How to overcome ideological prejudice in our arguments?

[Riverwind]

This is precisely the kind of thing I'm talking about. So the politicization of environmental issues is uniquely a leftwing issue?

The environmental issues become politicized because people insist on mixing up their ideologically preferred policies with the science. For example, even if one accepted the IPCC claim that we are headed to 4degC of warming if we do nothing it does not automatically follow that a Kyoto-style agreements with binding emission reduction targets is the best way to address the problem. Yet if you suggest that most environmentalists will be calling you a 'science-denier' because the Kyoto-style agreements suit their ideological preferences. Edited December 18, 2009 by Riverwind

[g_bambino]

For example, in another thread I took issue with the claim that there was something inherently wrong with Canadians emitting more CO2 than the world average. I tried to make a logical - even mathematical - argument to explain why I felt that. But in the end it was impossible for someone with a socialist/communist ideological framework to comprehend my argument. To them unequal emissions is simply 'unfair' and there can be no debate.

This harkens back to something I read a few months ago regarding new media and its negative effect on our society. In essence, the author argued that the proliferation of sources and types of media permitted by the internet and satellites has actually led to a greater polarisation of society. Whereas, the limited number of newspapers and television stations previously forced us to be more frequently exposed to that which we didn’t agree with, we now have the ability to read and watch only what comfortably dovetails with our own personal opinions. The result is individuals with a general ignorance of the world beyond the end of their own nose, which, in turn, hinders their ability to communicate; when neither party understands the paradigms and language of their opponent, there’s little left to do but hurl obscene insults at each other.

[Michael Hardner]

This harkens back to something I read a few months ago regarding new media and its negative effect on our society. In essence, the author argued that the proliferation of sources and types of media permitted by the internet and satellites has actually led to a greater polarisation of society. Whereas, the limited number of newspapers and television stations previously forced us to be more frequently exposed to that which we didn’t agree with, we now have the ability to read and watch only what comfortably dovetails with our own personal opinions. The result is individuals with a general ignorance of the world beyond the end of their own nose, which, in turn, hinders their ability to communicate; when neither party understands the paradigms and language of their opponent, there’s little left to do but hurl obscene insults at each other.

This is a good observation. Separate forums of discussion does not work well with the American democracy model, which was based on an era of town hall discussions, and debates in popular pamphlets.

I would also say we oddly actually have less difference in our major party policies while all this dissent is going on.

[Riverwind]

In essence, the author argued that the proliferation of sources and types of media permitted by the internet and satellites has actually led to a greater polarisation of society.

That is very true. I suspect it is worse than you think. For example, blogs and websites promoting climate alarmism advertise the fact that they block comments by sceptics which 'spread lies and misinformation'. IOW - people are not only retreating into echo chambers - they are locking the doors to keep people with different views out. This is one of the reasons why I like MLW - it is one of few places around that is not an echo chamber. Edited December 18, 2009 by Riverwind

[Machjo]

That goes back some ways, predating climate change. Since at least the 1980s, certain branches of science, generally science and geology, have decried as Leftist disciplines by social conservatives, who often tended to be Biblical literalists and Creationists to one degree or another. Climate is only the latest target.

And again, there are different kinds of social conservatives. There are what we might call the moralists, who believe in government preserving certain moral values of whatever religion in society, but who otherwise can be quite open to metaphorical understandings of their sacred texts and accept science.

Then we have literalists who insist the earth is flat based on various interpretations of their sacred texts. But again, the literalists might be more than willing to come up with very liberal interpretations of the moral codes of their sacred texts such as the Sermon on the Mount.

And then you have those who are both moralists and literalists, and what we might call popular or religionists who are just religious in name, etc. etc. etc.

So again, even the term 'social conservative can have various meanings'.

[g_bambino]

Separate forums of discussion does not work well with the American democracy model, which was based on an era of town hall discussions, and debates in popular pamphlets.

I would also say we oddly actually have less difference in our major party policies while all this dissent is going on.

It doesn't work in any democracy model; democracy requires public discourse, which itself requires opposition (the root of discourse being the Latin discursus, or "running back and forth").

It would seem to me that Canadian parties do remain more similar than dissimilar in their general policies, differing mostly in the details of how to achieve the goals (even our most conservative Conservatives being more socialist than most American Democrats). However, I sometimes sense that a gradual reorganisation is going on, our political landscape morphing into something closer to the polarised construct south of the border, and me no likey.

[Riverwind]

That goes back some ways, predating climate change. Since at least the 1980s, certain branches of science, generally science and geology, have decried as Leftist disciplines by social conservatives, who often tended to be Biblical literalists and Creationists to one degree or another. Climate is only the latest target.

Now you are showing your own ideological biases. People sceptical of climate change tend to be libertarians that share little common ground with social conservatives.

[Michael Hardner]

It doesn't work in any democracy model; democracy requires public discourse, which itself requires opposition (the root of discourse being the Latin discursus, or "running back and forth").

It would seem to me that Canadian parties do remain more similar than dissimilar in their general policies, differing mostly in the details of how to achieve the goals (even our most conservative Conservatives being more socialist than most American Democrats). However, I sometimes sense that a gradual reorganisation is going on, our political landscape morphing into something closer to the polarised construct south of the border, and me no likey.

It might work if people didn't invest so much into their political identity. Is that realistic ? I'm not sure - maybe with time.

I think we will see new institutions rising to address the problems we have with our media. We have a hybrid of public and masses, and it doesn't work.

[g_bambino]

IOW - people are not only retreating into echo chambers - they are locking the doors to keep people with different views out.

Exactly. Such websites are currently the most extreme examples; but, I think we can start pointing out where the same attitude is bleeding into main stream media.

[eyeball]

Aye, there's the rub. But why would you expect the power dynamic that applies to governments to be any different in humans beings? That is after all what governments are made of.

Truly. Consider how China has probably been the most strident lecturer at Copenhagen to the need to put the metal to the pedal of capitalism.

I imagine Wen Jiabao is probably as exasperated with all the bleeding heart lefties infesting Copenhagen as Harper is.

[Machjo]

It doesn't work in any democracy model; democracy requires public discourse, which itself requires opposition (the root of discourse being the Latin discursus, or "running back and forth").

It would seem to me that Canadian parties do remain more similar than dissimilar in their general policies, differing mostly in the details of how to achieve the goals (even our most conservative Conservatives being more socialist than most American Democrats). However, I sometimes sense that a gradual reorganisation is going on, our political landscape morphing into something closer to the polarised construct south of the border, and me no likey.

I disagree with opposition being necessary in discourse. Two persons can share ideas without being argumentative about it.

[g_bambino]

I disagree with opposition being necessary in discourse. Two persons can share ideas without being argumentative about it.

There can hardly be much discussion between people with identical viewpoints.

[eyeball]

This is a good observation. Separate forums of discussion does not work well with the American democracy model, which was based on an era of town hall discussions, and debates in popular pamphlets.

I would also say we oddly actually have less difference in our major party policies while all this dissent is going on.

Hence my oft repeated suggestion that we incorporate citizen's assemblies to the greatest extent possible in our governance, from the municipal to the provincial, federal and even up to the international level. Of course if the deliberations of these are not used in any meaningful way they will be meaningless.

Edited December 20, 2009 by eyeball

[ToadBrother]

Hence my oft repeated suggestion that we incorporate citizen's assemblies to the greatest extent possible in our governance, from the municipal to the provincial, federal and even up to the international level. Of course if the deliberations of these are not used in any meaningful way they will be meaningless.

At what point exactly does a citizen's assembly simply become another legislature? RAther than add yet another legislative beast, wouldn't it be more logical to reform what we already have?

[ToadBrother]

Now you are showing your own ideological biases. People sceptical of climate change tend to be libertarians that share little common ground with social conservatives.

And yet climate change, like biology and geology, are claimed by their opponents to be leftist disciplines. I guess Libertarians and Social Conservatives must be using the same speech writers.

But to be pefectly honest, I think most of the professional opponents to climate change are, one way or the other, employees of Big Oil. You won't like that answer, I suppose, but I think Libertarians are a pack of maniacs as well, so, there you go...

[bush_cheney2004]

....But to be pefectly honest, I think most of the professional opponents to climate change are, one way or the other, employees of Big Oil. You won't like that answer, I suppose, but I think Libertarians are a pack of maniacs as well, so, there you go...

More importantly, a far larger group opposes "climate change" with their collective actions for production and consumption...and this group has far more votes.

[Riverwind]

And yet climate change, like biology and geology, are claimed by their opponents to be leftist disciplines.

By whom? This is first time I have seen anyone make that claim about biology or geology.

But to be pefectly honest, I think most of the professional opponents to climate change are, one way or the other, employees of Big Oil. You won't like that answer, I suppose, but I think Libertarians are a pack of maniacs as well, so, there you go.

To be logically consistent you must also believe that all climate scientists are, one way or another, required to promote catastrophic AGW in order to get funding. If you disagree try proving that climate scientists are not motivated to do the science that gets them funding. Edited December 20, 2009 by Riverwind

[Guest TrueMetis]

By whom? This is first time I have seen anyone make that claim about biology or geology.

I've heard that claim from creationists.

[Machjo]

There can hardly be much discussion between people with identical viewpoints.

Their viewpoints can be as different as night and day, and they can still share their ideas without having to be confrontational about it.

[eyeball]

At what point exactly does a citizen's assembly simply become another legislature?

The moment it's hijacked by a political party.

RAther than add yet another legislative beast, wouldn't it be more logical to reform what we already have?

It seems any time that's been tried or talked about it fails so what's the point?

One of the benefits I see of citizens discussing issues face to face is that it might lead to more civility in our governance. The problem with these digital forums is that their anonymity lends itself to incivility because there are no real consequences to bad behaviour. I doubt if people would be anywhere near as willing or even able to hiss 'communist' or spit 'reichwinger' at one another in such a public environment as a town hall.

As for the lack of civility at Parliament I submit the inability and unwillingness to reform it is tied to the fact its been hijacked by political parties.

Edited December 20, 2009 by eyeball

[ToadBrother]

By whom? This is first time I have seen anyone make that claim about biology or geology.

You can start here:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031808/content/01125115.guest.html

To be logically consistent you must also believe that all climate scientists are, one way or another, required to promote catastrophic AGW in order to get funding. If you disagree try proving that climate scientists are not motivated to do the science that gets them funding.

I dunno, have you stopped beating your wife yet? If people wanted to make lots of money, there are better fields to get into than science.

[ToadBrother]

It seems any time that's been tried or talked about it fails so what's the point?

Because what you're advocating seems like nothing more than another kind of legislature.

One of the benefits I see of citizens discussing issues face to face is that it might lead to more civility in our governance.

The problem with these digital forums is that their anonymity lends itself to incivility because there are no real consequences to bad behaviour. I doubt if people would be anywhere near as willing or even able to hiss 'communist' or spit 'reichwinger' at one another in such a public environment as a town hall.

Are you actually and seriuosly under the impression that normal citizens would be apolitical?

As for the lack of civility at Parliament I submit the inability and unwillingness to reform it is tied to the fact its been hijacked by political parties.

Parliament has never existed without parties of one kind or another. Admittedly the modern party machine didn't arrive until the final decades of the 18th century, but if you imagine at any point in the last five or six hundred years that Parliament wasn't split between factions, whether ideological or practical, then you're more naive then I imagined.

[eyeball]

Because what you're advocating seems like nothing more than another kind of legislature.

A citizen's assembly as I envision it would be no different that the one that looked at the issue of proportional representation in BC.

Are you actually and seriuosly under the impression that normal citizens would be apolitical?

Not at all. I just don't think a randomly picked assembly would be anywhere near as politicized as a normal legislature.

Parliament has never existed without parties of one kind or another. Admittedly the modern party machine didn't arrive until the final decades of the 18th century, but if you imagine at any point in the last five or six hundred years that Parliament wasn't split between factions, whether ideological or practical, then you're more naive then I imagined.

Well, in a face to face forum I doubt very much whether you'd be so blunt about your personal feelings towards me, they would certainly be no more relevant.

[ToadBrother]

A citizen's assembly as I envision it would be no different that the one that looked at the issue of proportional representation in BC.

To constitute an assembly for each and every issue that comes up would be fantastically expensive. Such assemblies are best used for major questions, like electoral change, or constitutional change.

Not at all. I just don't think a randomly picked assembly would be anywhere near as politicized as a normal legislature.

As long as it had a very limited scope and a short duration. But I still fail to see how we would get much general value out of it. LIke I said above, these sorts of assemblies have their uses, but as drivers of policy, well, you're just making them into another form of legislature.

Well, in a face to face forum I doubt very much whether you'd be so blunt about your personal feelings towards me, they would certainly be no more relevant.

What does that have to do with anything? You make a silly statement about party's ruining parliament, which is prima facia evidence of extreme naivety, if not outright ignorance, and when you get called on it, you get all huffy. It's not my fault your knowledge of the history of Parliament is so woefully inadequate.

[g_bambino]

Their viewpoints can be as different as night and day, and they can still share their ideas without having to be confrontational about it.

Well, yes, of course. But, perhaps I'm just a bit confused about what you're getting at. Are you referring to some point where I insinuated that discourse requires confrontation? Or, are you alluding to unnecessarily confrontational behaviour between ideological opponents "out there"? I rather jumped to the conclusion that it was the former...