Trump

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Trump

We have had 3 straight weekends of protests now, and I agree that we can expect to see it continue. The vast majority of these protestors are exercising their right of protest in a peaceful way. As long as Trump continues to rule in his authoritarian manner: to insult all his opponents, attack the media, to ignore the constitution, to pretend he has the support of the majority, to deny reality; the protests will continue. I hope the protests remain peaceful and that nobody gets hurt, but we should expect some level of violence.
To hold the leaders of the “left” or the “right” accountable for all acts of violence from extremists is pointless. I do expect the leaders of the “left” and the “right” to condemn acts of violence and to conduct themselves so as not to promote violence. Keep it peaceful. Do not condemn all peaceful protesters for the acts of a few extremists.

Hi Bob G:

I think a vain hope re peaceful, non-violent right of assembly.

I saw an article about a month ago I think (I'd have to go scroll down for a long time, and even then could miss it) - 7 USA states had bills now before them to allow municipalities, I think, to manage/limit the peaceful right of assembly (Beyond permits for road-blocking, etc.). Someone else know about this?

Bob A

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: Trump

I skipped ahead to 10:15 or thereabouts and was kind of shocked at the 'enthusiasm' that woman/professor showed - wow. I could almost predict what she was going to yell (and I am still wondering why it is that I could predict some of that...?! yikes) Anyway, interesting post and bizarre video but I don't think we have seen the last of these kind of protests. I think it will only get worse and I am afraid the violence level will simply ratchet up quickly... stay tuned world.

We have had 3 straight weekends of protests now, and I agree that we can expect to see it continue. The vast majority of these protestors are exercising their right of protest in a peaceful way. As long as Trump continues to rule in his authoritarian manner: to insult all his opponents, attack the media, to ignore the constitution, to pretend he has the support of the majority, to deny reality; the protests will continue. I hope the protests remain peaceful and that nobody gets hurt, but we should expect some level of violence.
To hold the leaders of the “left” or the “right” accountable for all acts of violence from extremists is pointless. I do expect the leaders of the “left” and the “right” to condemn acts of violence and to conduct themselves so as not to promote violence. Keep it peaceful. Do not condemn all peaceful protesters for the acts of a few extremists.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Trump

If you take out the word "equally", then you have encapsulated what I am saying. But you inserted that word, which I never used, in a blatant attempt to make my argument seem silly.






Two points on that:

(1) Courts of law do not use Occam's Razor to determine guilt or innocence. Tom O'Donnell obviously does. Enough said there.

(2) Reich never used the word "proof" because he wasn't making a factual argument. Reich used his non-recognition of the violence perpertrators as evidence giving weight to his argument that they COULD HAVE BEEN anti-free speech activists from the alt right. Again, Tom displays blatant disregard for what people are actually arguing. His bias is so complete that he hears only what he wants to hear, sees only what he wants to see.

I didn't realize CNN was a court of law. Are the guests' hearsay now evidence?

"Don, they could have been Martians. They could have been a bunch of robots. They could have been ghosts." If I were to make such a claim I would probably need something a bit more compelling than "I read in the National Enquirer that Martians live in Berkeley" or "I'm not saying they were robots but they moved a bit stiffly".

The point is that extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. Ordinary claims (e.g. that some people opposed to an ideology will become violent) are pretty ordinary.

Having said that, of course Reich could be correct. Anything is possible. CNN created fake news by giving both sides a chance to deliver theories with zero proof attached to either. Even if one theory is a lot more plausible than the other.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Trump

Hi Paul:

Interesting and complex concept: "Bias".

One can be biased because they hold an ideology that is impervious to rational debate: I refer to this as "Ideological Bias". You run into it anywhere on the spectrum: right, centre, left. The person totally and passionately believes that their "factual arguments" justifying their positions, are "true". There is no hint of immorality, of "lying".

A key feature is that the same "facts" (Which others claim to be dubious) are regularly trotted out in support of the position, as if sent down to us on the stone tablets.

There can be here, no dialogue......no presentations of "alternate possible facts" will even be considered.

Dialogue implies an openness on both sides to the possibility the other is right, and they are wrong.

If you really believe that this context is not present, that you are being faced with ideological bias, then Einstein, I believe, said not to waste your time (Don't have his exact quote at my fingertips....someone else got it?).

Bob A

Hi Bob,

Yes, bias is an interesting study. I often wonder if this has ever happened: two identical twins grow up together, attend the same schools, go to all the same events, basically do everything together, maybe even take the same undergraduate studies. And yet.... one of them grows up to be very conservative, the other to be very liberal. And neither can convince the other to come over to their view.

Wouldn't that be interesting? How would psychologists explain such a result? However, I don't know if such a case has ever been documented. But the point is, do we really understand what forms people's opinions, especially when they cling fiercely to them despite evidence they are wrong? Is it possible that our sociological and political beliefs are induced by genetic or chemical processes that might be beyond our control and not influenced by outside environment?

And then there are people who are very open-minded and agnostic, preferring to study all sides of an argument and give each side the benefit of objective consideration.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Trump

According to the Paul Bonham school of journalism analysis, both are equally credible claims.

If you take out the word "equally", then you have encapsulated what I am saying. But you inserted that word, which I never used, in a blatant attempt to make my argument seem silly.

Meanwhile Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is probably the correct one.

Which seems simpler:

1) A bunch of people opposed to an ideology committed some violence to get their way.

2)There was a conspiracy involving the people on tour, the masked vigilantes and the mayor and police, who chose to make only three arrests for some reason.

Meanwhile Reich, who evidently knows the tens of thousands of students at the university by sight, says the bulk of his proof is that he didn't recognize them as students.

Two points on that:

(1) Courts of law do not use Occam's Razor to determine guilt or innocence. Tom O'Donnell obviously does. Enough said there.

(2) Reich never used the word "proof" because he wasn't making a factual argument. Reich used his non-recognition of the violence perpertrators as evidence giving weight to his argument that they COULD HAVE BEEN anti-free speech activists from the alt right. Again, Tom displays blatant disregard for what people are actually arguing. His bias is so complete that he hears only what he wants to hear, sees only what he wants to see.