The Assault on Objectivity

[Fuzzy Bear]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/10/23/the_assault_on_objectivity_138422.html

While I am not in total agreement with this article, it is very much true, and very much concerning that our politics is driven by so much denial of objective fact.  It describes the process by which a society gets to the point where all of its disagreements are resolved by physical force, and that's not a good thing.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It detracts from the article considerably that it can't bother to mention any of the multiple right-wing assaults on objectivity.

[dead0man]

It detracts from the article considerably that it can't bother to mention any of the multiple right-wing assaults on objectivity.

a bit ironic isn't it.


Doesn't make the points raised wrong though.

[pbrower2a]

Points made in the confirmation hearings include that the current newest Justice is a troubled drinker, is a political extremist, and is prone to believing conspiracy stories about the Other Side. He is hyper-partisan on a position in which partisanship is unwelcome. This should have been known -- or it all either did not matter or was acceptable and even desirable to the pols who rammed him through the process of confirmation. The Republican Party and (then) Judge Kavanaugh made this clear without the aid of any 'politically-correct' Democrats even if the allegations of sexual assault were untrue. If you did not see the hearings yourself you may have seen them in parody on Saturday Night Live.

We now have a President who believes that even an ephemeral majority serves as a pretext for short-circuiting the checks and balances necessary for ensuring that a one-time bare majority does not become an excuse for entrenching itself. We have bare majorities in both Houses of Congress who enable this degradation of the norms of our Constitutional heritage.

Make America Great Again? Sure. If you loved Mussolini, you will like Trump.

   

[Person Man]

Another day, another right-wing projection.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It detracts from the article considerably that it can't bother to mention any of the multiple right-wing assaults on objectivity.

a bit ironic isn't it.


Doesn't make the points raised wrong though.

No, but it does make the intended conclusion profoundly wrong.

[dead0man]

It detracts from the article considerably that it can't bother to mention any of the multiple right-wing assaults on objectivity.

a bit ironic isn't it.


Doesn't make the points raised wrong though.

No, but it does make the intended conclusion profoundly wrong.

maybe, lets see

You must be logged in to read this quote.

like you said before, they are (conveniently) only sh**tting on one side here, but the conclusion (political violence is bad, m'kay, it makes more sense to use reason instead of emotion when forming opinions) is the right one.  Isn't it?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It detracts from the article considerably that it can't bother to mention any of the multiple right-wing assaults on objectivity.

a bit ironic isn't it.


Doesn't make the points raised wrong though.

No, but it does make the intended conclusion profoundly wrong.

maybe, lets see

You must be logged in to read this quote.

like you said before, they are (conveniently) only sh**tting on one side here, but the conclusion (political violence is bad, m'kay, it makes more sense to use reason instead of emotion when forming opinions) is the right one.  Isn't it?

But that's not the conclusion they intend readers to make. The conclusion they want made is that liberals are all fomenting a violent assault on righteous peaceful traditional values.

[Associate Justice PiT]

It detracts from the article considerably that it can't bother to mention any of the multiple right-wing assaults on objectivity.

a bit ironic isn't it.


Doesn't make the points raised wrong though.

No, but it does make the intended conclusion profoundly wrong.

maybe, lets see

You must be logged in to read this quote.

like you said before, they are (conveniently) only sh**tting on one side here, but the conclusion (political violence is bad, m'kay, it makes more sense to use reason instead of emotion when forming opinions) is the right one.  Isn't it?

But that's not the conclusion they intend readers to make. The conclusion they want made is that liberals are all fomenting a violent assault on righteous peaceful traditional values.

     I think it is worth noting that left-wing anti-factualism finds its roots in epistemic relativism (one of the most moronic ideas ever counseled by intelligent people, frankly). I don't see the need to reiterate the numerous points made by the author of that article, but this doctrine is in itself a refutation of the institutions upon which our nation is founded. Senator Hirono's statement, if taken seriously, would imply the demise of criminal justice and with it civil society, for factual truth can no longer be used as the basis of judging accusations of criminal wrongdoing, but rather the decision should be made based on ideological agenda. Those people who criticize President Trump's fast and loose relation with the truth (and make no mistake, I am quite aware that he lies like a rug) and think we should demand more of our public officials should be lining up to slam Senator Hirono for her comments. Instead, they seem to be quite willing to overlook this.

     It's not the case that only liberals are at fault, but there is plenty of cause for concern. That they couch their attacks in academic jargon makes it all the more insidious and all the more challenging to debunk. Given the extent to which academics are extended credence in their work by a large segment of society, I think there is important value in giving the arguments of academics and the polticians they influence on the left special attention in its own piece. If someone takes that to mean that only the left is bad, or alternatively tries to claim that the left has no problems in this regard, then that person is at best a fool.

[dead0man]

Indeed!  Everybody knows the right hates science and facts that don't fit the model of the universe in their tight little heads.  The left claims to be pro-science and pro-fact, and yeah, compared to the GOP, they are...but is being just barely better than the GOP enough for you guys?  It seems to be what you're going for in the civility department, I guess if you want to aim so damn low here too, us weirdo in the middle aren't going to stop you.


...but it don't make you look good.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The debate about objectivity is stupid in the sense that it is an argument about what evidence to look at, with people citing their own evidence as reasons to look at their evidence.

[darklordoftech]

It detracts from the article considerably that it can't bother to mention any of the multiple right-wing assaults on objectivity.

Here's some examples:

- The claim that global warming is a hoax
- The claim that the Sandy Hook shooting didn't actually happen
- The claim that tax cuts balance the budget by incentivizing productivity ("voodoo economics")
- The claim that Iran wasn't living up to the nuclear deal
- The claim that being LGBT is a choice

[ProudModerate2]

LOL.
The creator of this thread is discussing "objectivity," and how people are "driven by so much denial of objective fact."
Yet he spreads his religious bigotry against others (especially his comments related to those in the LGBT community) with such similar "denial of facts."
Ugggg.

[Cold War Liberal]

This article takes a legitimate discussion we should be having and approaches it in a bad way. It reads like something Jordan Peterson would write, complete with the meaningless buzzphrase "postmodern intellectuals."

[Progressive Pessimist]

Another day, another right-wing projection.

[Chinggis]

I'm reading this thread under the influence of two ambiens and it makes perfect sense,,,, or no sense at all? Can't decipher, I feel like i'm on shrooms right now.

Is it absolute truth or is utter trash>

Please help.                    =           

[Green Line]

Both sides are part of the problem.

[Orser67]

I think that #MeToo and Black Lives Matter are, overall, good movements that are seeking needed reforms. But I do agree that sometimes the rush to support individuals associated with those movements is troubling. And honestly I think that a lot of left-wing college groups have really gotten out of hand.

However, it's more than a little notable that the author only pointed out movements associated with liberals. From my perspective, conservatives are even worse about that sort of thing.

[Badger]

It detracts from the article considerably that it can't bother to mention any of the multiple right-wing assaults on objectivity.

a bit ironic isn't it.


Doesn't make the points raised wrong though.

No, but it does make the intended conclusion profoundly wrong.

maybe, lets see

You must be logged in to read this quote.

like you said before, they are (conveniently) only sh**tting on one side here, but the conclusion (political violence is bad, m'kay, it makes more sense to use reason instead of emotion when forming opinions) is the right one.  Isn't it?

But that's not the conclusion they intend readers to make. The conclusion they want made is that liberals are all fomenting a violent assault on righteous peaceful traditional values.

Correct answer. Sadly, that is the fundamental point of this article. That political violence is bad is merely a backdrop here.

[TJ in Oregon]

I think things have actually gotten a lot better in this regard in the last couple years. Political speech has basically always been riddled with outright lies and slippery implicature; we just used to be more oblivious to it. Now everything is so transparently craven that it is obvious. Clearly, this is still not how things ought to be, but I honestly do think that having this all right out in the open now is an improvement. The next step along the road to rebuilding a virtuous society is seeing the human in your enemies instead of being instantaneously offended at implicature aimed our own directions, which is, in our modern times, one of the greater acts of humility.

[Meclazine for Israel]

There is one reason no one references Atlas forum posts from other threads in their discussion.

Because ultimately, it is full of subjective opinion that even the people posting realise is ultimately garbage and can only be supported by someone else having either:

(a) the same opinion; or
(b) an opposing insult to the opposite argument (more common on Atlas).

Politics is a difficult one to discuss using an online platform. We have not set up a very level playing field, because if you post something that is objective, chances are that someone will be offended because it contrasts with their subjective view of how they want to live their life.

The 'easily offended' have taken over.

For example, everyone to the right of Chairman Mao is a right wing fascist at Atlas.

Some really dumbass analysis that you dont even have to argue against get's spewed out. It's self-evident that it is dross. And that is why it is never referenced in future discussions.

Objectivity in this place is not going to happen.

The forum is subjective analysis of a very subjective topic.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Both sides are part of the problem.

Indeed. If the Dems, the press, and the majority of the body public were truly objective, the Republican Party would be a fringe hate group, instead of being allowed to continue it's relentless assaults on truth, justice, and our representative government.

[GP270watch]

Republicans create museums to brainwash children to disbelieve science that is solid and established. That pretty much tells you everything you need to know.