Why is USMB a hub for bad views?

[flacaltenn]

I've always considered their philosophy to be progressive and their political identity as leftist, but sure.

The extremists on the right are not the Tea Party -- which is fairly oblivious to the normal GOP social baggage and have the Liberal sense of fear about government power -- The extremists would be the Karl Roves and McCains who are similiarly oblivious to a consistent Conservative philosophy and care mostly about winning. They have dangerous ideas about the attainment of power and the use of that power domestically and Globally..

 

[westwall]

I've always considered their philosophy to be progressive and their political identity as leftist, but sure.

The extremists on the right are not the Tea Party -- which is fairly oblivious to the normal GOP social baggage and have the Liberal sense of fear about government power -- The extremists would be the Karl Roves and McCains who are similiarly oblivious to a consistent Conservative philosophy and care mostly about winning. They have dangerous ideas about the attainment of power and the use of that power domestically and Globally..

Absolutely. I think McCain is merely a bit player, but Rove is a menace....an absolute menace to the people of this country.

 

[Unkotare]

Thank goodness you're not given to hyperbole...

 

[Boss]

You took my comments incorrectly. Just because most arguments on this board come from conservatives who have a hard time constructing an argument doesn't mean I think the actual ideas of conservatism are poorly reasoned. Only that the people expressing them are bad at using reason. Put differently, this site consists of a base of untrained uncritical thinkers making the principles of conservatism look bad. A difference between the user and the ideal.

Again, I think this is because of your perspective. I hear this "critical thinker" thing a lot. Sometimes it is called "free thinker" or "open minded thinker" but it denotes a person who views their personal thinking to be somewhat above the fray and beyond reproach. I find all too often, the "critical thinker" is actually a closed-minded thinker who isn't willing to think outside of their own mental constructs.

Anything could be true and you are right to be skeptical. But your general statement about the internet having a left leaning bias is inappropriate blanket statement/ It goes to show that you take your perspective as absolute and correct, impregnable doctrine. Thus anything deviating from that (towards the "wrong" end of the spectrum) you cry "liberal! Liberal!" and think your pronouncements are valid.

Well of course I do, doesn't everyone? Haven't heard many say, "Hey, wanna listen to my invalid pronouncements?" or "Hey, wanna hear my perspective that I don't believe is correct or absolute?" Anything that is liberal, I will say it's liberal. What should I do? Say it's not liberal when I know better? Ignore that it's liberal and pretend it's objective?

Now I am careful not to make generalized statements. You will notice that I say things like "most posters are liberal" instead of "all posters are liberal." or "tends to lean liberal" instead of "is always liberal leaning." I was careful to point out how the dynamics are changing and there are indeed conservatives and libertarians here and elsewhere on the Internet. I simply pointed out a fact regarding our culture, that liberals tend to access the Internet more than conservatives, and they also tend to post on message boards and forums more than conservatives. It's because conservatives are more reserved and aren't as tech savvy as liberals, nor do they have the emotive passion to speak out for their cause like liberals do. That's not a blanket statement and has nothing to do with my personal political views, it's just a fact of life.

You have a ways to go in maturing your critical thinking faculties. You are certainly intelligent and I give you a lot of credit for replying to my post with a genuine answer, I really appreciate that and this is the variety of discussion which is often lacking here.

Well thank you for the critique, but it's not needed. My critical thinking faculties are just fine. This seems to be a bit of a backhanded compliment. You are seeming to take a 'high-brow' tone with me about my maturity of critical thinking, then thank me for being genuine. As I stated before, I find that people who use terms like "critical thinker" are often not very critical in their thinking at all. It's almost as if they have to convince themselves they are critical thinkers by making such proclamations. Most of the time they tend to be very rigid in their thinking, closed to any outside thinking at all, and resigned to defend their thinking at all costs.

 

[Unkotare]

In other words, he's a snot-nosed little troll who thinks far too highly of himself. I agree.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I was wondering why this general trend is so? Is this the real spectrum of thought in America? A genuine representation?

The kook right is vastly overrepresented here. Just look at any poll taken here. It will be about 80% conservative, with a big chunk of those conservatives just reciting their endless litanies of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories. You should have been here for the elections, when the whole lot of 'em was screaming that the polls were fraudulent, Romney was headed for a landslide win, and those libtards had to be delusional to think otherwise.

Such kooks have always been with us. There was always the guy at the bar or diner grumbling about something crazy. But before the internet, those people were isolated and kept moored to reality by the normal people around them. Now, they self-segregate themselves into groups on the internet, reinforce each other's dementia, and amp each other up to ever higher levels of stupid. There's just no one around to tell them they're acting like crazy people. Well, except me and some others. The interventions we stage here for unhinged conservatives are a sort of public service.

USMB isn't even especially bad in that regard. Other places are a lot worse, in the sense of being overrun by right-wing-fringe conspiracy theorists who sputter out "libtards!" in a tourettes-like fashion. At least you won't get autobanned for PWL offenses here (Posting While Liberal), as will happen at any openly conservative board.

Or is there something about this site that attracts an overwhelming majority of inadequate rigor and woefully unfounded assertions?

It's a difficult line to walk, giving people freedom to talk without letting the loonies take complete control. I look at it as giving the conservatives a sporting chance. If they can rely gang tactics, spamming, deliberately using data they know has been debunked and other bad behavior, then they're not completely helpless against the facts, reason and honesty of the liberals. Consider it a challenge, practice for real world politics where just being correct doesn't guarantee a win.

The kook left is also over represented, as well as the kook center. I haven't seen you complaining about them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You took my comments incorrectly. Just because most arguments on this board come from conservatives who have a hard time constructing an argument doesn't mean I think the actual ideas of conservatism are poorly reasoned. Only that the people expressing them are bad at using reason. Put differently, this site consists of a base of untrained uncritical thinkers making the principles of conservatism look bad. A difference between the user and the ideal.

Anything could be true and you are right to be skeptical. But your general statement about the internet having a left leaning bias is inappropriate blanket statement/ It goes to show that you take your perspective as absolute and correct, impregnable doctrine. Thus anything deviating from that (towards the "wrong" end of the spectrum) you cry "liberal! Liberal!" and think your pronouncements are valid. You have a ways to go in maturing your critical thinking faculties. You are certainly intelligent and I give you a lot of credit for replying to my post with a genuine answer, I really appreciate that and this is the variety of discussion which is often lacking here.

Have you read rdean's or Luddly's posts?

 

[dblack]

You took my comments incorrectly. Just because most arguments on this board come from conservatives who have a hard time constructing an argument doesn't mean I think the actual ideas of conservatism are poorly reasoned. Only that the people expressing them are bad at using reason. Put differently, this site consists of a base of untrained uncritical thinkers making the principles of conservatism look bad. A difference between the user and the ideal.

Anything could be true and you are right to be skeptical. But your general statement about the internet having a left leaning bias is inappropriate blanket statement/ It goes to show that you take your perspective as absolute and correct, impregnable doctrine. Thus anything deviating from that (towards the "wrong" end of the spectrum) you cry "liberal! Liberal!" and think your pronouncements are valid. You have a ways to go in maturing your critical thinking faculties. You are certainly intelligent and I give you a lot of credit for replying to my post with a genuine answer, I really appreciate that and this is the variety of discussion which is often lacking here.

Have you read rdean's or Luddly's posts?

gnarly is referring to posts that are poorly reasoned, not those where reasoning isn't employed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You took my comments incorrectly. Just because most arguments on this board come from conservatives who have a hard time constructing an argument doesn't mean I think the actual ideas of conservatism are poorly reasoned. Only that the people expressing them are bad at using reason. Put differently, this site consists of a base of untrained uncritical thinkers making the principles of conservatism look bad. A difference between the user and the ideal.

Anything could be true and you are right to be skeptical. But your general statement about the internet having a left leaning bias is inappropriate blanket statement/ It goes to show that you take your perspective as absolute and correct, impregnable doctrine. Thus anything deviating from that (towards the "wrong" end of the spectrum) you cry "liberal! Liberal!" and think your pronouncements are valid. You have a ways to go in maturing your critical thinking faculties. You are certainly intelligent and I give you a lot of credit for replying to my post with a genuine answer, I really appreciate that and this is the variety of discussion which is often lacking here.

Have you read rdean's or Luddly's posts?

gnarly is referring to posts that are poorly reasoned, not those where reasoning isn't employed.

Good point.

 

[midcan5]

Happy Sunday morning all. Whenever I come back to USMB I feel like, didn't we go over this before? It is fascinating how America has changed in its core values, from say the seventies till today. Politics now emulates sport in which one is on one side or the other. But where do these ideas for each side originate and why do some ideas just seem so useless even dumb to one and not the other. What experience creates a belief that 'trickle down,' for instance, works and must be argued for in spite of evidence? Is reasoning rational, didn't we debate this a few years ago? See links below.

Take this test when you have a few minutes, it is a challenge in a number of ways. https://cuboulder.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_e2TZsAuNDO5Mq8d

"Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given the exceptional dependence of humans on communication and their vulnerability to misinformation." Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory by Hugo Mercier, Dan Sperber :: SSRN

Old post and reply

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/166739-reason-is-not-rational.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/166739-reason-is-not-rational.html#post3628043


Food for thought? http://www.usmessageboard.com/writing/103530-fact-paradox-and-random-musings-2.html#post7656862

 

[gnarlylove]

Critical thinker does not mean what you equated it to. Critical thinking is a subject that is danced around mostly because it calls out bad thinking, but this world is full of bad thinking.

Critical thinking requires one to study logic, syllogisms, fallacies, ya know, the rules of thought? Reasoning is another word. Critical refers to the attitude taken towards all assertions and conclusions, there is no respector of persons when it comes to the rules of thought, Ockham's Razor, sufficient evidence, allegation versus fact etc.

I know what critical thinking is from studying on my own as well as formal academic education, even taking a class called Critical Thinking 110 (Logic 340 is in there too).

The important part of critical thinking implies constant modification of one's beliefs, including core beliefs with which one identifies as central. I've changed my own core views and values many more times then I thought I would but always being honest with myself is crucial to this process. As I came to know more about the world I was forced by reason, critical thinking, the foundation of rationality to modify my beliefs. I wonder if anyone else does that or do they stick to their guns no matter what they learn.


midican, I wonder how we can reconcile rationality and critical thinking..you seem to imply that our faculty of rationalization leads to trouble since it's mean to justify our beliefs instead of justify true beliefs. But if critical thinking could be taught, at least what logical fallacies are (some 20-200) of them, then we'd be better equipped to seek out justification that correspond to what humans know instead of what humans want to believe.

 

[Unkotare]

I know what critical thinking is from studying on my own as well as formal academic education, even taking a class called Critical Thinking 110 (Logic 340 is in there too).

.

You took one intro course (and maybe one course in Logic) and you're here lecturing people? Get over yourself, Junior.

 

[Boss]

Critical thinker does not mean what you equated it to. Critical thinking is a subject that is danced around mostly because it calls out bad thinking, but this world is full of bad thinking.

Critical thinking requires one to study logic, syllogisms, fallacies, ya know, the rules of thought? Reasoning is another word. Critical refers to the attitude taken towards all assertions and conclusions, there is no respector of persons when it comes to the rules of thought, Ockham's Razor, sufficient evidence, allegation versus fact etc.

I know what critical thinking is from studying on my own as well as formal academic education, even taking a class called Critical Thinking 110 (Logic 340 is in there too).

The important part of critical thinking implies constant modification of one's beliefs, including core beliefs with which one identifies as central. I've changed my own core views and values many more times then I thought I would but always being honest with myself is crucial to this process. As I came to know more about the world I was forced by reason, critical thinking, the foundation of rationality to modify my beliefs. I wonder if anyone else does that or do they stick to their guns no matter what they learn.

midican, I wonder how we can reconcile rationality and critical thinking..you seem to imply that our faculty of rationalization leads to trouble since it's mean to justify our beliefs instead of justify true beliefs. But if critical thinking could be taught, at least what logical fallacies are (some 20-200) of them, then we'd be better equipped to seek out justification that correspond to what humans know instead of what humans want to believe.

As a conservative, my thinking and rationalizations are made on the basis of collective experience. What works is what has worked for mankind, and this is the basis for what I think will work in the future. Ideas that emerge from the political left are often very idealistic and frivolous. Based on some 'theory' that has yet to ever be proven in practicality. Hopeful and wishful thinking, not critical or reasoned thinking at all. "Hope and Change" is a prime example. Simply changing for change sake and hoping things will turn out for the better, is not a well-reasoned or well-thought-out plan, as it turns out. Conservatives could have saved you the time in trying this experiment.

I am a psychologist, and I guess I have always been interested in the way people think and rationalize things. I was probably in about the 5th grade when I realized I wanted to be a psychologist. In my case, the profession picked me, I didn't pick the profession. When it's your 'calling' to study the way people think and rationalize, you certainly have to master your own thinking and rationalization. You very seldom see psychologists going to a psychiatrist. Therefore, I tend to be very comfortable with what I think and believe, and it takes a tremendous amount of hard core information to change what I think. I don't change my mind based on the opinions of others, and in fact, I am very skeptical when someone is attempting to change my mind.

Logical fallacies, or "formal" and "informal" fallacies, are errors in logic. These should never be a problem to isolate and point out to the individual employing them. It's simply a matter of articulation. If you cannot articulate why something is a "logical fallacy" it probably isn't one.

 

[flacaltenn]

You just went thru a defense of your position by stating all of your qualifications to be a "reasoned debater" --- However ---- what folks SAW in the TITLE of this thread
" Why is USMB a hub for bad views?" is a huge rookie leap to conclusions not in evidence. Define "bad views".. Quantify the extent of the problem. Compare with alternatives.. Like for instance, how the DEPTH AND BREADTH of discussions on USMB compares to other social media like Twitter and Facebook. THAT'S what I would have expected from a seasoned reasoned thinker.. But instead --- all we got was................................

Anyone with a minimal intellectual background will see this site consists mostly of terribly reasoned posts. I'm referring to mainly the popular topics like "Environment" section, "Politics" etc. but then again, each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives.

I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often founded on water instead of solid ground.

I was wondering why this general trend is so? Is this the real spectrum of thought in America? A genuine representation? Or is there something about this site that attracts an overwhelming majority of inadequate rigor and woefully unfounded assertions?

Any thoughts?

I thought perhaps the answer might be the fact the URL contains "US" (message boards) and therefore anyone who wants critical discussion automatically knows US=uncritical thought. Yes? No?

Again, this is a only trend I'm denoting in America. If usmessageboads is a genuine representation of American thought then whoa! America is not what I thought it was! But my opinion is this site is not a genuine representation.

Yeah.. Many thoughts..

1) What is the relevance of taking the cheap shot at the US in USMB and America in general? Are you just soapboxing your recent illuminations in reading Chomsky here -- or do you have broad personal experience with discussions in other languages and locales?

2) What IS a genuine representation of American thought? Even a coarse definition will do.

3) What part of your reasoned academically blessed, debate preparation allows crap like ......

I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often founded on water instead of solid ground.

4) What role have YOU PLAYED in promoting better FOCUSED discussions in those forums like "environment and politics" ? And can you quote examples of the fine level of discourse you are missing from the rest of us?

My interactions with you on those forums indicate to me that you are as focused on the topic as a squirrel. And that glowing generalities and appeals to consensus are the only tools of debate that you have.. Show us your stuff man..

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Happy Sunday morning all. Whenever I come back to USMB I feel like, didn't we go over this before? It is fascinating how America has changed in its core values, from say the seventies till today. Politics now emulates sport in which one is on one side or the other. But where do these ideas for each side originate and why do some ideas just seem so useless even dumb to one and not the other. What experience creates a belief that 'trickle down,' for instance, works and must be argued for in spite of evidence? Is reasoning rational, didn't we debate this a few years ago? See links below.

Take this test when you have a few minutes, it is a challenge in a number of ways. https://cuboulder.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_e2TZsAuNDO5Mq8d

"Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given the exceptional dependence of humans on communication and their vulnerability to misinformation." Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory by Hugo Mercier, Dan Sperber :: SSRN

Old post and reply

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/166739-reason-is-not-rational.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/166739-reason-is-not-rational.html#post3628043


Food for thought? http://www.usmessageboard.com/writing/103530-fact-paradox-and-random-musings-2.html#post7656862

The expert on nothing has, once again, proven he doesn't understand anything. I actually answered the OP precisely earlier, yet only one person even bothered to thank me for it. I guess that Googling for obscure cultural references is too much for the psuedo-intellectuals of the board. Do yourself a favor, read the two words below and Google them if it doesn't click.

Sturgeon's Law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Critical thinker does not mean what you equated it to. Critical thinking is a subject that is danced around mostly because it calls out bad thinking, but this world is full of bad thinking.

Critical thinking requires one to study logic, syllogisms, fallacies, ya know, the rules of thought? Reasoning is another word. Critical refers to the attitude taken towards all assertions and conclusions, there is no respector of persons when it comes to the rules of thought, Ockham's Razor, sufficient evidence, allegation versus fact etc.

I know what critical thinking is from studying on my own as well as formal academic education, even taking a class called Critical Thinking 110 (Logic 340 is in there too).

The important part of critical thinking implies constant modification of one's beliefs, including core beliefs with which one identifies as central. I've changed my own core views and values many more times then I thought I would but always being honest with myself is crucial to this process. As I came to know more about the world I was forced by reason, critical thinking, the foundation of rationality to modify my beliefs. I wonder if anyone else does that or do they stick to their guns no matter what they learn.


midican, I wonder how we can reconcile rationality and critical thinking..you seem to imply that our faculty of rationalization leads to trouble since it's mean to justify our beliefs instead of justify true beliefs. But if critical thinking could be taught, at least what logical fallacies are (some 20-200) of them, then we'd be better equipped to seek out justification that correspond to what humans know instead of what humans want to believe.

Damn, I knew you were stupid, I didn't know you were pretentious. I should turn you and Midcan loose on each other and watch you guys spout nonsense at each for eternity.

For the record, critical thinking is not a method of calling out bad thinking, whatever the fuck you think that is. It isn't even the study of logic. It is the process of assessing the reliability of information by actually comparing it to everything else you know. If you see a ghost walk through your wall logic would dictate that the experience was valid, critical thinking would require you to asses your perceptions against everything else in the universe, including the fact that matter cannot pass through matter, and conclude that you were the victim of an elaborate hoax.

https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

In critical thinking you examine every iota of information for bias, even if it comes from yourself. You learn to acccept your own bias, and counter it as much as possible when assessing new information. You adjust your theories to the actual data, and never ignore something just because it doesn't fit your world view.

In other words, the reason you never see critical thinking from others is that you don't know what the fuck it is.

 

[gnarlylove]

As a conservative, my thinking and rationalizations are made on the basis of collective experience. What works is what has worked for mankind, and this is the basis for what I think will work in the future. Ideas that emerge from the political left are often very idealistic and frivolous. Based on some 'theory' that has yet to ever be proven in practicality. Hopeful and wishful thinking, not critical or reasoned thinking at all. "Hope and Change" is a prime example. Simply changing for change sake and hoping things will turn out for the better, is not a well-reasoned or well-thought-out plan, as it turns out. Conservatives could have saved you the time in trying this experiment.

I am a psychologist, and I guess I have always been interested in the way people think and rationalize things. I was probably in about the 5th grade when I realized I wanted to be a psychologist. In my case, the profession picked me, I didn't pick the profession. When it's your 'calling' to study the way people think and rationalize, you certainly have to master your own thinking and rationalization. You very seldom see psychologists going to a psychiatrist. Therefore, I tend to be very comfortable with what I think and believe, and it takes a tremendous amount of hard core information to change what I think. I don't change my mind based on the opinions of others, and in fact, I am very skeptical when someone is attempting to change my mind.

Logical fallacies, or "formal" and "informal" fallacies, are errors in logic. These should never be a problem to isolate and point out to the individual employing them. It's simply a matter of articulation. If you cannot articulate why something is a "logical fallacy" it probably isn't one.

You are clearly intelligent and I appreciate your posts. But to think a field of study takes on human intention by choosing you is not very rational. I respect this belief however, and am aware when I am on the "right track" in life and when I'm not. Your premise seems more narrative based then in objective reality. I'm not saying we have total access to objectivity in the world and can understand it fully, but if we can't differentiate between what our values /opinions are and mistake them for fact, we are making rational discussion and compromise more difficult. There is more brush to clear then. If we both could come to common ground, work from a common premise from which to discuss, then I think we can have fruitful discussion. So let's see what you wrote,

Take you uncritical blanket statements about liberals and idealizing. What is a principle, such as many conservatives talk about, if not an ideal? An ideal for which to strive? Maybe you don't listen to you conservative representatives much. Neither do I but enough to know they use idealistic language. In fact, ideology, which has caused the gridlock in congress is in fact NOT WORKING. I take practicality seriously too and the ideological gridlock in congress is a result of neither side compromising, neither side modifying principle in order to make the system work so that our current system doesn't work, except for the super rich 1%. They have much access to our politicians and fund their campaigns.

But actually that's what congress was designed to do: represent the interests of those who own the nation (1%/corporations) but this is a different topic and I won't say anymore.

I wanted to address your Hope and Change objection. You speak as if either concept is idealist. If we take hope at face value, hope is essential to wake up in the morning. Without a motivation that you haven't yet achieved though are striving for, then you don't get out of bed, even if it's just a vague estimate. So Hope sounds very essential to human thinking and life in general, a belief that things can get better.

Take change. Well, taken at face value again, change simply means a different and new situation. Well, I doubt many people think there should be no change from this moment on. Change is happening each day and without adaptation, humans could not survive. Thus, we were born into a constantly changing world and we must keep up if we want to play the game. So yeah, change also seems critical for our lives. Plus I doubt many people think the government and politics are how they should remain...so yeah, change is and can be good, depending on what the change is. Such vague terms are really malleable for use as political strategy.

Even McCain's 2008 campaign sought "Hope and Change" for their campaign slogan but didn't pull it off as well--I'm simply talking in marketing/advertising terms, I don't care about who won or who is better. Why did both candidates choose this slogan? Look at the polls around the time. What was the country wanting? Hope. Change. That's what a billion dollar campaign can get you, brilliant strategists who read public polls. In fact, CPAC speech by Ted Cruz yesterday or recently also invoked Hope and Change as something Cons need but obviously not of the liberal variety.

So your attack on Hope and Change and idealism of liberals seems far less based in rational discussion then some personal antipathy towards liberals. I am sorry that liberals in the past have rubbed you raw so that you don't genuinely respect liberals from the get-go (I don't think your accusing me of this, I'm merely making what appears to be a factual observation about how you treat a liberal). Given that fact I am skeptical to the quality of discussion we can have. So I want to be clear I am opposed to both parties so you don't box me in as lib or con. like those are the only two possible positions. Perhaps working from the common ground of critical thinking and discussion instead of personal feeling and invocations of intuition, we can reach some common ground. That would feel like a warm cup of delicious tea if we could accomplish this. The ball is in your court. Tear this apart, ask me a question, anything, just please let's try to remain as close to rationality and reason as we can.

 

[Toro]

Any argument that disagrees with mine is a terribly reasoned post.

 

[mamooth]

The kook left is also over represented, as well as the kook center. I haven't seen you complaining about them.

But you _are_ the kook center, and I've called you out before. Especially kooky the way you strive to turn every thread away from intelligent discussion into meaningless wordplay that nobody gives a shit about, while "funny" would be the way you think it makes you look intelligent instead like a weasel.

I actually answered the OP precisely earlier,

With a stupid evasion you thought was clever. Saying "90% of everything is crap" was just more of your trademark handwaving. Impresses the stupid people, but others just roll their eyes at it.

In critical thinking you examine every iota of information for bias, even if it comes from yourself.

Something you need to work on, clearly.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But actually that's what congress was designed to do: represent the interests of those who own the nation (1%/corporations) but this is a different topic and I won't say anymore.

This is from the guy that insists that other people can't think.