Tag: Debate (Page 18 of 27)

From UKIP Home:

It’s well known that you should not create a political frame that creates a positive view of your opposition.
For example, no political leader would ever publicly say they believe their rivals will win even if the rival has 60% poll share rating.
The reason is obvious; by stating the possibility of your rival winning, you add strength to that frame because you do not want it to happen.

Yes, yes, a well known Machiavellian strategy. But one that is also highly irritating and patronising to the average punter. We voters know very well how the opinion polls rate the parties; and we are no less able than a politician to understand, say, concepts of percentage swing. When one party is massively ahead of the other in the polls, denial is just stupid. No-one wants an ostritch as their representative.
Why do politicians believe that denying the obvious somehow wins them votes? How about trying to win votes by the power of argument, rather losing votes with these school-boy mind-tricks?

Overheard at a house-warming party:

Drunk blogger: Well, I’ve been called an ‘Islamophobe’ and an ‘anti-semite’ on my blog, so…
Drunk non-blogger: … you’re just the bigot in the middle?

The fallacy of the blogger here, of course, is to assume that the two positions attributed to him are mutally exclusive, and therefore cancel each other out. This is not the case at all, as his respondent was so quick to point out.
Its an extension of that argument which says that if you are against position x (say, the invasion of Iraq) you are necessarily supportive of position y (the regime of Saddam), which doesn’t quite capture the true nature of the situation. The fallacy begins when we assume that these arguments are binary, zero-sum problems. Our politicians (supported by their cohorts in the media) are very good at promoting these falsehoods. “You’re either with us or against us”. Buy into the way they have framed the debate, and your argument is already lost.
And yes, dear reader: I was that blogger.

Here is one such thought that I’ve been pondering for a week or so. Someone posted this comment:

Human nature and with it the need to marginalise, insult and bully people belonging to other groups, never changes…

I hear this a lot, usually (I have to say) cited as a reason for not bothering to support charitable causes and group endevours; or as an excuse for some tribalistic rejection of some other group. For too many people, citing the selfish aspect of human nature is the end of the conversation, a put-down to all the idealistic talk about equality.
And for me, it is this attitude which grates. I am sure humans have selfish side, but I am not so confident that this part of our nature trumps all our other qualities! Either way, I think this fact should be the start of the conversation: How do we work to overcome these urges? How do we achieve something greater together, than we could do alone?