CDZ The Psychology of "Mandates"

[Mac1958]

Approximately 100 million voters don't bother to show up at vote. Neither party can lay claim to a mandate under these circumstances.
If Americans don't bother to show up at polls...they deserve a government that doesn't bother to show up. Our turnout is among the lowest in the developed world.
I only see extreme pendulum swings in our future based on hyper- partisan politics.
While political opinion is injected into literally every discussion in the media, I know of far too many people who simply just check out.
"I don't have time for political crap"..."oh. I never pay attention to all that"...and a favorite "nothing ever changes, doesn't matter, why bother."
If American's remain apathetic our institutions will remain the same.

.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The word "mandate" is simply used as a way to create an impression of support greater than that which actually exists. It is an appeal to popularity used in such a way that one's own agenda is backed up by an entire army of like-minded.

I'm reminded of the way the ultra-conformist wingers here use the term "we" as often as they do. They are too terrified to speak as an individual, as they need the safety in numbers. If you watch their sophistry, they inevitable try to validate the soundness of a position by resorting to these appeals to popularity (or authority).

 

[Mac1958]

The word "mandate" is simply used as a way to create an impression of support greater than that which actually exists. It is an appeal to popularity used in such a way that one's own agenda is backed up by an entire army of like-minded.

Yep, that's the bottom line.

Every win is an absolute mandate, despite all evidence to the contrary.
.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I don't think that at all. How does one come to be an atheist or theist? By using one's intellect to process the information that results in one's adopting either stance. Once once has processed that information and decides to be a theist, by preconditioning any other conclusion on anything having to do with theistic premises or conclusions, one has unavoidably used an unproved, thus neither true nor false, premise/inference into one's line of thinking about the matter under consideration. If that matter has nothing principally to do with theism, one's having done so constitutes an abrogation of one's intellect. After all, even theists acknowledge that only by faith can one come to know and accept God and his dogma.

Fair point.

This whole theory of mine came about after reading a few books on the subconscious and how it can control thought processes. Regarding your good question - how did someone get to that point in the first place? - one fundamental theory of all the books was that a subconscious can be trained, over time, to believe some pretty wild things. It's not a light switch, it's a process.

As you might imagine, the process includes three primary elements: A general (but still lucid and pragmatic) predisposition to something, significant repetition of supporting opinion, and a general ideological isolation. And look at what we have today: The ability to pick your own reality, courtesy of an internet that allows us to isolate our news and information gathering to the tiniest slivers of reality. Cable "news" outlets that slant everything in "my" direction. So a person who leans toward a set of opinions, if they're not careful, can easily become consumed by them.
.

one fundamental theory of all the books was that a subconscious can be trained, over time, to believe some pretty wild things. It's not a light switch, it's a process.

I'll for now accept that as plausible and possible, though I can't say whether I accept that such is what has indeed happened to the people whom I construe as having "put part of their brains on the shelf" when it comes to "pondering" and discussing matters of public policy.

look at what we have today: The ability to pick your own reality, courtesy of an internet that allows us to isolate our news and information gathering to the tiniest slivers of reality. Cable "news" outlets that slant everything in "my" direction. So a person who leans toward a set of opinions, if they're not careful, and become consumed by them.

That ability, and the will to constrain one's information gathering activities with confirmation bias, is not new. It's merely that the Internet has created new opportunities for individuals and groups, folks who'd profit from one's doing so, to advance their status by meeting the demand for information that sates almost every thirst for information that confirms whatever bias it is possible to have.

The one thirst for information that, sady, has no more suppliers than it ever did is the thirst for sound, rigorous and highly objective information that exists solely for the sake of increasing the body of humanity's knowledge. Worse, it seems that proportionally, even fewer people read such documents. To wit, query folks who claim to care strongly and deeply about climate change and ask to what science journals they subscribe. Querying folks who attest to being most concerned about economic policy, ask them what economic journals they routinely read. Even among many self-supposing "well informed" folks who post on USMB, I suspect one'll need fewer than all one's fingers and toes to count the quantity of them who regularly read soundly conducted research reports, yet nearly everyone posting here are well aware of what media organizations have to say. If my supposition is mostly accurate, those folk's information-consumption behavior derives from no mental acuity affliction; it is willful.

It could be argued that such behavior is a symptom of the affliction, and I literally do look at it as an affliction.

Fascinating to watch and consider, though.
.

I would identify people who exhibit such behavior as polemicists. For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the term, polemic behaviors have been recognized since ancient times. Wikipedia has a primer on it (see following link): Polemic - Wikipedia

The way I see it, in any given society, there will probably always be subset of polemicists. Thus we, living in a nation of around 300 million people, are going to have a higher total number of polemicists than nations with smaller populations.

But then when the Internet is added to the scenario, it gives such people places to “gather” and rhetorically “battle”. Therefore we’re going to witness large “polemicist battles” here merely as a result of our large aggregate number of such people.

Good stuff, thanks.

What concerns me, and I may be imagining this, is that this type of behavior is spreading far into our culture. It's almost impossible to escape it now, as it has infected popular culture, TV, sports, you name it. The average guy or gal on the street is liable to launch into a polemic tirade at the drop of a hat, and I do think that's a newer phenomenon.

Thoughts?
.

What concerns me, and I may be imagining this, is that this type of behavior is spreading far into our culture.

Again and again the old groupings of left and right no longer seem helpful. Sloganeering and dogmatizing settle nothing, nor do emotional tirades and protests really help us sort things through in a thoughtful, biblical fashion.
-- Arthur F. Holmes, Ethics: Approaching Moral Decisions​

What concerns me is that many of "The 545" are polemics and that one of those individuals has sanctioned wantonly gratuitous polemicists by himself unabashedly and inveterately being one. One expects that sort of vulgarity from members of the hoi polloi for many of them know no better. Upon one's gaining entrée into "The 545," one is expected to not only know better but also do better. When "The 545" don't better comport themselves, the hoi polloi construe that they too need not do better.

So, you see, what kept me from rushing in with an answer to you was not the difficulty of so doing, nor pressure of other work, nor the grandeur of your eloquence, nor fear of you, but simply disgust, disinclination, and distaste -- which, if I may say so, express my judgment of your Diatribe.
-- Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will​

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Fair point.

This whole theory of mine came about after reading a few books on the subconscious and how it can control thought processes. Regarding your good question - how did someone get to that point in the first place? - one fundamental theory of all the books was that a subconscious can be trained, over time, to believe some pretty wild things. It's not a light switch, it's a process.

As you might imagine, the process includes three primary elements: A general (but still lucid and pragmatic) predisposition to something, significant repetition of supporting opinion, and a general ideological isolation. And look at what we have today: The ability to pick your own reality, courtesy of an internet that allows us to isolate our news and information gathering to the tiniest slivers of reality. Cable "news" outlets that slant everything in "my" direction. So a person who leans toward a set of opinions, if they're not careful, can easily become consumed by them.
.

one fundamental theory of all the books was that a subconscious can be trained, over time, to believe some pretty wild things. It's not a light switch, it's a process.

I'll for now accept that as plausible and possible, though I can't say whether I accept that such is what has indeed happened to the people whom I construe as having "put part of their brains on the shelf" when it comes to "pondering" and discussing matters of public policy.

look at what we have today: The ability to pick your own reality, courtesy of an internet that allows us to isolate our news and information gathering to the tiniest slivers of reality. Cable "news" outlets that slant everything in "my" direction. So a person who leans toward a set of opinions, if they're not careful, and become consumed by them.

That ability, and the will to constrain one's information gathering activities with confirmation bias, is not new. It's merely that the Internet has created new opportunities for individuals and groups, folks who'd profit from one's doing so, to advance their status by meeting the demand for information that sates almost every thirst for information that confirms whatever bias it is possible to have.

The one thirst for information that, sady, has no more suppliers than it ever did is the thirst for sound, rigorous and highly objective information that exists solely for the sake of increasing the body of humanity's knowledge. Worse, it seems that proportionally, even fewer people read such documents. To wit, query folks who claim to care strongly and deeply about climate change and ask to what science journals they subscribe. Querying folks who attest to being most concerned about economic policy, ask them what economic journals they routinely read. Even among many self-supposing "well informed" folks who post on USMB, I suspect one'll need fewer than all one's fingers and toes to count the quantity of them who regularly read soundly conducted research reports, yet nearly everyone posting here are well aware of what media organizations have to say. If my supposition is mostly accurate, those folk's information-consumption behavior derives from no mental acuity affliction; it is willful.

It could be argued that such behavior is a symptom of the affliction, and I literally do look at it as an affliction.

Fascinating to watch and consider, though.
.

I would identify people who exhibit such behavior as polemicists. For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the term, polemic behaviors have been recognized since ancient times. Wikipedia has a primer on it (see following link): Polemic - Wikipedia

The way I see it, in any given society, there will probably always be subset of polemicists. Thus we, living in a nation of around 300 million people, are going to have a higher total number of polemicists than nations with smaller populations.

But then when the Internet is added to the scenario, it gives such people places to “gather” and rhetorically “battle”. Therefore we’re going to witness large “polemicist battles” here merely as a result of our large aggregate number of such people.

Good stuff, thanks.

What concerns me, and I may be imagining this, is that this type of behavior is spreading far into our culture. It's almost impossible to escape it now, as it has infected popular culture, TV, sports, you name it. The average guy or gal on the street is liable to launch into a polemic tirade at the drop of a hat, and I do think that's a newer phenomenon.

Thoughts?
.

What concerns me, and I may be imagining this, is that this type of behavior is spreading far into our culture.

Again and again the old groupings of left and right no longer seem helpful. Sloganeering and dogmatizing settle nothing, nor do emotional tirades and protests really help us sort things through in a thoughtful, biblical fashion.
-- Arthur F. Holmes, Ethics: Approaching Moral Decisions​

What concerns me is that many of "The 545" are polemics and that one of those individuals has sanctioned wantonly gratuitous polemicists by himself unabashedly and inveterately being one. One expects that sort of vulgarity from members of the hoi polloi for many of them know no better. Upon one's gaining entrée into "The 545," one is expected to not only know better but also do better. When "The 545" don't better comport themselves, the hoi polloi construe that they too need not do better.

So, you see, what kept me from rushing in with an answer to you was not the difficulty of so doing, nor pressure of other work, nor the grandeur of your eloquence, nor fear of you, but simply disgust, disinclination, and distaste -- which, if I may say so, express my judgment of your Diatribe.
-- Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will​

Have you ever considered writing intelligently rather than spending so much effort constructing all this unwieldy verbiage calculated to give the appearance of such?

 

[MPS777]

I don't think that at all. How does one come to be an atheist or theist? By using one's intellect to process the information that results in one's adopting either stance. Once once has processed that information and decides to be a theist, by preconditioning any other conclusion on anything having to do with theistic premises or conclusions, one has unavoidably used an unproved, thus neither true nor false, premise/inference into one's line of thinking about the matter under consideration. If that matter has nothing principally to do with theism, one's having done so constitutes an abrogation of one's intellect. After all, even theists acknowledge that only by faith can one come to know and accept God and his dogma.

Fair point.

This whole theory of mine came about after reading a few books on the subconscious and how it can control thought processes. Regarding your good question - how did someone get to that point in the first place? - one fundamental theory of all the books was that a subconscious can be trained, over time, to believe some pretty wild things. It's not a light switch, it's a process.

As you might imagine, the process includes three primary elements: A general (but still lucid and pragmatic) predisposition to something, significant repetition of supporting opinion, and a general ideological isolation. And look at what we have today: The ability to pick your own reality, courtesy of an internet that allows us to isolate our news and information gathering to the tiniest slivers of reality. Cable "news" outlets that slant everything in "my" direction. So a person who leans toward a set of opinions, if they're not careful, can easily become consumed by them.
.

one fundamental theory of all the books was that a subconscious can be trained, over time, to believe some pretty wild things. It's not a light switch, it's a process.

I'll for now accept that as plausible and possible, though I can't say whether I accept that such is what has indeed happened to the people whom I construe as having "put part of their brains on the shelf" when it comes to "pondering" and discussing matters of public policy.

look at what we have today: The ability to pick your own reality, courtesy of an internet that allows us to isolate our news and information gathering to the tiniest slivers of reality. Cable "news" outlets that slant everything in "my" direction. So a person who leans toward a set of opinions, if they're not careful, and become consumed by them.

That ability, and the will to constrain one's information gathering activities with confirmation bias, is not new. It's merely that the Internet has created new opportunities for individuals and groups, folks who'd profit from one's doing so, to advance their status by meeting the demand for information that sates almost every thirst for information that confirms whatever bias it is possible to have.

The one thirst for information that, sady, has no more suppliers than it ever did is the thirst for sound, rigorous and highly objective information that exists solely for the sake of increasing the body of humanity's knowledge. Worse, it seems that proportionally, even fewer people read such documents. To wit, query folks who claim to care strongly and deeply about climate change and ask to what science journals they subscribe. Querying folks who attest to being most concerned about economic policy, ask them what economic journals they routinely read. Even among many self-supposing "well informed" folks who post on USMB, I suspect one'll need fewer than all one's fingers and toes to count the quantity of them who regularly read soundly conducted research reports, yet nearly everyone posting here are well aware of what media organizations have to say. If my supposition is mostly accurate, those folk's information-consumption behavior derives from no mental acuity affliction; it is willful.

It could be argued that such behavior is a symptom of the affliction, and I literally do look at it as an affliction.

Fascinating to watch and consider, though.
.

I would identify people who exhibit such behavior as polemicists. For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the term, polemic behaviors have been recognized since ancient times. Wikipedia has a primer on it (see following link): Polemic - Wikipedia

The way I see it, in any given society, there will probably always be subset of polemicists. Thus we, living in a nation of around 300 million people, are going to have a higher total number of polemicists than nations with smaller populations.

But then when the Internet is added to the scenario, it gives such people places to “gather” and rhetorically “battle”. Therefore we’re going to witness large “polemicist battles” here merely as a result of our large aggregate number of such people.

Good stuff, thanks.

What concerns me, and I may be imagining this, is that this type of behavior is spreading far into our culture. It's almost impossible to escape it now, as it has infected popular culture, TV, sports, you name it. The average guy or gal on the street is liable to launch into a polemic tirade at the drop of a hat, and I do think that's a newer phenomenon.

Thoughts?
.

Yes, it concerns me as well. I never used to care much about politics, but the last general election jarred me a bit by the amplified magnitude of bitterness and animosity it aroused in people (and which hasn’t seemed to have subsided at all). Only in the last year or so have I really started investigating the issues and problems at hand, and the potential solutions. My natural inclination has been to adopt a “federalist” perspective. And I mean that in the modern sense of decentralizing many responsibilities out of the nation’s capital and back to the states. I think as smaller more culturally cohesive groups, the states would be able to enact policy less contentiously.

But of course, I’m aware that this may be more of a product of my own particular perspective. The idea of “I’ll handle my business, you handle yours” fits nicely with my personality. I could also use the latest tax bill that passed as an example. Now people from my state would look at the data on the following table, and say “hey, we’re getting ripped off!”:
https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fedspend_per_taxesbystate-20071009.pdf
And yet, there are “swamp creatures” in the federal government that have decided we need to be “milked” even more. It causes a feeling of resentment, especially since Washington DC has so much power over our affairs. If States had more control over their own affairs, I think the animosity would shrink.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Fair point.

This whole theory of mine came about after reading a few books on the subconscious and how it can control thought processes. Regarding your good question - how did someone get to that point in the first place? - one fundamental theory of all the books was that a subconscious can be trained, over time, to believe some pretty wild things. It's not a light switch, it's a process.

As you might imagine, the process includes three primary elements: A general (but still lucid and pragmatic) predisposition to something, significant repetition of supporting opinion, and a general ideological isolation. And look at what we have today: The ability to pick your own reality, courtesy of an internet that allows us to isolate our news and information gathering to the tiniest slivers of reality. Cable "news" outlets that slant everything in "my" direction. So a person who leans toward a set of opinions, if they're not careful, can easily become consumed by them.
.

one fundamental theory of all the books was that a subconscious can be trained, over time, to believe some pretty wild things. It's not a light switch, it's a process.

I'll for now accept that as plausible and possible, though I can't say whether I accept that such is what has indeed happened to the people whom I construe as having "put part of their brains on the shelf" when it comes to "pondering" and discussing matters of public policy.

look at what we have today: The ability to pick your own reality, courtesy of an internet that allows us to isolate our news and information gathering to the tiniest slivers of reality. Cable "news" outlets that slant everything in "my" direction. So a person who leans toward a set of opinions, if they're not careful, and become consumed by them.

That ability, and the will to constrain one's information gathering activities with confirmation bias, is not new. It's merely that the Internet has created new opportunities for individuals and groups, folks who'd profit from one's doing so, to advance their status by meeting the demand for information that sates almost every thirst for information that confirms whatever bias it is possible to have.

The one thirst for information that, sady, has no more suppliers than it ever did is the thirst for sound, rigorous and highly objective information that exists solely for the sake of increasing the body of humanity's knowledge. Worse, it seems that proportionally, even fewer people read such documents. To wit, query folks who claim to care strongly and deeply about climate change and ask to what science journals they subscribe. Querying folks who attest to being most concerned about economic policy, ask them what economic journals they routinely read. Even among many self-supposing "well informed" folks who post on USMB, I suspect one'll need fewer than all one's fingers and toes to count the quantity of them who regularly read soundly conducted research reports, yet nearly everyone posting here are well aware of what media organizations have to say. If my supposition is mostly accurate, those folk's information-consumption behavior derives from no mental acuity affliction; it is willful.

It could be argued that such behavior is a symptom of the affliction, and I literally do look at it as an affliction.

Fascinating to watch and consider, though.
.

I would identify people who exhibit such behavior as polemicists. For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the term, polemic behaviors have been recognized since ancient times. Wikipedia has a primer on it (see following link): Polemic - Wikipedia

The way I see it, in any given society, there will probably always be subset of polemicists. Thus we, living in a nation of around 300 million people, are going to have a higher total number of polemicists than nations with smaller populations.

But then when the Internet is added to the scenario, it gives such people places to “gather” and rhetorically “battle”. Therefore we’re going to witness large “polemicist battles” here merely as a result of our large aggregate number of such people.

Good stuff, thanks.

What concerns me, and I may be imagining this, is that this type of behavior is spreading far into our culture. It's almost impossible to escape it now, as it has infected popular culture, TV, sports, you name it. The average guy or gal on the street is liable to launch into a polemic tirade at the drop of a hat, and I do think that's a newer phenomenon.

Thoughts?
.

Yes, it concerns me as well. I never used to care much about politics, but the last general election jarred me a bit by the amplified magnitude of bitterness and animosity it aroused in people (and which hasn’t seemed to have subsided at all). Only in the last year or so have I really started investigating the issues and problems at hand, and the potential solutions. My natural inclination has been to adopt a “federalist” perspective. And I mean that in the modern sense of decentralizing many responsibilities out of the nation’s capital and back to the states. I think as smaller more culturally cohesive groups, the states would be able to enact policy less contentiously.

But of course, I’m aware that this may be more of a product of my own particular perspective. The idea of “I’ll handle my business, you handle yours” fits nicely with my personality. I could also use the latest tax bill that passed as an example. Now people from my state would look at the data on the following table, and say “hey, we’re getting ripped off!”:
https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fedspend_per_taxesbystate-20071009.pdf
And yet, there are “swamp creatures” in the federal government that have decided we need to be “milked” even more. It causes a feeling of resentment, especially since Washington DC has so much power over our affairs. If States had more control over their own affairs, I think the animosity would shrink.

OT:

Now people from my state would look at the data on the following table, and say “hey, we’re getting ripped off!”:
https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fedspend_per_taxesbystate-20071009.pdf

Looking that chart, it's hard to see any sense in "red staters' " griping about how government spending most benefits blue states or that "blue staters" somehow leach federal resources from "red staters."

• Will Grinch Dem's Steal Trump Tax Cuts?
  
• Wealthy Republican Congressmen vote to slash their own taxes
  
• I cannot seem to find it, but there is a somewhat recent thread on USMB about how Californians will, as a result of the GOP's tax changes, now pay their fair share. Well the chart you've shared show that to be the opposite of so.

 

[Mac1958]

Fair point.

This whole theory of mine came about after reading a few books on the subconscious and how it can control thought processes. Regarding your good question - how did someone get to that point in the first place? - one fundamental theory of all the books was that a subconscious can be trained, over time, to believe some pretty wild things. It's not a light switch, it's a process.

As you might imagine, the process includes three primary elements: A general (but still lucid and pragmatic) predisposition to something, significant repetition of supporting opinion, and a general ideological isolation. And look at what we have today: The ability to pick your own reality, courtesy of an internet that allows us to isolate our news and information gathering to the tiniest slivers of reality. Cable "news" outlets that slant everything in "my" direction. So a person who leans toward a set of opinions, if they're not careful, can easily become consumed by them.
.

one fundamental theory of all the books was that a subconscious can be trained, over time, to believe some pretty wild things. It's not a light switch, it's a process.

I'll for now accept that as plausible and possible, though I can't say whether I accept that such is what has indeed happened to the people whom I construe as having "put part of their brains on the shelf" when it comes to "pondering" and discussing matters of public policy.

look at what we have today: The ability to pick your own reality, courtesy of an internet that allows us to isolate our news and information gathering to the tiniest slivers of reality. Cable "news" outlets that slant everything in "my" direction. So a person who leans toward a set of opinions, if they're not careful, and become consumed by them.

That ability, and the will to constrain one's information gathering activities with confirmation bias, is not new. It's merely that the Internet has created new opportunities for individuals and groups, folks who'd profit from one's doing so, to advance their status by meeting the demand for information that sates almost every thirst for information that confirms whatever bias it is possible to have.

The one thirst for information that, sady, has no more suppliers than it ever did is the thirst for sound, rigorous and highly objective information that exists solely for the sake of increasing the body of humanity's knowledge. Worse, it seems that proportionally, even fewer people read such documents. To wit, query folks who claim to care strongly and deeply about climate change and ask to what science journals they subscribe. Querying folks who attest to being most concerned about economic policy, ask them what economic journals they routinely read. Even among many self-supposing "well informed" folks who post on USMB, I suspect one'll need fewer than all one's fingers and toes to count the quantity of them who regularly read soundly conducted research reports, yet nearly everyone posting here are well aware of what media organizations have to say. If my supposition is mostly accurate, those folk's information-consumption behavior derives from no mental acuity affliction; it is willful.

It could be argued that such behavior is a symptom of the affliction, and I literally do look at it as an affliction.

Fascinating to watch and consider, though.
.

I would identify people who exhibit such behavior as polemicists. For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the term, polemic behaviors have been recognized since ancient times. Wikipedia has a primer on it (see following link): Polemic - Wikipedia

The way I see it, in any given society, there will probably always be subset of polemicists. Thus we, living in a nation of around 300 million people, are going to have a higher total number of polemicists than nations with smaller populations.

But then when the Internet is added to the scenario, it gives such people places to “gather” and rhetorically “battle”. Therefore we’re going to witness large “polemicist battles” here merely as a result of our large aggregate number of such people.

Good stuff, thanks.

What concerns me, and I may be imagining this, is that this type of behavior is spreading far into our culture. It's almost impossible to escape it now, as it has infected popular culture, TV, sports, you name it. The average guy or gal on the street is liable to launch into a polemic tirade at the drop of a hat, and I do think that's a newer phenomenon.

Thoughts?
.

Yes, it concerns me as well. I never used to care much about politics, but the last general election jarred me a bit by the amplified magnitude of bitterness and animosity it aroused in people (and which hasn’t seemed to have subsided at all). Only in the last year or so have I really started investigating the issues and problems at hand, and the potential solutions. My natural inclination has been to adopt a “federalist” perspective. And I mean that in the modern sense of decentralizing many responsibilities out of the nation’s capital and back to the states. I think as smaller more culturally cohesive groups, the states would be able to enact policy less contentiously.

But of course, I’m aware that this may be more of a product of my own particular perspective. The idea of “I’ll handle my business, you handle yours” fits nicely with my personality. I could also use the latest tax bill that passed as an example. Now people from my state would look at the data on the following table, and say “hey, we’re getting ripped off!”:
https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fedspend_per_taxesbystate-20071009.pdf
And yet, there are “swamp creatures” in the federal government that have decided we need to be “milked” even more. It causes a feeling of resentment, especially since Washington DC has so much power over our affairs. If States had more control over their own affairs, I think the animosity would shrink.

Never thought of it from that angle, thanks. My impulses are towards federalism as well, but we're right now at a very binary place. "Impulses towards federalism" for me doesn't mean "100% decentralization", or anywhere near it, as it seems to for some in this environment. I'll have to give some thought to your point, good stuff.
.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Governments are supposedly elected on a manifesto that would contain a policy position on all areas. People tend not to read all of them and will base their votes on the headline policies or something that is very dear to them.

So you might feel that stopping immigration is the big issue and vote for the party that stops that. But you are also voting in a raft of other stuff that you are not so keen on.

For any politician to claim a "mandate" is disingenuous at the very least. Common sense tells you that it is a load of bollocks.But having said that I cant think of a workable alternative. Unless we vote on issues rather than for people.

As a rule of thumb the "mandate" defence is only used when the policy is unpopular.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I literally look at it as an affliction that can infect even perfectly intelligent people.

I took some time to see what research I could find that might militate for "mandates" of some sort being an affliction, that is, literally a psychological malady/disorder, even if just slightly so. I found the following document, and it does allude to the possibility that there's at least some "mental illness" component. I wouldn't go so far as to say they establish a "full-on" physiological/mental imbalance, but they leave the door open for that to be so.

• The Psychological Advantage of Unfalsifiability: The Appeal of Untestable Religious and Political Ideologies

The short of what they researchers found is that bias functions like a disease.

I don't know that the study's findings alter my line of argument -- I'd have to review the whole of our discussion to know that, and I haven't yet done that; I merely remembered that we were having the discussion -- but it does compel me to give more credence to your "affliction" idea. It certainly isn't as "off base" as I'd initially thought.

 

[Mac1958]

I don't know that the study's findings alter my line of argument -- I'd have to review the whole of our discussion to know that, and I haven't yet done that; I merely remembered that we were having the discussion -- but it does compel me to give more credence to your "affliction" idea. It certainly isn't as "off base" as I'd initially thought.

The theory came to me after reading a couple of books on the power of the subconscious, and then research of my own. The consistent theme is that our very thought processes can literally be changed (distorted) when the following conditions are met, in order:

1. An initial general (yet still pliable) opinion or ideology
   
2. An increasing intellectual isolation of that opinion or ideology (exposure to, and input of, only opinion at supports the opinion or ideology)
   
3. An increasing repetition of personal words and inner thoughts supporting that opinion or ideology

That's it. The contributing factors are not that complicated. It's the isolation of the ideas and repetition that literally distort both perceptions (incoming data) and thought processes (analysis and conclusions based on the distorted data).

I merely equate that distortion with affliction, frankly, because it makes people behave in ways they would not have, before the affliction. I'm essentially giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'm convinced, no matter how outlandish and absurd their words can be, it's very possible that they're being perfectly honest within their affliction. At least on a conscious level, which opens a whole other topic.

I can't fault someone for having an affliction, so how can I fault someone who is just being honest within one?
.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I don't know that the study's findings alter my line of argument -- I'd have to review the whole of our discussion to know that, and I haven't yet done that; I merely remembered that we were having the discussion -- but it does compel me to give more credence to your "affliction" idea. It certainly isn't as "off base" as I'd initially thought.

The theory came to me after reading a couple of books on the power of the subconscious, and then research of my own. The consistent theme is that our very thought processes can literally be changed (distorted) when the following conditions are met, in order:

1. An initial general (yet still pliable) opinion or ideology
   
2. An increasing intellectual isolation of that opinion or ideology (exposure to, and input of, only opinion at supports the opinion or ideology)
   
3. An increasing repetition of personal words and inner thoughts supporting that opinion or ideology

That's it. The contributing factors are not that complicated. It's the isolation of the ideas and repetition that literally distort both perceptions (incoming data) and thought processes (analysis and conclusions based on the distorted data).

I merely equate that distortion with affliction, frankly, because it makes people behave in ways they would not have, before the affliction. I'm essentially giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'm convinced, no matter how outlandish and absurd their words can be, it's very possible that they're being perfectly honest within their affliction. At least on a conscious level, which opens a whole other topic.

I can't fault someone for having an affliction, so how can I fault someone who is just being honest within one?
.

I can't fault someone for having an affliction, so how can I fault someone who is just being honest within one?

Well, upon one's being shown they may suffer from said affliction and one yet fails to obtain a "cure," unless they are truly "retards," you sure can hold them culpable for their hubris and for being willfully ignorant.

None of us is required to forebear that combination in others nor to maintain it within ourselves. Indeed, one of the major purposes of high school is to transform one from the midteen status of "omniscience" to the adult status of knowing that we have a lot more to learn and that the learning process is lifelong journey.

It's a universal law -- intolerance is the first sign of an inadequate education. An ill-educated person behaves with arrogant impatience, whereas truly profound education breeds humility.
-- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
​

 

[Mac1958]

I don't know that the study's findings alter my line of argument -- I'd have to review the whole of our discussion to know that, and I haven't yet done that; I merely remembered that we were having the discussion -- but it does compel me to give more credence to your "affliction" idea. It certainly isn't as "off base" as I'd initially thought.

The theory came to me after reading a couple of books on the power of the subconscious, and then research of my own. The consistent theme is that our very thought processes can literally be changed (distorted) when the following conditions are met, in order:

1. An initial general (yet still pliable) opinion or ideology
   
2. An increasing intellectual isolation of that opinion or ideology (exposure to, and input of, only opinion at supports the opinion or ideology)
   
3. An increasing repetition of personal words and inner thoughts supporting that opinion or ideology

That's it. The contributing factors are not that complicated. It's the isolation of the ideas and repetition that literally distort both perceptions (incoming data) and thought processes (analysis and conclusions based on the distorted data).

I merely equate that distortion with affliction, frankly, because it makes people behave in ways they would not have, before the affliction. I'm essentially giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'm convinced, no matter how outlandish and absurd their words can be, it's very possible that they're being perfectly honest within their affliction. At least on a conscious level, which opens a whole other topic.

I can't fault someone for having an affliction, so how can I fault someone who is just being honest within one?
.

I can't fault someone for having an affliction, so how can I fault someone who is just being honest within one?

Well, upon one's being shown they may suffer from said affliction and one yet fails to obtain a "cure," unless they are truly "retards," you sure can hold them culpable for their hubris and for being willfully ignorant.

None of us is required to forebear that combination in others nor to maintain it within ourselves. Indeed, one of the major purposes of high school is to transform one from the midteen status of "omniscience" to the adult status of knowing that we have a lot more to learn and that the learning process is lifelong journey.

It's a universal law -- intolerance is the first sign of an inadequate education. An ill-educated person behaves with arrogant impatience, whereas truly profound education breeds humility.
-- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
​

Well, I've thought a lot about that too, and I haven't yet reached any conclusions or hypotheses.

I struggle with the word "willful". I do believe that, at some level, they have to know what they're doing and what they're saying isn't honest. but I think it's entirely possible that such awareness doesn't exist at a conscious level, and that their affliction stops them from any deeper honest introspection.

Even regarding hubris, I wonder. In their minds, is it actually hubris or "truth", as if their affliction has led them to believe that they're somehow intellectually connected to the Truth of the Cosmos? I don't even know yet what they mean when they use that word. But they certainly do seem sincere.
.
.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I don't know that the study's findings alter my line of argument -- I'd have to review the whole of our discussion to know that, and I haven't yet done that; I merely remembered that we were having the discussion -- but it does compel me to give more credence to your "affliction" idea. It certainly isn't as "off base" as I'd initially thought.

The theory came to me after reading a couple of books on the power of the subconscious, and then research of my own. The consistent theme is that our very thought processes can literally be changed (distorted) when the following conditions are met, in order:

1. An initial general (yet still pliable) opinion or ideology
   
2. An increasing intellectual isolation of that opinion or ideology (exposure to, and input of, only opinion at supports the opinion or ideology)
   
3. An increasing repetition of personal words and inner thoughts supporting that opinion or ideology

That's it. The contributing factors are not that complicated. It's the isolation of the ideas and repetition that literally distort both perceptions (incoming data) and thought processes (analysis and conclusions based on the distorted data).

I merely equate that distortion with affliction, frankly, because it makes people behave in ways they would not have, before the affliction. I'm essentially giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'm convinced, no matter how outlandish and absurd their words can be, it's very possible that they're being perfectly honest within their affliction. At least on a conscious level, which opens a whole other topic.

I can't fault someone for having an affliction, so how can I fault someone who is just being honest within one?
.

I can't fault someone for having an affliction, so how can I fault someone who is just being honest within one?

Well, upon one's being shown they may suffer from said affliction and one yet fails to obtain a "cure," unless they are truly "retards," you sure can hold them culpable for their hubris and for being willfully ignorant.

None of us is required to forebear that combination in others nor to maintain it within ourselves. Indeed, one of the major purposes of high school is to transform one from the midteen status of "omniscience" to the adult status of knowing that we have a lot more to learn and that the learning process is lifelong journey.

It's a universal law -- intolerance is the first sign of an inadequate education. An ill-educated person behaves with arrogant impatience, whereas truly profound education breeds humility.
-- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
​

Well, I've thought a lot about that too, and I haven't yet reached any conclusions or hypotheses.

I struggle with the word "willful". I do believe that, at some level, they have to know what they're doing and what they're saying isn't honest. but I think it's entirely possible that such awareness doesn't exist at a conscious level, and that their affliction stops them from any deeper honest introspection.

Even regarding hubris, I wonder. In their minds, is it actually hubris or "truth", as if their affliction has led them to believe that they're somehow intellectually connected to the Truth of the Cosmos? I don't even know yet what they mean when they use that word. But they certainly do seem sincere.
.

You know, the path on which you've strikes me largely as an "insanity defense" for saying stupid sh*t. I can cut someone a little slack if they show they deserve it. One's ability to do so with me generally requires that I know them personally and well. That said, it's clear to me that my limit for being able to do so pales, I think, in comparison to yours.

I struggle with the word "willful"...I think it's entirely possible that such awareness doesn't exist at a conscious level...

I don't struggle with that at all, most especially not when I know a person has been provided with the information needed to disabuse of their misconceptions anyone other than intransigent folks. I'm sure you've noticed that I often when making an argument bother to link very credible supporting/explanatory content.

There're several reasons why I do, two being:

• So I can tell when someone responds to me whether they've considered more than just what's in front of their face, which is to say, whether they're being willfully ignorant or intransigent. I can tell that because they don't respond by substantively rebutting any key points or concepts found in my prose and the linked content.
• To be inclusive, that is to make readily available the information that founds or corroborates my conclusions. They can read it and if they don't agree, they have everything they need to refute my points based on whatever material weaknesses they find in the information that supports my points.

I understand that one may arrive in a discussion and lack portfolio, but upon being given the content one needs to have portfolio, one simply ignores it, all the while arguing their own position that doesn't stand up in light of that information, well, that's willfully ignorant in a very conscious way, and there is no excuse for that, at least not in my book.​

 

[Mac1958]

I don't know that the study's findings alter my line of argument -- I'd have to review the whole of our discussion to know that, and I haven't yet done that; I merely remembered that we were having the discussion -- but it does compel me to give more credence to your "affliction" idea. It certainly isn't as "off base" as I'd initially thought.

The theory came to me after reading a couple of books on the power of the subconscious, and then research of my own. The consistent theme is that our very thought processes can literally be changed (distorted) when the following conditions are met, in order:

1. An initial general (yet still pliable) opinion or ideology
   
2. An increasing intellectual isolation of that opinion or ideology (exposure to, and input of, only opinion at supports the opinion or ideology)
   
3. An increasing repetition of personal words and inner thoughts supporting that opinion or ideology

That's it. The contributing factors are not that complicated. It's the isolation of the ideas and repetition that literally distort both perceptions (incoming data) and thought processes (analysis and conclusions based on the distorted data).

I merely equate that distortion with affliction, frankly, because it makes people behave in ways they would not have, before the affliction. I'm essentially giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'm convinced, no matter how outlandish and absurd their words can be, it's very possible that they're being perfectly honest within their affliction. At least on a conscious level, which opens a whole other topic.

I can't fault someone for having an affliction, so how can I fault someone who is just being honest within one?
.

I can't fault someone for having an affliction, so how can I fault someone who is just being honest within one?

Well, upon one's being shown they may suffer from said affliction and one yet fails to obtain a "cure," unless they are truly "retards," you sure can hold them culpable for their hubris and for being willfully ignorant.

None of us is required to forebear that combination in others nor to maintain it within ourselves. Indeed, one of the major purposes of high school is to transform one from the midteen status of "omniscience" to the adult status of knowing that we have a lot more to learn and that the learning process is lifelong journey.

It's a universal law -- intolerance is the first sign of an inadequate education. An ill-educated person behaves with arrogant impatience, whereas truly profound education breeds humility.
-- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
​

Well, I've thought a lot about that too, and I haven't yet reached any conclusions or hypotheses.

I struggle with the word "willful". I do believe that, at some level, they have to know what they're doing and what they're saying isn't honest. but I think it's entirely possible that such awareness doesn't exist at a conscious level, and that their affliction stops them from any deeper honest introspection.

Even regarding hubris, I wonder. In their minds, is it actually hubris or "truth", as if their affliction has led them to believe that they're somehow intellectually connected to the Truth of the Cosmos? I don't even know yet what they mean when they use that word. But they certainly do seem sincere.
.

You know, the path on which you've strikes me largely as an "insanity defense" for saying stupid sh*t. I can cut someone a little slack if they show they deserve it. One's ability to do so with me generally requires that I know them personally and well. That said, it's clear to me that my limit for being able to do so pales, I think, in comparison to yours.

I struggle with the word "willful"...I think it's entirely possible that such awareness doesn't exist at a conscious level...

I don't struggle with that at all, most especially not when I know a person has been provided with the information needed to disabuse of their misconceptions anyone other than intransigent folks. I'm sure you've noticed that I often when making an argument bother to link very credible supporting/explanatory content.

There're several reasons why I do, two being:

• So I can tell when someone responds to me whether they've considered more than just what's in front of their face, which is to say, whether they're being willfully ignorant or intransigent. I can tell that because they don't respond by substantively rebutting any key points or concepts found in my prose and the linked content.
• To be inclusive, that is to make readily available the information that founds or corroborates my conclusions. They can read it and if they don't agree, they have everything they need to refute my points based on whatever material weaknesses they find in the information that supports my points.

I understand that one may arrive in a discussion and lack portfolio, but upon being given the content one needs to have portfolio, one simply ignores it, all the while arguing their own position that doesn't stand up in light of that information, well, that's willfully ignorant in a very conscious way, and there is no excuse for that, at least not in my book.​

Understood. In "real life", one of my many flaws is that I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt more than I should.

This whole theory is still young, and I'm bouncing around inside it. USMB provides one wonderful mental Petri dish for me to use as I go. Talk about "one stop shopping".
.

 

[MPS777]

In my opinion, a party would have to get upwards of 60% of the vote for me to consider it a mandate. The problem is, a lot of people aren’t necessarily voting FOR the platform of their chosen candidate, but voting AGAINST the platform of the opposing candidate. So without a huge majority of the vote, I’d be dubious that people REALLY wanted the policies of the winning candidate.

 

[Mac1958]

In my opinion, a party would have to get upwards of 60% of the vote for me to consider it a mandate. The problem is, a lot of people aren’t necessarily voting FOR the platform of their chosen candidate, but voting AGAINST the platform of the opposing candidate. So without a huge majority of the vote, I’d be dubious that people REALLY wanted the policies of the winning candidate.

Yeah. And really, I think the whole concept of a "mandate" is badly flawed to begin with. Even if an idea "wins" in an individual election, there are many ways to implement it that still involve input from both ends. Thinking that there is only one (1) way to do something is simplistic and narcissistic. It's like trying to paint a bold mural with only half a color palette. Self-restricting and arbitrary.

To me, the term "mandate" is nothing more than an excuse by a party to shove their entire agenda down our throats while they can.
.