Have some on the Left/Right lost the ability to think?

[oldfart]

I don't intend this as an ad hominem. Recently I have encountered some egregious posts that claim as fact statistics that are demonstratably untrue. And I don't mean a little bit; I mean real howlers.

Now I understand that there are a lot of gray areas. I even understand that there are positions that all of the statistics are rigged and everything is a conspiracy. Such positions can't lead anywhere in public discourse, but they at least have some internal consistency. If you live in an alternate universe and play by the rules of the alternate universe, no one can prove you wrong by the rules of the alternate universe.

But I am talking about threads following the usual back and forth when, suddenly, someone makes a factual assertion on the level that the earth is pyramid shaped with absolute sincerity.

I have intentionally avoided giving any real examples, as it is not my intention to embarrass anyone or pick on anyone. I think everyone here, regardless of ideological persuasion has some great examples from the other side. Of course the "other guys" are much more prone to this than we are; but I don't think very many of us can't recall a few cringe-worthy comments from our own compatriots. Hell, I spend most of the 60s and 70s disassociating myself batshit crazy claims from the left.

A lot of good threads are now drowned by this kind of stuff. So I ask:

1. Do the posters actually believe what they post in these cases?

2. Is there a sense that everybody does it, so it's OK to make things up that clearly are not so?

3. What do posters think they gain by doing this?

And finally, is this a form of intellectual vandalism meant not to prevail in a discussion but to stop the discussion if it doesn't go your way?

My reason for bringing this up is that the assumption about free speech that underlies boards such as this is that the solution to bad speech is robust good speech. But if threads are killed off by throwing rhetorical bombs, what's the point?

 

[Mac1958]

I don't intend this as an ad hominem. Recently I have encountered some egregious posts that claim as fact statistics that are demonstratably untrue. And I don't mean a little bit; I mean real howlers.

Now I understand that there are a lot of gray areas. I even understand that there are positions that all of the statistics are rigged and everything is a conspiracy. Such positions can't lead anywhere in public discourse, but they at least have some internal consistency. If you live in an alternate universe and play by the rules of the alternate universe, no one can prove you wrong by the rules of the alternate universe.

But I am talking about threads following the usual back and forth when, suddenly, someone makes a factual assertion on the level that the earth is pyramid shaped with absolute sincerity.

I have intentionally avoided giving any real examples, as it is not my intention to embarrass anyone or pick on anyone. I think everyone here, regardless of ideological persuasion has some great examples from the other side. Of course the "other guys" are much more prone to this than we are; but I don't think very many of us can't recall a few cringe-worthy comments from our own compatriots. Hell, I spend most of the 60s and 70s disassociating myself batshit crazy claims from the left.

A lot of good threads are now drowned by this kind of stuff. So I ask:

1. Do the posters actually believe what they post in these cases?

2. Is there a sense that everybody does it, so it's OK to make things up that clearly are not so?

3. What do posters think they gain by doing this?

And finally, is this a form of intellectual vandalism meant not to prevail in a discussion but to stop the discussion if it doesn't go your way?

My reason for bringing this up is that the assumption about free speech that underlies boards such as this is that the solution to bad speech is robust good speech. But if threads are killed off by throwing rhetorical bombs, what's the point?

We had an interesting discussion of this here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/257728-the-psychology-of-partisanship.html

I always wonder what the point of partisan rhetoric is. Surely these people don't actually think they're being taken seriously when they behave like this.

Here's my guess: Adherence to a partisan ideology takes away all need to be intellectually curious, or to be intellectually honest, it makes people intellectually lazy. Just pick a side and run with it, no matter what. Just concentrate on information that agrees with your ideology, and then avoid, ignore and attack the rest.

I don't think partisan ideologues are dumb, by any stretch. In fact, it takes a certain intellectual agility to so quickly come up with the spin, hyperbole, distortion, diversion, deflection and outright lies that come to them so naturally and so quickly. Such behavior requires intelligence and a conscious effort.

So the question is, do they really believe this stuff? I've come to the conclusion that they do, at least on a shallow level. I decided this after reading a few books on the subconscious, which consistently point out that a person can essentially talk themselves into believing anything. Then a certain egotism, a narcissism takes over and they become essentially impossible to communicate with.

These people are destructive because they're destroying honest conversation at a time when we need quite the opposite. But to save my life, I don't know how to get them to change this behavior.

.

 

[kiwiman127]

I think we have posters here who reply on only their ideological friendly news/facts resources. These resources may present facts, but then offer their own interpretation of the said facts that dilutes the actual premise of the facts.
I think it's wise to take the effort to verify the stated ideological fact as being correctly presented in the real context as it was meant to be.
To be honest, I've done it myself. I grabbed a "fact" from a resource who I presumed to be unbiased, only to find out after I posted, they were a partisan shill. Now, I try to check out the resource to make sure their not affiliated with any ideology before I use their "fact".

 

[Pennywise]

To answer the OP, yes, but I do see it mostly on the left. I understand partisanship, supporting ideologies, and fighting for your side. I do not understand lying or trying to score political points based on fabrications. I didn't like it when the right used "You didn't build that" because anyone with a brain knew what Obama (whom I otherwise despise with my very soul) was talking about specifically.

But I see it mostly from leftist frothing assholes, who it really does seem are paid Soros Trolls.

 

[Listening]

I think we have posters here who reply on only their ideological friendly news/facts resources. These resources may present facts, but then offer their own interpretation of the said facts that dilutes the actual premise of the facts.
I think it's wise to take the effort to verify the stated ideological fact as being correctly presented in the real context as it was meant to be.
To be honest, I've done it myself. I grabbed a "fact" from a resource who I presumed to be unbiased, only to find out after I posted, they were a partisan shill. Now, I try to check out the resource to make sure their not affiliated with any ideology before I use their "fact".

How is there such a thing as an ideological fact ?

And ideology is a philosophy. It isn't something you can measure.

 

[oldfart]

I don't intend this as an ad hominem. Recently I have encountered some egregious posts that claim as fact statistics that are demonstratably untrue. And I don't mean a little bit; I mean real howlers.

Now I understand that there are a lot of gray areas. I even understand that there are positions that all of the statistics are rigged and everything is a conspiracy. Such positions can't lead anywhere in public discourse, but they at least have some internal consistency. If you live in an alternate universe and play by the rules of the alternate universe, no one can prove you wrong by the rules of the alternate universe.

But I am talking about threads following the usual back and forth when, suddenly, someone makes a factual assertion on the level that the earth is pyramid shaped with absolute sincerity.

I have intentionally avoided giving any real examples, as it is not my intention to embarrass anyone or pick on anyone. I think everyone here, regardless of ideological persuasion has some great examples from the other side. Of course the "other guys" are much more prone to this than we are; but I don't think very many of us can't recall a few cringe-worthy comments from our own compatriots. Hell, I spend most of the 60s and 70s disassociating myself batshit crazy claims from the left.

A lot of good threads are now drowned by this kind of stuff. So I ask:

1. Do the posters actually believe what they post in these cases?

2. Is there a sense that everybody does it, so it's OK to make things up that clearly are not so?

3. What do posters think they gain by doing this?

And finally, is this a form of intellectual vandalism meant not to prevail in a discussion but to stop the discussion if it doesn't go your way?

My reason for bringing this up is that the assumption about free speech that underlies boards such as this is that the solution to bad speech is robust good speech. But if threads are killed off by throwing rhetorical bombs, what's the point?

We had an interesting discussion of this here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/257728-the-psychology-of-partisanship.html

I always wonder what the point of partisan rhetoric is. Surely these people don't actually think they're being taken seriously when they behave like this.

Here's my guess: Adherence to a partisan ideology takes away all need to be intellectually curious, or to be intellectually honest, it makes people intellectually lazy. Just pick a side and run with it, no matter what. Just concentrate on information that agrees with your ideology, and then avoid, ignore and attack the rest.

I don't think partisan ideologues are dumb, by any stretch. In fact, it takes a certain intellectual agility to so quickly come up with the spin, hyperbole, distortion, diversion, deflection and outright lies that come to them so naturally and so quickly. Such behavior requires intelligence and a conscious effort.

So the question is, do they really believe this stuff? I've come to the conclusion that they do, at least on a shallow level. I decided this after reading a few books on the subconscious, which consistently point out that a person can essentially talk themselves into believing anything. Then a certain egotism, a narcissism takes over and they become essentially impossible to communicate with.

These people are destructive because they're destroying honest conversation at a time when we need quite the opposite. But to save my life, I don't know how to get them to change this behavior.

.

Thanks, this is the kind of response I was hoping for. I also appreciate the link to the other thread. I have no illusions there is a magic wand that will make unthinking partisanship go away, but I truly think it has killed a lot of worthwhile threads and can kill an entire message board. I'm hoping an honest discussion, especially by people like me who often appear to others to be over the top, can help. Like it or not, we form a community and ultimately it is the community, not moderators, who have to decide how to make it work.

Thanks again.

 

[Listening]

The other problem I have is that people don't argue in context. When people say "the government", I can think of at least four levels of government (and there may be more). Each with it's own scope.

Additionally, people are really bad about arguing connections that are almost impossible to prove.

See the "stimulus worked/didn't work" threads. They are impossible to take seriously.

 

[oldfart]

I think we have posters here who reply on only their ideological friendly news/facts resources. These resources may present facts, but then offer their own interpretation of the said facts that dilutes the actual premise of the facts.
I think it's wise to take the effort to verify the stated ideological fact as being correctly presented in the real context as it was meant to be.
To be honest, I've done it myself. I grabbed a "fact" from a resource who I presumed to be unbiased, only to find out after I posted, they were a partisan shill. Now, I try to check out the resource to make sure their not affiliated with any ideology before I use their "fact".

I think it's fine to use biased sources (who makes the litmus test for unbiased?). The thing that gets me is especially the use of commonly published data, such as from CBO/JCT, BLS, Census, etc. which is contorted by a secondary source and passed on. It's not really very hard to fact check with the original source. If someone, for example makes a statistical claim about unemployment numbers or inflation, how hard is it to go to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and check it out?

Not checking such things out seems to me to be recklessly and willfully ignorant.

 

[Listening]

I think we have posters here who reply on only their ideological friendly news/facts resources. These resources may present facts, but then offer their own interpretation of the said facts that dilutes the actual premise of the facts.
I think it's wise to take the effort to verify the stated ideological fact as being correctly presented in the real context as it was meant to be.
To be honest, I've done it myself. I grabbed a "fact" from a resource who I presumed to be unbiased, only to find out after I posted, they were a partisan shill. Now, I try to check out the resource to make sure their not affiliated with any ideology before I use their "fact".

I think it's fine to use biased sources (who makes the litmus test for unbiased?). The thing that gets me is especially the use of commonly published data, such as from CBO/JCT, BLS, Census, etc. which is contorted by a secondary source and passed on. It's not really very hard to fact check with the original source. If someone, for example makes a statistical claim about unemployment numbers or inflation, how hard is it to go to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and check it out?

Not checking such things out seems to me to be recklessly and willfully ignorant.

Even these numbers are suspect thought. I don't know how many people have argued against CBO numbers because they are generated based on faulty input (which they are forced to eat and they know it).

 

[Mac1958]

The other problem I have is that people don't argue in context. When people say "the government", I can think of at least four levels of government (and there may be more). Each with it's own scope.

Additionally, people are really bad about arguing connections that are almost impossible to prove.

See the "stimulus worked/didn't work" threads. They are impossible to take seriously.

Yeah, that brings up another point that often rattles around in my little brain.

Look at what happens when these people discuss a critical issue: They virtually always dumb it down, over-simplify it into a binary, either/or argument that completely ignores the complexities of any major issue. There can only be two answers for these people: 100% my way or 100% your way. No gray, just black or white.

I have a helluva time trying to communicate with people like this. Do they really think that things are always so black & white, so simplistic? Again, I think they do, I think that's the way their minds work. How in the world do you have an adult conversation with someone like that?

.

 

[oldfart]

To answer the OP, yes, but I do see it mostly on the left. I understand partisanship, supporting ideologies, and fighting for your side. I do not understand lying or trying to score political points based on fabrications. I didn't like it when the right used "You didn't build that" because anyone with a brain knew what Obama (whom I otherwise despise with my very soul) was talking about specifically.

But I see it mostly from leftist frothing assholes, who it really does seem are paid Soros Trolls.

As I said in the OP, each side has a good set of doozies from the other, and I'm not sure that what we perceive as a tendency on the other side to be over the line is not just a reflection of our own favorite bloggers gleefully feeding us each horrible example they can find. This would be my greatest criticism of Paul Krugman and a number of his fellow bloggers that I read daily. I don't jump on every post and bring it here because I know they are selective. Sometimes what they whine about is really important and we ought to discuss it. But most of the time, it's more confirmation bias that the other side are idiots (or evil, or in the pay of the Illuminati or whatever).

Now personally, I remember the 60s and 70s as a period of when the conservative movement made a lot of good intellectual arguments and a lot of the left passed the bong at the ashram a bit too often. My politics haven't changed much since then, so I don't think I've become more conservative or more liberal. But now it seems to me that the conservative movement has lost intellectual steam (I'm mainly referring to economic policy and political economy here) and become more apologists for the powerful (which they certainly weren't in the mid-60s). But I will cheerfully consider the possibility that my observations may reflect changes in me as well.

I guess I think that which side is the worst offender here is not really very important. The abuses from either side are destructive.

 

[oldfart]

The other problem I have is that people don't argue in context. When people say "the government", I can think of at least four levels of government (and there may be more). Each with it's own scope.

Additionally, people are really bad about arguing connections that are almost impossible to prove.

See the "stimulus worked/didn't work" threads. They are impossible to take seriously.

I don't think economists have a problem with arguments about things like the effectiveness of stimulus or austerity. They have ground rules for such discussions. The political commentary, however, is either ignorant of how the wonks debate or chose to ignore it. The same thing can be said of historians, there are general rules for historical analysis. That's one reason I stopped dumping on sociologists; I just didn't know enough about their methodology. But when they get on my turf and screw up, they're fair game!

 

[Listening]

The other problem I have is that people don't argue in context. When people say "the government", I can think of at least four levels of government (and there may be more). Each with it's own scope.

Additionally, people are really bad about arguing connections that are almost impossible to prove.

See the "stimulus worked/didn't work" threads. They are impossible to take seriously.

I don't think economists have a problem with arguments about things like the effectiveness of stimulus or austerity. They have ground rules for such discussions. The political commentary, however, is either ignorant of how the wonks debate or chose to ignore it. The same thing can be said of historians, there are general rules for historical analysis. That's one reason I stopped dumping on sociologists; I just didn't know enough about their methodology. But when they get on my turf and screw up, they're fair game!

I agree that such standards do apply...but who applies them ? The posters on this board ? Not hardly.

People look for data to support their conclusions. Not the other way around.

 

[oldfart]

I think we have posters here who reply on only their ideological friendly news/facts resources. These resources may present facts, but then offer their own interpretation of the said facts that dilutes the actual premise of the facts.
I think it's wise to take the effort to verify the stated ideological fact as being correctly presented in the real context as it was meant to be.
To be honest, I've done it myself. I grabbed a "fact" from a resource who I presumed to be unbiased, only to find out after I posted, they were a partisan shill. Now, I try to check out the resource to make sure their not affiliated with any ideology before I use their "fact".

I think it's fine to use biased sources (who makes the litmus test for unbiased?). The thing that gets me is especially the use of commonly published data, such as from CBO/JCT, BLS, Census, etc. which is contorted by a secondary source and passed on. It's not really very hard to fact check with the original source. If someone, for example makes a statistical claim about unemployment numbers or inflation, how hard is it to go to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and check it out?

Not checking such things out seems to me to be recklessly and willfully ignorant.

Even these numbers are suspect thought. I don't know how many people have argued against CBO numbers because they are generated based on faulty input (which they are forced to eat and they know it).

But it's not like CBO doesn't know about the problems with their data collection and modelling systems. There is a robust debate on how to improve them, of which I often am a part. Most organizations have an "occasional papers" series to deal with this. Now this stuff will make the eyes glaze over, so I don't recommend it for light reading. Usually the non-wonk can get the gist of the issues in the footnotes to the reports. And CBO is far more open about its assumptions and "base-line modelling" than anyone else.

So if you claim imperfections you are right. But where does that leave you? Can you just reject all the results and wait for something perfect which will never come along?

Let me give a quick example. The headline unemployment rate is U-3 reported by BLS. They also report five other measures, including U-6. Ten years ago the media did not have a clue as to what U-6 was. Most still don't, but they report it when it supports their argument. Someday in the far far future, they will probably begin to report on the annual seasonal adjustment recomputation, but for now it only shows up as proof of a conspiracy to rig the unemployment numbers. So just what is the purpose of implying conspiracy and dumping on the reported statistics? It certainly isn't to get better statistics.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

To answer the OP, yes, but I do see it mostly on the left. I understand partisanship, supporting ideologies, and fighting for your side. I do not understand lying or trying to score political points based on fabrications. I didn't like it when the right used "You didn't build that" because anyone with a brain knew what Obama (whom I otherwise despise with my very soul) was talking about specifically.

But I see it mostly from leftist frothing assholes, who it really does seem are paid Soros Trolls.

And of course those on the left perceive this occurring mostly on the right.

For example, there was a thread recently about the AG’s comments concerning a personal gun safe designed to open in response to an RFID chip contained in a bracelet worn by the gun owner.

The partisan right took the story and contrived the lie that the AG wanted to ‘compel’ every gun owner to possess such a chip so the Federal government could trace the movements of all gun owners:

The Justice Department rejected "any suggestion" that Holder supports tracking legal gun owners.

"The administration is working with the gun manufacturing industry to encourage private-sector solutions to improving firearm safety," Justice Department spokesperson Brian Fallon told TPM in an email on Tuesday. "That is what the Attorney General addressed. Any suggestion that he endorsed a proposal to physically track law-abiding gun owners is a dishonest distortion."

No, Eric Holder Doesn't Want To Make Gun Owners Wear 'Tracking Bracelets'

Indeed.

And with regard to the OP’s inquiry as to “Do the posters actually believe what they post in these cases”?

It’s hard to say, but it’s conceivable many on the right did in the above case, as it conforms to the myth about the AG contrived by the right, and it clearly served the purpose of inciting the rightwing base.

Sadly, whether such lies are true or not – or believed or not – is irrelevant to those propagating the lies, as the intent is not honest debate, but to muddy the waters of political discourse to achieve some perceived partisan gain.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't intend this as an ad hominem. Recently I have encountered some egregious posts that claim as fact statistics that are demonstratably untrue. And I don't mean a little bit; I mean real howlers.

Now I understand that there are a lot of gray areas. I even understand that there are positions that all of the statistics are rigged and everything is a conspiracy. Such positions can't lead anywhere in public discourse, but they at least have some internal consistency. If you live in an alternate universe and play by the rules of the alternate universe, no one can prove you wrong by the rules of the alternate universe.

But I am talking about threads following the usual back and forth when, suddenly, someone makes a factual assertion on the level that the earth is pyramid shaped with absolute sincerity.

I have intentionally avoided giving any real examples, as it is not my intention to embarrass anyone or pick on anyone. I think everyone here, regardless of ideological persuasion has some great examples from the other side. Of course the "other guys" are much more prone to this than we are; but I don't think very many of us can't recall a few cringe-worthy comments from our own compatriots. Hell, I spend most of the 60s and 70s disassociating myself batshit crazy claims from the left.

A lot of good threads are now drowned by this kind of stuff. So I ask:

1. Do the posters actually believe what they post in these cases?

2. Is there a sense that everybody does it, so it's OK to make things up that clearly are not so?

3. What do posters think they gain by doing this?

And finally, is this a form of intellectual vandalism meant not to prevail in a discussion but to stop the discussion if it doesn't go your way?

My reason for bringing this up is that the assumption about free speech that underlies boards such as this is that the solution to bad speech is robust good speech. But if threads are killed off by throwing rhetorical bombs, what's the point?

You are talking about people who are not even wrong. Do they actually believe what they are saying? Unfortunately, yes. The evidence of that is their adamant defense of their beliefs in the face of contrary facts.

After having run into a few people like that I have reached the conclusion that some people let their beliefs trump facts. I expect this from someone who was raised in a cloistered religious order that shut out the outside world, but these people have access to all the information in the world, they just refuse to examine anything that doesn't fit into their world view. I refuse to treat anyone who chooses willful ignorance over reality with any respect, even if they are posting in the CDZ. I refuse to even address any argument based on, as you put it, the premise that the world is shaped like a pyramid.

To date, I haven't had a problem because I very carefully explain why their opinion is stupid, and back it up with facts. In other words, I don't attack them, I attack their opinion. I then wait until they say something equally uninformed outside the CDZ so I can unload upon them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To answer the OP, yes, but I do see it mostly on the left. I understand partisanship, supporting ideologies, and fighting for your side. I do not understand lying or trying to score political points based on fabrications. I didn't like it when the right used "You didn't build that" because anyone with a brain knew what Obama (whom I otherwise despise with my very soul) was talking about specifically.

But I see it mostly from leftist frothing assholes, who it really does seem are paid Soros Trolls.

And of course those on the left perceive this occurring mostly on the right.

For example, there was a thread recently about the AG’s comments concerning a personal gun safe designed to open in response to an RFID chip contained in a bracelet worn by the gun owner.

The partisan right took the story and contrived the lie that the AG wanted to ‘compel’ every gun owner to possess such a chip so the Federal government could trace the movements of all gun owners:

The Justice Department rejected "any suggestion" that Holder supports tracking legal gun owners.

"The administration is working with the gun manufacturing industry to encourage private-sector solutions to improving firearm safety," Justice Department spokesperson Brian Fallon told TPM in an email on Tuesday. "That is what the Attorney General addressed. Any suggestion that he endorsed a proposal to physically track law-abiding gun owners is a dishonest distortion."

No, Eric Holder Doesn't Want To Make Gun Owners Wear 'Tracking Bracelets'

Indeed.

And with regard to the OP’s inquiry as to “Do the posters actually believe what they post in these cases”?

It’s hard to say, but it’s conceivable many on the right did in the above case, as it conforms to the myth about the AG contrived by the right, and it clearly served the purpose of inciting the rightwing base.

Sadly, whether such lies are true or not – or believed or not – is irrelevant to those propagating the lies, as the intent is not honest debate, but to muddy the waters of political discourse to achieve some perceived partisan gain.

Your post is an example of exactly what the OP was talking about. The fact that the Justice Department denied an ulterior motive in requiring RFID chips in guns is not proof that the motive does not exist. After all, they also denied that the US government was spying on Americans until enough evidence showed up that they could no longer deny it. Anyone who is honest would admit that, even if they actually believed that it is absurd to think that Holder is actually thinking that.

Since you prefer to approach everything from the viewpoint of a partisan hack, you refuse to admit that the government really has no business requiring a technology that enables them to track private property, period.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What’s even more bizarre is the propensity of many on the right to continue to propagate lies and myths long after they’ve been thoroughly debunked, such as the DHS ‘ammo stockpiling’ myth.

Even the likes of Breitbart and Fox conceded the claim was false:

The Great DHS Ammunition Stockpile Myth - Fox Nation

Yet just this week a conservative USMB member cited the myth yet again as ‘true.’

 

[Listening]

I think it's fine to use biased sources (who makes the litmus test for unbiased?). The thing that gets me is especially the use of commonly published data, such as from CBO/JCT, BLS, Census, etc. which is contorted by a secondary source and passed on. It's not really very hard to fact check with the original source. If someone, for example makes a statistical claim about unemployment numbers or inflation, how hard is it to go to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and check it out?

Not checking such things out seems to me to be recklessly and willfully ignorant.

Even these numbers are suspect thought. I don't know how many people have argued against CBO numbers because they are generated based on faulty input (which they are forced to eat and they know it).

But it's not like CBO doesn't know about the problems with their data collection and modelling systems. There is a robust debate on how to improve them, of which I often am a part. Most organizations have an "occasional papers" series to deal with this. Now this stuff will make the eyes glaze over, so I don't recommend it for light reading. Usually the non-wonk can get the gist of the issues in the footnotes to the reports. And CBO is far more open about its assumptions and "base-line modelling" than anyone else.

So if you claim imperfections you are right. But where does that leave you? Can you just reject all the results and wait for something perfect which will never come along?

Let me give a quick example. The headline unemployment rate is U-3 reported by BLS. They also report five other measures, including U-6. Ten years ago the media did not have a clue as to what U-6 was. Most still don't, but they report it when it supports their argument. Someday in the far far future, they will probably begin to report on the annual seasonal adjustment recomputation, but for now it only shows up as proof of a conspiracy to rig the unemployment numbers. So just what is the purpose of implying conspiracy and dumping on the reported statistics? It certainly isn't to get better statistics.

I don't argue with you at all.

Thomas Sowell wrote about how when he first started he was asked to do something (analysis). He did it.

Well, it seems it didn't fit the narrative (and made his boss's boss very uncomfortable), so it got redone for him.

His point was that statistics are politicised.

We need the numbers....but they can be doled out in a way that predestines the conclusion.

 

[Listening]

What’s even more bizarre is the propensity of many on the right to continue to propagate lies and myths long after they’ve been thoroughly debunked, such as the DHS ‘ammo stockpiling’ myth.

Even the likes of Breitbart and Fox conceded the claim was false:

The Great DHS Ammunition Stockpile Myth - Fox Nation

Yet just this week a conservative USMB member cited the myth yet again as ‘true.’

You bet...just like the 45,000 a year who die because of no health insurance.

But the left can never produce the bodies (there should be well over 1/2 million of them by now given that study was published in 2003 (and actually was first farted out in 1998)).