platform, despite the fact that the US is doing very poorly in firearm-related violence statistics (http://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/gun_violence/resources/the_u_s_compared_to_other_nations.html ). This has gotten them zero kudos from the NRA, which has accused the president of a bait and switch tactic wherein Obama supposedly does nothing against guns in his first term only to enact harsh anti-gun laws in his second term... a theory that has zero evidence to support it.

I'm also not seeing anything obvious in tFaF operation that directly relates to the Democrats lying, unless you simply assume that the White House not releasing every single document whenever a Republican asks for it is hiding something.

Here's a relevant bit from CNN (http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/ ), which kind of ties both these issues together somewhat. I link to think that CNN, while lolsworthy in many ways, does try hard to be neutral and can therefore avoid being automatically discounted for 'bias':

Edit: Fixed the links, it was just including part of the parentheses as part of the UR Ls.

edited 21st Aug '12 11:39:56 AM by Karkadinn

Furthermore, wasn't that program started under Bush to begin with?

The problem with the tFaF operation is Obama's interference.

This video explains it.

Also, the page isn't working.

Obama has been busy covering up Bush's crimes & torturing heroes like Bradley Manning for revealing the endemic abuses of that regime.

Both parties have monstrous attitudes to bombing brown people in faraway countries, and if you vote for either of them you're supporting that.

I think that if peaceniks started voting third party, thus giving the Republicans a clear sweep of elections for the next 10 years, there would ultimately be more violence rather than less. Now, that might be wrong-it's possible that, being annihilated in 2012 or whenever, Dems would reform to be more peaceful, and as thus, you would get a legitimate "let's not bomb the middle east" party in 2016, and the only cost would be the human tragedy that is Republican policy from 2012 to 2016.

I'm not convinced, but it is a valid theory.

Wow there, lets not play the race card. I support the bombing of all people, regardless of skin color.

If your not convinced of your own rather stupid theory, then why would you post it?

But now I fear the thread is going off-topic.

edited 21st Aug '12 11:47:06 AM by DeviantBraeburn

They'd have to do more than just vote: reducing democracy to filling in a piece of paper on one day is a pretty smart move on the part of the ruling classes, since it disenfranchises everyone in practice. There would have to be a campaign of civil disobedience against wars & protest in favour of electoral reform (to make third parties more viable).

But regardless, my post wasn't really about utilitarian evaluations: by giving your vote to those war-mongering assholes, you are legitimizing them & taking responsibility for their actions. Whether you're OK with that is between you & your conscience.

And Braeburn, the bombing of certain ethnic groups is racist in practice, though I'm sure the decision-makers actually don't care about race.

edited 21st Aug '12 11:49:13 AM by imadinosaur

Anyway, back on topic. How do we get lies out of politics?

Actually, back up:

Does anyone here think that we SHOULD have lies in politics, independent of whether it's possible to get rid of them.