The Left's Call to Civility and Playing Politics

[Apparition of Jack]

@Gidiot Cool, I'm going to watch that, thanks for the recommendation man

[Willie]

Yeah, I learned that 2000 and 2016 were 2 out of 5 elections decided by electoral college votes rather than popular votes and that Republicans have benefitted from that discrepancy 4 out of 5 times. Neither party existed yet the first time.

[soos_mite_ah]

@Willie @Gidiot Ok so I personally agree with keeping the electoral college because I think that the smaller states still need representation and the highly populated areas shouldn't decide everything on their behalf based on majority. We still have other aspects of the government that is decided by majority vote and the electoral college is supposed to balance things out. Now I don't consider myself conservative in any means and I would have MUCH rather had Hillary Clinton as president but I can't help but think that there is something larger than my personal interests. Sure I as a liberal may not like how the electoral college favors conservatives but that doesn't mean that people in less populated states get less representation. Similarly, I believe the gerrymandering on behalf of both parties needs to be eliminated for a fairer process/ representation even if it means that democrats also lose districts/ seats. 

I would like to hear additional inputs in regards to this to expand my perspective. 

Edited October 4, 2020 by soos_mite_ah

[Forestluv]

6 hours ago, soos_mite_ah said:

 Ok so I personally agree with keeping the electoral college because I think that the smaller states still need representation and the highly populated areas shouldn't decide everything on their behalf based on majority.

Smaller states have rights at the state level. They have a state governor, state senate, courts and legislature. They are able to make a lot of decisions at the state level - such as state laws and enforcement. 

The federal level is a different ballgame. The federal level is supposed to govern the entire country (while respecting states rights). At the federal level, is it fair that a tomato farmer in Wyoming gets 4 votes and a tomato farmer in California only gets 1 vote? If we decide to give a minority extra voting power, why limit it to people who live in small states? Why not give racial minorities extra voting power. Should white people decide everything based on majority? And why stop with race? There are lots of minorities: people with disabilities, atheists, jewish, midgets, LBGTQ etc. Should they also have extra voting power?

Due to disproportionate voting power given to a minority, the minority has the most power at the federal government and over-ruling the majority. Is it fair if 1 million people in Wyoming decide federal policies for 50 million people in California?

[soos_mite_ah]

@Forestluv Ok that makes more sense. Thank you for clearing that up. I appreciate it 

Edited October 4, 2020 by soos_mite_ah

[Akemrelax]

On 10/3/2020 at 9:21 AM, Forestluv said:

The underlying substance of theory is distinct from the name of that theory. For example, someone could make all sorts of ludicrous claims about how certain ethnicities are lesser evolved and closer to apes and say it is part of Darwin’s The Theory of Evolution. Yet simply saying something is part of the Theory of Evolution does not actually make it part of The Theory of Evolution. If we studied the actual theory we would realize that the claim is not part of the Theory of Evolution and in fact the Theory would state the opposit of the claim. 

Similarly with CRT, anyone can say “According to CRT, blah blah, blah”. Yet that doesn’t make it CRT. It is a common way for people to steal credibility from the work of others and elevate themselves. This is commonly seen with people trying to sell crap and say it is supported by science to raise the credibility of their claims. 

Ok, but, how do you counter people like Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay? Check their twitter. They are spreading so much hate towards universities and "intellectuals" and they have (for the most part) a point. Do you dismiss that as just a lack of perspective? 

[Leo Gura]

It is amazing how people justify in their minds that it is fair and proper for a minority to rule the majority at the federal level.

The logic goes like this: "But it would be oppressive if the majority ruled over the minority. So let's have the minority rule over the majority. That's only fair, otherwise the minority will get oppressed." [Picard facepalm]

[Forestluv]

35 minutes ago, Akemrelax said:

Ok, but, how do you counter people like Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay? Check their twitter. They are spreading so much hate towards universities and "intellectuals" and they have (for the most part) a point. Do you dismiss that as just a lack of perspective? 

It's not as simple as "CRT is accurate" or "CRT is bogus". I'm only familiar with the basics of CRT, yet I'm familiar with academic theories. These theories get very nuanced and complex. If we invited 100 academics to a conference on CRT, there would be all sorts of debates, discussions and explorations of the theory. It would likely get heated at times. I've seen things turn into bloodbaths. I could see an hour long discussion over a term like "marginalized" or "disadvantaged".

In the world I live, things are not 'true' or 'false'. If I dug deep in CRT, I'd likely find parts that were insightful and helped explain societal phenomena. I'd also find parts I didn't understand well and would need to discuss with someone in the humanities. And I'd likely find parts that were overly simplistic, incomplete or inaccurate. I don't know Peter and James, yet my hunch is that they may have valid criticisms of CRT, yet fall victim to dismissive categorization. 

Those oriented as "anti-intellectuals" can provide value in that they can criticize and be skeptical of academic theories. Intellectuals can become dogmatic, paradigm locked and closed-minded. However, the anti-intellectuals can also be very problematic. Complex problems need complex thinking. Dismissive categorization that CRT is bogus is overly simplistic and lazy. It's an anchor to progress in certain areas. Rather than dismissing the theory, why not improve the theory? Yet getting into nuances and complexity takes a lot of work and effort. . .

This of course assumes that the theory has enough truth and value to warrant time and effort. Generally, theories that make it to the highest levels of academic circles have a lot of substance. I wouldn't buy the claim that academics are broadly full of B.S. They may over-estimate their understanding and themselves be dismissive, yet they are at a higher level than anti-intellectuals. They provide insight into certain realms. For example, Richard Dawkins may be contracted within science and sound like a fool when speaking of mysticism due to his pre-trans fallacy - Yet Dawkins is a brilliant geneticist and evolutionary biologist. He has contributed an enormous amount of insight into this area. Of course he is paradigm-locked, yet he is brilliant within the paradigm he is locked within. The problem comes when he tries to venture outside of that. Like a Sumo wrestler trying to dance ballet.