Misusing Facts for Opinion.

[Stoicish]

If you haven't already figured it out people in this country are greatly divided on certain key issues.

However I find it oddly fascinating that people will distort the truth or just a situation to better fit their opinion on what is going on in the world.

I'm sure Psychology can explain this, but I'm not a psychologist so I have to make due with formulated opinion.

Anyway, for a while now I've been talking with a conservative friend (and don't get angry at me I just don't have a lot of liberal friends) about politics and certain situations. This person is dead set on what they believe and it takes a lot to budge them to even compromise. So it gave me time to talk to this person for a while and to see where their views were at.

Now obviously the center around what is typically conservative; religion, freedom, snarls at liberals, etc. So over the course of time I would discuss current issues with the person and start noting (in my head) what the reaction would be. Eventually this would turn to a point where this person would start to throw issues and stories my way that this person had found.

After long discussions, some of which turned to arguments, I have formed several conclusions.

1. Never assume that anyone one person can be objective. Everyone is partisan. The only difference is how they handle it. Politely: "I just don't care for the new Democrat health plan." or Douche-Nozzle: "Obamacare will be a train wreck because those damn libtards don't know what they are doing."

2. Polls are useless to everyone but Political Science professors. Let's face it. Once someone see's a poll that goes in their favor then they go, "See! This proves that the rest of the country thinks like me!" even though the question could have been, "Are you in favor for electing Stan Stanly who favors rape: Yes or No?" In contrast, if the poll shows something completely opposite, but ask the question correctly the person will then charge that poll as rubbish or assume it has an agenda behind it. So therefor polls are entirely useless because in the end no one really trusts them regardless of reliability.

3. The only thing that has kept Centrist and Moderates from shooting themselves is the horrible optimism they have to think they can actually change a person's mind when, in fact, in the back of their head they know all hope is lost and they might as well sit this out and ride the wave of the apocalypse.

4. Provide information that is plain as day about a candidate to a person's face and their trust of them is so deep that they will dismiss it as the opposition is lying and ignore the information as such. In the end the person will accept said information, but either try to pass it off as they knew all the time and they didn't represent the party as a whole or just make something up to cover their ass for looking silly this entire time. The exemption to this rule is that anyone who believes Obama wasn't born in the United States should be looked at as if they were an escaped mental patient and treated as such. (NOTE: The author of this will most likely use rule 4 if Obama is found out not to be born in America).

5. When it comes to hot issues and Senate/Governor races people from all 49 states will assume that person won because of one issue or that it somehow is wrapped around what they believe. The person who lives in that said state everyone is talking about forgot to wake up to vote this morning, but would like to point out that everyone in the other states are retarded. EX: The current Mass. Senate race.

Why do people do this?

I mean a great example is the current Mass. Senate race. As I am writing this I dunno who is going to win, but signs point to Brown. Still my friend thinks that people in Mass. are voting for the guy because of the current health bill in Congress and I pointed to my friend that, "You don't live in Mass. so stop being an idiot." My friend made the assumption because that is a hot button issue with my friend rather what is actually pressing withing the state of Massachusetts.

Any thoughts on my ideas?

[adrshepard]

At 1/19/10 08:05 PM, Stoicish wrote: After long discussions, some of which turned to arguments, I have formed several conclusions.
Any thoughts on my ideas?

All true; unfortunately, recognizing them means nothing except to yourself. The people that think hard about the issues, do their research, and look at all claims about a controversy with healthy skepticism are a very small minority. There are two reasons why: 1. Understanding complex issues takes time and effort. The average person is hugely disconnected with national issues, since taxes and government spending only affect daily life very slightly, short of some dramatic change.
2. The benefits of being politically well informed are small. Sure, you can use your superior analytical skills to persuade others, but that takes even more effort and time. It's frustrating, too, when you realize that most people aren't best convinced through logic-driven arguments. I personally think that it's a sign of wisdom, but intelligence doesn't go very far unless you apply in ways that actually do something.

As a campaigning candidate, it only makes sense to use whatever will work to get elected, even if it means including half-truths and distortions. After all, the important thing is how you use your office, not how you get elected.
Even if you can't accept it, better to just forget about it and focus on other areas of your life. Dwelling on it will only breed frustration at your own impotence to do anything about it.

[Stoicish]

That is terribly depressing.

[TokingFire]

You read Orwell's Notes on Nationalism, didn't you?

[Stoicish]

At 1/20/10 12:36 AM, TokingFire wrote: You read Orwell's Notes on Nationalism, didn't you?

No.

Should I?

[TokingFire]

At 1/20/10 12:38 PM, Stoicish wrote:

At 1/20/10 12:36 AM, TokingFire wrote: You read Orwell's Notes on Nationalism, didn't you?

No.

Should I?

If you want to lose the rest of your hope for the human race--I insist that you do.

Notes on Nationalism

[aviewaskewed]

At 1/19/10 08:05 PM, Stoicish wrote: If you haven't already figured it out people in this country are greatly divided on certain key issues.

I get the feeling you didn't completely finish that thought :). There's a few choice words I'd have ended that statement with, haha.

However I find it oddly fascinating that people will distort the truth or just a situation to better fit their opinion on what is going on in the world.

I don't, it's common sense based on the patterns of the voting public. If people heard the truth of "hey, I can fix your economic problems, and lower your taxes...but it'll take many many years, I'll probably only be able to lay the framework, and we have to hope the next guy will stick with it sure...but they CAN be lowered!" No one would vote for that. They vote for what you say you can do RIGHT NOW!!!

That's why Obama is having problems, he promised a lot, and people thought he was black Jesus or something and he'd fix everything the second he got into office. People got spoiled when the good times were rolling in the 90s and believed all they had to do was get rid of George Bush to make them come back. They got hit by a hard dose of reality and if Obama had been truthful he wouldn't have gotten elected. Politicians are all hyperbole and bullshit because they know bluster gets you the job, not your actual resume or the things you'd really conceivably be able to do.

Anyway, for a while now I've been talking with a conservative friend (and don't get angry at me I just don't have a lot of liberal friends) about politics and certain situations. This person is dead set on what they believe and it takes a lot to budge them to even compromise. So it gave me time to talk to this person for a while and to see where their views were at.

Firstly, I don't think it's a bad thing to get opposite viewpoints. It's a damn fine idea not to always be listening to the same sources that always agree with you. You just have to have a filter built in to sift the truth from the bullshit, like a prospector sifting gravel away from the gold.

The rest of what you said tends to be in line with what I tend to think. The Mass race is funny because it reminds me of when the pundits were debating the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia where Republicans unseated Dems and wondered if that was a message for Obama. Hey, I can't speak for Virginia, I don't live there. But I DO live in New Jersey, I voted for Obama, and I then voted for Chris Christie. The two things had nothing to do with each other for me, it was purely because John Corzine was an AWFUL governor who was a cronie of the political bosses, the special interests, and did huge amounts to make the state even more unaffordable to live in. A change was needed so Jersey voted for a change. I don't believe for a second that was anything other then local politics at work.

[NOTunowned]

like anyone on these boards, i said before, there is superior discussion elsewhere

instead of "neerds more arnie"

[adrshepard]

At 1/20/10 06:08 PM, NOTunowned wrote: like anyone on these boards, i said before, there is superior discussion elsewhere

instead of "neerds more arnie"

I interpret your Engrish to be the following : "Like I said before to others on this board, there are better forums out there."

So I ask you, where?

[NOTunowned]

oh look, its the guy who thinks because it tastes good, its good for you

engrish is for asians, no go drink antifreeze because it's sweet

[Koriner]

In my own oppinion. Politicians almost always have to distort facts and use half truthes, becuase by doing so it allows them to appeal to their current audience with what they want to hear. Or it allows them to promote their own agenda. as previously stated, no one is impartial. we all do what we can to make ourselves in the lead. Also politicians rely on their audience not knowing all the facts and taking what they say as truth. this is what lead to the huge outcry of 'No Death Panels' when there was actualy no such thing anywhere in the bill. No one that debated these death panels actually read into the topic, because if they did they would know that there was no such thing. But if a politician can find a flaw in their opponent, or make up a flaw in their opponent, they will take that oppurtunity. because they beleive that if the others look worse that makes them look better. Half truthes and fact manipulation has always been a problem in politics and always will be.

[Musician]

At 1/20/10 06:39 PM, adrshepard wrote: I interpret your Engrish to be the following : "Like I said before to others on this board, there are better forums out there."

So I ask you, where?

Not sure that's what he meant to say, but if you're looking for better boards to discuss politics on, these are the ones I tend to browse these days.

http://forums.xkcd.com/viewforum.php?f=9 &sid=9d5fdfe6301c7b7b449ba6c83a33895d

For less formal political debate and discussion of news

http://forums.xkcd.com/viewforum.php?f=8 &sid=9d5fdfe6301c7b7b449ba6c83a33895d

For formal, heavily moderated discussion of news and politics

Most people on newgrounds don't know their ass from their head when it comes to politics, which is why I don't really bother to post here anymore. You'll probably have better luck finding an intelligent, insult-free debate on XKCD