Storming the capital together

Topic: Left-right political spectrum
Re: Basic ideology and the need for cooperation between left and right to bring politics under control.

<Wednesday> Generally, the left wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform, and internationalism," while the right wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism."
<Wednesday> what among these values is NOT good?
<Wednesday> does healthy internationalism conflict with healthy nationalism?
<Wednesday> i like the notions of "order" and "tradition", but how insane would you have to be to not want to reform the current order/traditions if they're not working?
<Wednesday> who disagrees with this: left and right must learn to respect all these qualities and negotiate reasonably about them.
<Jupiter8> i would say that definition has been polarized a bit more nowdays ... like left = tree hugging, hippy, fake media clowns and right = greedy, selfish angry bastards
<Wednesday> i think you're right, Jupiter8 - and i think that's a problem because those ideas aren't healthy. they're making the world sick.
<Jupiter8> how about politicians give up party politics and actually represent the people?
<Wednesday> wouldn't that be something new!
<Jupiter8> ... there's a novel approach
<Wednesday> yes
<Jupiter8> yeah :)
* Wednesday shakes head. too bad the very idea is such a joke.
<Wednesday> left and right should be out there storming the capital together, cuz neither side is being respected by the politicians

Reasoning over Conflicting Sources

A recent article in my Facebook feed proclaimed "Australia's Great Barrier Reef is Dead" Shocked by this assertion, I clicked the link, and was immediately relieved when I saw the webpage layout - it screamed "unreliable", with its wacky headlines and outrages click-bait ads. Hopeful, I opened a new tab to a search engine and entered the relevant keywords. Hundreds of results appeared, from which I selected one with a headline that opposed the bleak news of the first article, and a second that implied the reef isn't even in much (if any) danger.

Before even reading the articles, I created a new Facebook post and added each of the stories as a comment. There they were in all their contradictory glory.

• Great Barrier Reef: Unesco opts against 'in danger' status
  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-40515367
• Great Barrier Reef dead at 25 million
  http://nypost.com/2016/10/14/the-great-barrier-reef-is-dead-at-25-million-years-old/
• The Great Barrier Reef is not actually dead
  http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/14/us/barrier-reef-obit-trnd/index.html

Dead! Not Dead! Not even in Danger! What am I to think?

I began clicking between the tabs that contained these stories, scanning and searching the pages looking for relevant connections, contradictions, motives, and reasons that the same bit of underwater countryside could have such a variety of prognoses, when a BEEP! brought my attention back to Facebook. A friend had commented:

This is one of those things where people don't actually get to decide. Saying the reef is dead doesn't make it so, and saying it's not doesn't revive it. The reef is as it is. You can look at it and see its condition for yourself. This doesn't make the reef's status an "independent reality," because it is still intimately connected with us through space, time, and perception, but it does mean that there are two matters: the reef, and our opinions about it. It's always helpful to keep the two separate.

Shazam! He's right. we have to separate these from each other:

• "what is so" (the reef) 
• "what we believe is so" (our opinions about it). 

Excited by this revelation, I rushed here, to my blog, and began typing furiously. Wisdom poured from my fingertips!

"The vast majority of the information we receive from mass media and the internet are going to be prohibitively difficult to verify in person, even should we have the knowledge, skills, time, and money to do so..." I explained.

"We need to discover a new way of, even if not absolutely verifying facts, at least verifying that what's reported can be convincingly reasoned to be believable!"

The prose was delectable. The enlightenment, how it shined from my screen into my own eyes! But still, something was wrong. It wasn't cohesive; it didn't tie points together. Maybe it needed more than this one set of conflicting stories.

Left is Left and Right is Right

I went to chat for inspiration. Surely I'd find that chatters debating issues will find varying information sets and perhaps gain some insight into how to validate one or the other, or at least explain the divergence in the two. I can tell you, it didn't take long.

<InformationDude> china runs on like 90% coal
<LiberalSnowOp> China is roughly 66% coal
<LiberalSnowOp> Which is an enormous amount. But it's not 90%

"Yes! Here's my chance," I thought. "Now we'll see what their sources are really made of."

<Sanguine> Could each of you post a link to references?

To my surprise, they both responded within seconds.

<LiberalSnowOp> Sanguine: https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/analysis.cfm?iso=CHN
<HalTheEvilBot> Title: China - International - Analysis - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
<InformationDude> https://www.statista.com/statistics/265612/primary-energy-consumption-in-china-by-fuel-type-in-oil-equivalent/
<HalTheEvilBot> Title: •  China - primary energy consumption by fuel (in oil equivalent) 2016 | Statistic
<InformationDude> not quite 90%, it was off the cuff 

Of course, arguments and attacks soon follow. Fortunately, snowop has an impressive reply.

<FaultObserver> <InformationDude> china runs on like 90% coal
<FaultObserver> "Runs on" = consumption
<InformationDude> yea that was off the cuff, i addressed that
<InformationDude> we found the real number and its BAD

<DisruptiveAttacker> it's just another one of InformationDude easily disprovable lies that we're going to spend the next hour arguing about

<DisruptiveAttacker> LiberalSnowOp: have you ever thought if InformationDude adds enough value to this channel to keep him around? 

<LiberalSnowOp> We're not discussing that

My first attempt at responding was poor, but might have set the stage for what comes later (if it was noticed at all)...

<Sanguine> DisruptiveAttacker: he just rectified it. are you not watching?
<DisruptiveAttacker> InformationDude: are you still trying to say that it runs on 90% coal or are you revising your estimate down but higher than what LiberalSnowOp said and linked to?
<InformationDude> i dont refute the charts posted
<InformationDude> i was guessing at 90%
<InformationDude> wasnt far off either
<DisruptiveAttacker> well, 66% vs 90% is quite far
<DisruptiveAttacker> InformationDude: so you were wrong?
<InformationDude> 24%
<InformationDude> not bad margin for a guess

DisruptiveAttacker very gracefully responded to my final comment and even stopped disruptively attacking:

<Sanguine> be that as it may (bad guess margin) the issue now becomes DisruptiveAttacker disrupting
<DisruptiveAttacker> Sanguine: sorry for being disruptive 

Of course, the conversation soon descended again into attacks and howling on a different subject. I suspect that could be attributed to habit, really, though I can't say for sure.

The price of coal in China?

The point of this post has little to do with either Chinese Coal or the deterioration of Natural Wonders. Rather, it's all about how our use, misuse, and guessing about information sources in our conversation can contribute to disruption and a failure to find understanding. It's lax, it's lazy, and I know this because it's my habit as much as anyone's. I've seen myself fall into this frenzy of trying to win (or even just stay afloat in) an argument. In conversation - especially in a crowded chat room where everyone wants to get in his two bits - there's a feeling of urgency. In such situations, I (and I suspect many others) often grab facts or numbers from what seems to be memory and toss them right out into the world as truth.

Maybe this method isn't so bad if you're in it for entertainment - just a way to enjoy passing the time - but politics figures strongly in forming the reality in which we live. It's time I begin to look for a more serious approach - to consider my arguments before making them, and to back them up with reference links even before being asked. This I resolve to do, and to commemorate the resolution I've deleted my original text on the matter and have rewritten this post in it's current form.

Further, I'm going to open those articles about the Barrier Reef and read each from start to finish... right after my nap.

References:

• http://nypost.com/2016/10/14/the-great-barrier-reef-is-dead-at-25-million-years-old/
• http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/14/us/barrier-reef-obit-trnd/index.html
• http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-40515367
• https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/analysis.cfm?iso=CHN
• https://www.statista.com/statistics/265612/primary-energy-consumption-in-china-by-fuel-type-in-oil-equivalent/
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China#/media/File:China_coal_prod.PNG

Invitation

When's the last time you saw a meaningful debate between political opponents? Everywhere, I see division; I see hate and bickering and a complete failure to approach discussion of issues with meaningful conversation. In chats, on FaceBook and Twitter, and in the comments below news and feature stories - it's always the same. There seem to be two sides, each with its own unique set of ideals in which no common ground can be found. Is it any wonder we can't solve the problems we perceive in government and society?

Everyone wants to talk, nobody wants to listen. We've somehow lost the ability to negotiate; to consider ideas other than our own, to try to comprehend other points of view or even listen for some way of understanding. I don't know how this has happened, though I have some guesses. What I do know is that things will continue to deteriorate for all of us until we find a way to work out our differences.

Come to #rational-politics with the goal of altering your way of conversing with your political opponents, because that is the chat room's first and most important goal - to find a way to discuss rather than bicker; to listen as much as we speak; to learn as well as teach - this is the prime directive. It's as though we're on two different worlds with distinct languages. We each must strive to understand the other's point of view.

The burden of finding a path is on both. Not just your opponent... you, too. We're going to look for rules and guidelines to facilitate that process. We're going to learn first to comprehend, then to communicate, and finally, to negotiate.

People who understand this and are willing to work hard will be on the leading edge of finding a way out of the hole our system has dug for us. Yes, it will be extremely difficult - maybe even impossible, but maybe not. Maybe we'll succeed. Come to #rational-politics if you're willing to try.

Thanks for reading.

Initial Ideas

Here's a look at the original ideas for forming #rational-politics, and just for fun a log (slightly edited for brevity) showing our first thoughts on rules and guidelines and how to proceed.

Guidelines, Rules

A civil open discussion about issues in politics.

No Attacks - Civil Debate with Facts and Reason
We encourage civil debate, no personal attacks are tolerated.

Jupiter8: personally i would also like to see the discussion directed at broader things, political philosophy for example, not just responses to current event

 Runner: DO NOT be rude, vulgar, racist, bully, sexist or anything of the sort in chat.

How it all started...

<nine> i'm thinking of starting a new channel about politics
<nine> something very strictly kept sane
<Jupiter8> isn't there one in here?
<nine> it's a madhouse
<Jupiter8> ahh ok
<nine> i want to somehow prevent all bickering between conservatives and liberals
<Jupiter8> you need a 'crazy filter' ... that's problematic
<nine> Jupiter8: that's why i need some friends to help me.
* nine clears throat
<Runner`> where you going to start it nine
<nine> well, we'll have to think of a channel name
<nine> and we'll have to decide on the rules before we start it
<Jupiter8> #non-partisan politics
<nine> not bad
<Runner`> i'll be the first banned no doubt
<Jupiter8> haha
<Jupiter8> get in at the ground level Runner` and be an op
<Jupiter8> then you can ban eveyone else
<nine> well... the thing is about the rules
<nine> this is kind of important to me
<nine> ok, very important to me
<nine> i look around and see nothing but bickering and name-calling
<nine> nobody actually talks
<nine> i think it's pretty much the same all over the world
<Jupiter8> #rational-politics
<nine> i like that a lot
<nine> now i need the rules
<nine> and that's going to be really hard
<Jupiter8> rules, yeah
<Runner`> which network?
<Jupiter8> "a civil open discussion about issues in politics"
<Runner`>good luck
<Runner`>have you been to many politics channels
<Runner`>nine you go to #politics like me, you know how it gets there
<Runner`>new rules now
<nine> NO ATTACKS 
<Runner`>no name calling, no attacks, etc
<nine> yes runner
<Runner`>yeh well
<Runner`>if a person is a moron, i'm gonna tell them so
<nine> hm.
<Jupiter8> "no dweebs, hacks or sphincters allowed"
<Runner`>moron is a level of intelligence
<nine> maybe i should  give up on this idea
<nine> i can't even get you guys to join
<Runner`>i'm in
<Jupiter8> oh, you've already done it?
<Runner`>you did?
<Runner`>i'll go steal chatters from #politics for ya
<Runner`>i'll offer them free toasters
<nine> not yet please
<nine> we need to make the rules first
<Runner`>ok, no personal attacks, no name calling, no racism , no perverts or sickos
* Runner__ is now known as DemocratsRcrybabies
<nine> runner, lol
<nine> we're in #rational-politics
* DemocratsRcrybabies is now known as Runner``
<Runner`> ohhhh right now you mean
<Runner`> ok coming !
<nine> :)