The Politics Thread

[Steven Saus]

Moderator's Note: This thread was split off from the feedback discussion to EP090: How Lonesome a Life Without Nerve Gas.  You can track back from there for context.


Edit:  Please read my response to Steve before flaming this post.  I didn't carry off my original intent well at all with this, but I'm not going to retcon it to make myself look better either.  Thanks.

As near as I can tell, there is no political bias.  Some people are so obsessed that they will 'pull' political meaning out of anything and nothing.  Bill O'Riley and his ilk teach them that.  Remember "Happy Feet?"  Leftists can be just as bad as the right.

I don't remember which actor (or actress) I'm paraphrasing, but here goes:

The (American political) left is about understanding and tolerating other people.  We (actors) spend our lives trying to understand other, different people well enough that the audience can believe in them.  So, of course we tend to be on the political left.

Speculative fiction - heck, nearly any fiction - also has elements of that.  Authors must be able to get inside the heads of both protagonists and antagonists - including those who are nothing like the author.  Otherwise you end up with cardboard cutouts instead of characters.  Does that make them "liberal"?  Probably not.  Does that mean they might be a bit more understanding of other points of view?  Probably so.

There has been a shift in American politics, a shift towards extremism and side-taking.  We've forgotten that there's more than the loony leftists and wingnuts on the right.  Any story that is compelling enough that it makes you stop and question your own motives and values - now there's a story worth something.

Um.  I seem to have this soapbox.  I'm done with it now;  would someone else care for it?  

[SFEley]

I don't remember which actor (or actress) I'm paraphrasing, but here goes:

The (American political) left is about understanding and tolerating other people.  We (actors) spend our lives trying to understand other, different people well enough that the audience can believe in them.  So, of course we tend to be on the political left.

I just want to observe that the left's description of itself is inevitably going to come off sounding reasonable and compassionate and hard to argue with.  What the above really boils down to is "I'm on the left because I'm a good person."

Oddly enough, the right's description of itself has the same attributes.  I'm not quoting anyone in particular, but for many who believe in conservative values it might come down to "The (American political) right is about taking care of one's family and community, and ensuring a brighter future for everyone by keeping alive our freedom and the ideals that have made us successful." 

Which, in turn, also boils down to "I'm on the right because I'm a good person."

Neither position is easy to argue with on the surface.  Both positions have led to many policies that are good ideas, and many that are full of weaknesses, hypocrisies, and unintended consequences that can be blown wide open by the other side.  Many policies from both sides are both strong and weak at once.

And I think you can get good science fiction out of either position.  Or both at once.  Or neither.

In any case, this is the lesser of two reasons why I don't talk about my politics in my intros.  The bigger reason is because it isn't what EP is about, and anything I said would alienate parts of the audience for no useful reason. 

But this reason is because it just makes me tired, and I know political lecturing almost never changes anyone's mind.  How can it?  You believe what you believe because you believe you're a good person, and your political beliefs contribute to that.  I know I believe that.  And if I were to try to change your mind about your beliefs, I'd have to start by convincing you you're not a good person.

As the Guy in Glasses said on Heroes, "Good luck with that."

[scottjanssens]

I like being a moderate because it pisses off both ends of the political spectrum.  So I guess you could say I'm a centrist because I'm an asshole ;P

[Steven Saus]

I don't remember which actor (or actress) I'm paraphrasing, but here goes:

The (American political) left is about understanding and tolerating other people.  We (actors) spend our lives trying to understand other, different people well enough that the audience can believe in them.  So, of course we tend to be on the political left.

I just want to observe that the left's description of itself is inevitably going to come off sounding reasonable and compassionate and hard to argue with.  What the above really boils down to is "I'm on the left because I'm a good person."

Oddly enough, the right's description of itself has the same attributes.  I'm not quoting anyone in particular, but for many who believe in conservative values it might come down to "The (American political) right is about taking care of one's family and community, and ensuring a brighter future for everyone by keeping alive our freedom and the ideals that have made us successful." 

Which, in turn, also boils down to "I'm on the right because I'm a good person."

To clarify my statement, more than anything else:

I wasn't trying to assign value to that point of view.  That it appears I did is a function of my own bias - and, on retrospect, that whole second bit shows it.  There is such a thing as being too understanding of another's point of view as well, and I didn't reflect that at all.

I was attempting to analyze why you might expect to see more stories that get categorized as "liberal" or "leftist" without saying that was a good or bad thing.  I started ranting instead.  My apologies.

[Russell Nash]

I like being a moderate because it pisses off both ends of the political spectrum.  So I guess you could say I'm a centrist because I'm an asshole ;P

And the only thing that pisses everyone off even more is being a common-sensist (My own word), because eventually you will get around to looking at every single person and simple saying, "that makes absolutely no sense."

Unfortunately I need to say that far too often

[Thaurismunths]

{removed by author, 'cause it doesn't have anything to do with the thread}

[SFEley]

And the only thing that pisses everyone off even more is being a common-sensist (My own word), because eventually you will get around to looking at every single person and simple saying, "that makes absolutely no sense."

So...  You call it common sense, but nobody has any?  >8->

In their own minds, everybody is on the side of reason and 'common sense.'  Claiming that as a political philosophy is semantically null.  It's like saying "My morality is to do good things and not bad ones."

[Russell Nash]

And the only thing that pisses everyone off even more is being a common-sensist (My own word), because eventually you will get around to looking at every single person and simple saying, "that makes absolutely no sense."

So...  You call it common sense, but nobody has any?  >8->

In their own minds, everybody is on the side of reason and 'common sense.'  Claiming that as a political philosophy is semantically null.  It's like saying "My morality is to do good things and not bad ones."

Come on, you know that's not true. Nobody makes an arguement that's 1+1=2. It's always 1+special interest+religious belief=q. Common sense means looking at all 300 million. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one."

[Rachel Swirsky]

Eh, I think a synonym for "common sense" is "thing I believe is true but haven't bothered to examine rationally." So count me against "common sense."

[SFEley]

Come on, you know that's not true. Nobody makes an arguement that's 1+1=2. It's always 1+special interest+religious belief=q. Common sense means looking at all 300 million. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one."

I have never seen any evidence that a truly rational, objective, utilitarian social policy exists or is achievable in human society.  If you believe you have The Answer for that, that's a mighty claim, and I look forward to hearing your ideas... 

But let's not do it in the feedback to a story about an intelligent helmet.

I am herewith splitting the thread, and moving the political parts of this to the Gallimaufry board.

[jrderego]

... But let's not do it in the feedback to a story about an intelligent helmet.

Funniest. Line. Ever.

[Russell Nash]

Come on, you know that's not true. Nobody makes an arguement that's 1+1=2. It's always 1+special interest+religious belief=q. Common sense means looking at all 300 million. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one."

I have never seen any evidence that a truly rational, objective, utilitarian social policy exists or is achievable in human society.  If you believe you have The Answer for that, that's a mighty claim, and I look forward to hearing your ideas... 

I never said it was achievable. There will always be special interests. Also it's almost impossible to get someone to do something they don't want to. No matter how much it may benefit others.

[slic]

Also it's almost impossible to get someone to do something they don't want to.  No matter how much it may benefit others.

is patently untrue - especially if you are a parent.  There are a great many things, I do for my kids (and by extension their friends) that would never consider otherwise.

I'm going to sidestep the rest of this arguement because Mr. Eley had it pretty right when he said "You believe what you believe because you believe you're a good person, and your political beliefs contribute to that.  I know I believe that.  And if I were to try to change your mind about your beliefs, I'd have to start by convincing you you're not a good person."

[SFEley]

I never said it was achievable. There will always be special interests. Also it's almost impossible to get someone to do something they don't want to. No matter how much it may benefit others.

Okay.  Please tell me if this is an accurate summary of your position as you've described it here:


You oppose all political views expressed by others, for their failure to meet a standard of rationality that you profess to be unattainable.  Knowing that you are within the system, you do not propose a viewpoint that meets that standard yourself; instead your political belief is essentially a repudiation of beliefs, a form of political nihilism. 

You characterize this position as "common sense."


Do I have this right?  If not, can you clarify?  There's a very simple problem with this, but I want to make sure I'm addressing your actual position.

[Steven Saus]

I have never seen any evidence that a truly rational, objective, utilitarian social policy exists or is achievable in human society.  If you believe you have The Answer for that, that's a mighty claim, and I look forward to hearing your ideas... 

llogical behavior isn't illogical.

It just means that you're using a different set of givens.

Finding out what other people's givens are - and how to change them to meet everyone else's - is the foundation of psychology, sociology, and political science.

[Steven Saus]

And if I were to try to change your mind about your beliefs, I'd have to start by convincing you you're not a good person."

Not really.  You'd just have to convince someone that they were mistaken.

Mind you, that might be a lot more difficult, but...

[Russell Nash]

This whole conversation goes to prove my point.

My point in saying I'm all alone was actually reenforced by what Steve said. He said nobody's political beliefs can be changed, because everybody thinks they're right, since they're a good person. And his belief in this cannot be changed because that would make him a bad person. People will keep in opinion long after they've been shown it's wrong.

Common sense means having no sacred cows. Constantly listening to what is being said and altering your ideas to fit the new set of givens. It means looking at where the information comes from as well as what is being said. The great thing about using common sense is that you can except it when you're proven wrong. It's great when that happens, because then you're learning something.

Everybody uses common sense to a point. If your car starts shaking and making noises, you get an expert opinion. With this opinion you decide what to do or you get more opinions and then make your decision. However, when we get to political topics, people will only listen to whatever pundit agrees with them. It doesn't matter at all if the pundit has any knowledge in the field at all.

When we were talking about how Fox treated Firefly, I admitted I was wrong as soon as Steve brought up information I hadn't heard before. Simple common sense. I adapted to new facts, found I was wrong, and bowed out, but I now have a better understanding of what happened.

Also it's almost impossible to get someone to do something they don't want to.  No matter how much it may benefit others.

is patently untrue - especially if you are a parent.  There are a great many things, I do for my kids (and by extension their friends) that would never consider otherwise.

This proves my point too. You mention doing things for your kids. That's called being a parent. What about doing something for a friend, a neighbor you don't know very well, a stranger in the mall parking lot? It gets harder every step away the other person/people get.

Now what about paying higher state taxes, so that the students five towns over can get a better education? For over twenty years we've been saying, "I take care of mine, you take care of yours." This past election was the first one since the early 80's where ballot referendums for increased school budgets passed almost universally. Only after seeing the results of not giving a crap for so long have people finally decided that not paying those taxes was a bad idea.

Final thing:
I wanted to have some real world example, but had a hard time not stepping on the toes of one sacred cow or another. I finally remembered one. In England the government reduced the speed on the main highway going south into London(M25??) during rush hour. They cut it from approx.65mph to 45 mph (I say approx. because I'm pretty sure they were posted in kph, but the story I got said mph). I said, gee I wonder why they did that?" I had no specific information and therefore couldn't make a conclusion. My father went into a half hour tirade about government not caring about the people and stupid politicians and whatever (I stopped listening). After he was done, I gave him the stats. Average speed was up and accidents were way down. Common sense says it was a good idea, but I didn't comment until I could understand the arguement.

Anyway, my original post was just to be funny. Just like the centrist comment. I didn't think I would need to write a treatise about it.

[Steven Saus]

When we were talking about how Fox treated Firefly, I admitted I was wrong as soon as Steve brought up information I hadn't heard before. Simple common sense. I adapted to new facts, found I was wrong, and bowed out, but I now have a better understanding of what happened.

I missed that, and obviously you have some information I don't.  I have my own reasons for being glad it worked out the way it did but would like to hear these new (to me) facts.

[Russell Nash]

When we were talking about how Fox treated Firefly, I admitted I was wrong as soon as Steve brought up information I hadn't heard before. Simple common sense. I adapted to new facts, found I was wrong, and bowed out, but I now have a better understanding of what happened.

I missed that, and obviously you have some information I don't.  I have my own reasons for being glad it worked out the way it did but would like to hear these new (to me) facts.

It was in the Star Trek XI thread. It was a crow dinner for me.

[Steven Saus]

It was in the Star Trek XI thread. It was a crow dinner for me.

Ah - okay, you didn't have the info I (already) did.  Still, despite the crow you appeared to be gracious about it.  Likewise, I hope I was equally gracious in realizing my error at the beginning of this thread.  (If not, please let me know - that would mean I have more work to do.)

That doesn't make it pleasant, but it does mean that changing attitudes is possible with new information, or with old information presented in a different way.  Especially in a self-selected community where we've got some degree of attachment.  To translate out of sociologist-speak, nobody's forcing any of us to participate here, and pretty much all of us want to gain or retain respect and/or approval of others here.  If we didn't have both those conditions, there'd be a much higher frequency of trolls. 

(Yes, there's other conditions that play into it, but I think my employer would like for me to do something productive.)

[Thaurismunths]

Common sense means having no sacred cows. Constantly listening to what is being said and altering your ideas to fit the new set of givens. It means looking at where the information comes from as well as what is being said. The great thing about using common sense is that you can except it when you're proven wrong. It's great when that happens, because then you're learning something.

I think you have mistaken "Common Sense" for "Critical Thinking."
Common Sense means that if you asked a population a question, whatever answer occurs most often would be the Common, Sensible answer. These questions might be "What is your favorite jelly bean?" or "How do we win the 'War On Terror'?"
Critical Thinking is one path towards reaching an answer to the question, and you're right in that far too many people fail in applying their critical thinking skills.
To use your automotive analogy:
If your car shakes common sense says you take it to a mechanic. But why does it say that?
Critical thinking would say that cars don't shake -> something's wrong -> Mechanics know how to fix cars.
However the paths of cars don't shake -> call daddy -> daddy said to take it to a mechanic or cars don’t shake -> the shake will go away with time are no less wrong, but only one follows "Common Sense."
Now to the defense of those who don't use their critical thinking skills, it is fast, easy, and often amusing to look at other's failures in logic and point them out, but have you ever tried to be an expert on everything? At some points, you just have to go with what you've got.

[Steven Saus]

I think you have mistaken "Common Sense" for "Critical Thinking."
Common Sense means that if you asked a population a question, whatever answer occurs most often would be the Common, Sensible answer.

Excellent point;  phrasing it that way helped remind me of the distinction as well. 

It also reminded me of an interesting observation from my Sociology of Deviance class.  When one executes a violent criminal, common sense would tell you that there would be a suppressive effect.  That is: "I ain't gonna kill nobody 'cause they just killed Jesse, and I ain't gonna end up like that!" The opposite happens.  Violent crime (maybe just murder - I'm going from memory) trends upward in the period of time immediately after an execution. 

What you're saying is:

Figuring out why - and how to make the facts serve your goals - is critical thinking.

Right?

Now to the defense of those who don't use their critical thinking skills, it is fast, easy, and often amusing to look at other's failures in logic and point them out, but have you ever tried to be an expert on everything? At some points, you just have to go with what you've got.

Shouldn't one instead say "There isn't enough data?".

[Spock]
Anything less... would be illogical.
[/Spock]

[Jonathan C. Gillespie]

It also reminded me of an interesting observation from my Sociology of Deviance class.  When one executes a violent criminal, common sense would tell you that there would be a suppressive effect.  That is: "I ain't gonna kill nobody 'cause they just killed Jesse, and I ain't gonna end up like that!" The opposite happens.  Violent crime (maybe just murder - I'm going from memory) trends upward in the period of time immediately after an execution. 

Did they supply any data to back up this claim?

[Steven Saus]

It also reminded me of an interesting observation from my Sociology of Deviance class.  When one executes a violent criminal, common sense would tell you that there would be a suppressive effect.  That is: "I ain't gonna kill nobody 'cause they just killed Jesse, and I ain't gonna end up like that!" The opposite happens.  Violent crime (maybe just murder - I'm going from memory) trends upward in the period of time immediately after an execution. 

Did they supply any data to back up this claim?

I believe so, though I think it was secondary (referencing another study).  I don't have the text on me;  if I haven't responded in a day or so, remind me, please (my life is more hectic than it appears).

[Russell Nash]

Common sense means having no sacred cows. Constantly listening to what is being said and altering your ideas to fit the new set of givens. It means looking at where the information comes from as well as what is being said. The great thing about using common sense is that you can except it when you're proven wrong. It's great when that happens, because then you're learning something.

I think you have mistaken "Common Sense" for "Critical Thinking."

As I said before this was an off the cuff quick comment and wasn't deeply thought out before being made. And although the definition on Wikipedia is almost word for word of what you said, the three answers at Dictionary.com were "sound pracitical judgement" some added "without specific knowledge."

Once I was into defending that I wasn't just trying to say, "my beliefs are better than yours," I continued to how common sense leads me to handle information. Then we had the whole snowball thing.

But let me say one last time it was just an off the cuff comment.