Extremism and the Internet

[carlfense]

http://www.slate.com/id/2219486/pagenum/all/#p2

 

How on Earth Do You Tame Extremists?Cass Sunstein tackles an impossible task.

By Christopher Caldwell

 

Cass Sunstein's Going to Extremes.In the roughly three decades between the election of Ronald Reagan and last autumn's global financial collapse, social scientists and public-policy thinkers were obsessed with the way society seemed to grow more fragmented as it grew more prosperous. Almost everyone diagnosed a growing gap between rich and poor, but the polarization was not just economic. Mickey Kaus showed that people were mingling less in public spaces. Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray showed that people were sorting themselves by measured intelligence and scholastic achievement.

 

It was Cass Sunstein, now a Harvard constitutional law professor, who first alerted a broad public to the kind of polarization that has preoccupied us most in recent years. Society, with the help of the Web, was sorting people by ideology in a way that eroded fellow-feeling and fostered mindless partisanship. Almost a decade ago, his Republic.com lamented that while daily newspapers confront people with all kinds of material they didn't ask for, the Web allows them to dodge what they disagree with. This was an alarming refutation of our smug claims about the Internet. In theory, the Internet opens people up to new ways of looking at things. In practice, it lets people wall themselves off in informational micro-environments of their own design. It makes them not more cosmopolitan but more parochial.

 

Now Sunstein has written Going to Extremes, a short book about the nature and roots of extremism. It is meant to unsettle us in the way his earlier work did. He finds that sitting people down to deliberate does not necessarily lead them to compromise or to converge on their mean opinion. They tend to radicalize in the direction of whatever bias they had to begin with. Teams of doctors, deciding collectively, are more likely to support the "extreme" strategy of heroic efforts to save terminally ill patents than the average individual doctor among them. Juries tend to vote, after discussion, for much more "extreme" monetary awards than the average individual juror among them would. Talking things over isn't necessarily wrong. But it doesn't lead reliably to moderation, either.

 

Other people have made similar arguments. To take an example that Sunstein does not mention: When Barack Obama won the Democratic Party's nomination last year, largely thanks to his strength in caucus states, Hillary Clinton's supporters complained that the deliberative caucus system didn't just express voter sentiment but warped it. It would be interesting to know whether Sunstein—President Obama's friend, former colleague, and nominee as chief White House regulator—agrees with the Clinton view. He seems to.

 

Much of Sunstein's evidence about how people drift to extremes comes from his studies of groups that already have a bias to begin with. Individual Democrats and Republicans on three-judge panels cast more "extreme" votes when they are in the majority than when they are not. A group of conservative Republicans in Colorado Springs will move sharply rightward when they discuss global warming among themselves, and a group of liberal Democrats from Boulder will move sharply leftward.

 

These homogeneous groups are not the special cases they would appear. They tell us something about what happens in more heterogeneous groups, too. If you bring the two clashing sides together, they don't find middle ground any more than like-minded people do. Each side digs in. If you give "a set of balanced, substantive readings" to a group that is at loggerheads over abortion or affirmative action, Sunstein shows, each side simply mines the readings for support of its own position. Ideology, it turns out, is not just a matter of opinions or positions—it is a predisposition to receive some kinds of evidence and not others. Compounding the problem, certain kinds of extremist arguments have an "automatic rhetorical advantage" in deliberation. Me, too, but less is harder to rally behind than In for a penny, in for a pound. In recent years, there have been no effective arguments against endlessly ratcheting up drug sentences or endlessly ratcheting down tax rates.

 

These insights—which come mostly from the first 30 or so pages of a 150-page book—are immensely interesting, but Sunstein has a hard time building anything out of them. To be fair, it is not clear that he means to. The book is less a fully mustered argument than a collection of write-ups of half a dozen research projects clustered around the social dynamics of extremism.

 

As long as the reader assumes extremism is always a problem, the solution would seem to involve strengthening diversity so that it doesn't dissolve on contact with pigheadedness. That is Sunstein's idea for terrorism, for instance. "If a nation aims to prevent terrorist activities," he writes, "a good strategy is to prevent the rise of enclaves of like-minded people." But what happens when the enclave is not a bunch of terrorists? What if it is a trade union? A men's club? A women's studies department? Civil rights marchers? Ordinary religious people? Love thy neighbor as thyself and We shall overcome also meet the description of an extremism. They, too, are partial views of the world that tend to be self-reinforcing.

 

Sunstein acknowledges that there can be good extremists (American revolutionaries) as well as bad ones (Hutu machete men). Once he does, a lot that was bold, simple, and interesting becomes conditional, tangled, and confusing. Sunstein spends the last third of the book unsaying much of what he has written up to that point. "When people are seeking their rights," he writes, "group polarization can be highly desirable." And not just polarization. People also need the possibility of what Sunstein calls "enclave deliberation": shelter from the system to organize against the system.

 

If Sunstein is on a quest for neutral principles that would trammel bad extremisms and promote good ones—and for much of the book, he seems to be—it is an unfruitful one. He seeks a way out through the work of legal philosopher Heather Gerken, which sounds, in Sunstein's description, like a more fleshed-out and sophisticated analysis of groups in conflict than anything else described in his own book. Gerken distinguishes between first-order diversity (diversity within institutions) and second-order diversity (diversity among institutions). To simplify, the first involves insuring that the newsroom of the Los Angeles Times has a certain number of Latinos; the second involves ensuring that the public can choose between, say, the Los Angeles Times, the New Republic, and the Final Call. It is OK if certain institutions aren't diverse as long as society has a diversity of institutions.

 

Gerken's version of diversity would let 100 flowers bloom. It is more compatible with liberty than the first-order vision we currently embrace, which relies on targeted suspensions of the right to freedom of association. It does not, however, get around the problems that Sunstein lays out with such admirable boldness at the start of the book. Because wouldn't this variety of groups, however vast and diverse at the outset, eventually sort itself into two warring camps that would then jaw at each other in mindless mutual contempt? Isn't that, in fact, just what has stunk up American political culture since the rise of the Internet?

 

Sunstein is torn. The central insight of this book is that deliberation, far from bringing people together, can drive them to extremes. Bien-pensant campaigns of public information and "dialogue" therefore risk doing more harm than good. Sunstein's argument undermines ideals of deliberative democracy, but he refuses to admit that it does. "It suggests only that we need to specify the idea of deliberation, rather than to celebrate it as such," he writes, defensively.

 

What does "specifying the idea of deliberation" mean? It can only mean reasoning backward—on ethical grounds —from desired conclusions to permissible lines of debate. Sunstein refers to bad extremists as having a "crippled epistemology": They know less than they think they do, and what they know is biased. But, really, the same might be said of Martin Luther King or Mother Theresa. It is not epistemology that separates them from, say, the butchers of Rwanda. It is ethics. As concepts go, "extremism" turns out not to explain all that much. It is a little rivulet running into a vast ocean of right and wrong. The only way to counter the kind of extremism you don't like, whether you are the head of a school board or a state, is to say, "We believe in this and not in that," and hope you are strong enough to prevail—probably, alas, with tactics that are less deliberative than you might have wished.

[HuskerExpat]

And as applied to current events:

 

The Big Hate

 

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Back in April, there was a huge fuss over an internal report by the Department of Homeland Security warning that current conditions resemble those in the early 1990s — a time marked by an upsurge of right-wing extremism that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing.

 

Conservatives were outraged. The chairman of the Republican National Committee denounced the report as an attempt to “segment out conservatives in this country who have a different philosophy or view from this administration” and label them as terrorists.

 

But with the murder of Dr. George Tiller by an anti-abortion fanatic, closely followed by a shooting by a white supremacist at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the analysis looks prescient.

 

There is, however, one important thing that the D.H.S. report didn’t say: Today, as in the early years of the Clinton administration but to an even greater extent, right-wing extremism is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment.

 

Now, for the most part, the likes of Fox News and the R.N.C. haven’t directly incited violence, despite Bill O’Reilly’s declarations that “some” called Dr. Tiller “Tiller the Baby Killer,” that he had “blood on his hands,” and that he was a “guy operating a death mill.” But they have gone out of their way to provide a platform for conspiracy theories and apocalyptic rhetoric, just as they did the last time a Democrat held the White House.

 

And at this point, whatever dividing line there was between mainstream conservatism and the black-helicopter crowd seems to have been virtually erased.

 

Exhibit A for the mainstreaming of right-wing extremism is Fox News’s new star, Glenn Beck. Here we have a network where, like it or not, millions of Americans get their news — and it gives daily airtime to a commentator who, among other things, warned viewers that the Federal Emergency Management Agency might be building concentration camps as part of the Obama administration’s “totalitarian” agenda (although he eventually conceded that nothing of the kind was happening).

 

But let’s not neglect the print news media. In the Bush years, The Washington Times became an important media player because it was widely regarded as the Bush administration’s house organ. Earlier this week, the newspaper saw fit to run an opinion piece declaring that President Obama “not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself,” and that in any case he has “aligned himself” with the radical Muslim Brotherhood.

 

And then there’s Rush Limbaugh. His rants today aren’t very different from his rants in 1993. But he occupies a different position in the scheme of things. Remember, during the Bush years Mr. Limbaugh became very much a political insider. Indeed, according to a recent Gallup survey, 10 percent of Republicans now consider him the “main person who speaks for the Republican Party today,” putting him in a three-way tie with Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich. So when Mr. Limbaugh peddles conspiracy theories — suggesting, for example, that fears over swine flu were being hyped “to get people to respond to government orders” — that’s a case of the conservative media establishment joining hands with the lunatic fringe.

 

It’s not surprising, then, that politicians are doing the same thing. The R.N.C. says that “the Democratic Party is dedicated to restructuring American society along socialist ideals.” And when Jon Voight, the actor, told the audience at a Republican fund-raiser this week that the president is a “false prophet” and that “we and we alone are the right frame of mind to free this nation from this Obama oppression,” Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, thanked him, saying that he “really enjoyed” the remarks.

 

Credit where credit is due. Some figures in the conservative media have refused to go along with the big hate — people like Fox’s Shepard Smith and Catherine Herridge, who debunked the attacks on that Homeland Security report two months ago. But this doesn’t change the broad picture, which is that supposedly respectable news organizations and political figures are giving aid and comfort to dangerous extremism.

 

What will the consequences be? Nobody knows, of course, although the analysts at Homeland Security fretted that things may turn out even worse than in the 1990s — that thanks, in part, to the election of an African-American president, “the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years.”

 

And that’s a threat to take seriously. Yes, the worst terrorist attack in our history was perpetrated by a foreign conspiracy. But the second worst, the Oklahoma City bombing, was perpetrated by an all-American lunatic. Politicians and media organizations wind up such people at their, and our, peril.

Link

[carlfense]

Thanks HuskerExpat. That's an excellent application of the theory presented in my article.

 

Again, as someone who probably tends to lean more conservative than liberal, I am worried about the direction of the Republican Party. Yikes.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Thanks HuskerExpat. That's an excellent application of the theory presented in my article.

 

Again, as someone who probably tends to lean more conservative than liberal, I am worried about the direction of the Republican Party. Yikes.

 

I'm more worried about the direction the government is headed. Actually worried is not the correct term, because that would mean I cared if the government crumbled today, which I absolutely do not. So, what I meant to say is, I am encouraged by the actions government, and those who support it, are being forced to take. This can only mean more and more people are opening up their eyes, searching and figuring out the truth. This has those in power very, very worried.

 

However, the downside to this revelation is that we will see an increase in propaganda looking to link disturbed, loner psychos such as McVeigh, Von Brunn, and other fringe lunatics to those who logically and rationally question what the government is doing, how they are doing it and why we even need government to begin with. Studies on extremism by pro-big government educators, the DHS report on domestic terrorism and liberty-bashing articles by the likes of pseudo-economist/sheep Paul Krugman are examples of this happening already. This increase in propaganda will no doubt help shape public opinion in favor of government; which in turn will lead to an increase in government power, more regulation, and all at the expense of freedom. But hey, that’s government for you.

 

The Slate article and Sunstein’s study assume that people want moderation and compromise, not extremism. But what if people just want the truth? Is that extremism too? Is it bad for people to be exposed to the different issues, choose what they agree with, and make choices based on their own preferences and logic? From the article, it sounds as if Sunstein isn't so much worried about “public disconnect,” but more worried about the loss of control those in authority have over individuals. Sunstein acknowledges that good and bad extremism exist, but who gets to decide which is which? Are individuals too incapable of figuring that out themselves?

[carlfense]

Thanks HuskerExpat. That's an excellent application of the theory presented in my article.

 

Again, as someone who probably tends to lean more conservative than liberal, I am worried about the direction of the Republican Party. Yikes.

 

I'm more worried about the direction the government is headed. Actually worried is not the correct term, because that would mean I cared if the government crumbled today, which I absolutely do not. So, what I meant to say is, I am encouraged by the actions government, and those who support it, are being forced to take. This can only mean more and more people are opening up their eyes, searching and figuring out the truth. This has those in power very, very worried.

 

However, the downside to this revelation is that we will see an increase in propaganda looking to link disturbed, loner psychos such as McVeigh, Von Brunn, and other fringe lunatics to those who logically and rationally question what the government is doing, how they are doing it and why we even need government to begin with. Studies on extremism by pro-big government educators, the DHS report on domestic terrorism and liberty-bashing articles by the likes of pseudo-economist/sheep Paul Krugman are examples of this happening already. This increase in propaganda will no doubt help shape public opinion in favor of government; which in turn will lead to an increase in government power, more regulation, and all at the expense of freedom. But hey, that’s government for you.

 

The Slate article and Sunstein’s study assume that people want moderation and compromise, not extremism. But what if people just want the truth? Is that extremism too? Is it bad for people to be exposed to the different issues, choose what they agree with, and make choices based on their own preferences and logic? From the article, it sounds as if Sunstein isn't so much worried about “public disconnect,” but more worried about the loss of control those in authority have over individuals. Sunstein acknowledges that good and bad extremism exist, but who gets to decide which is which? Are individuals too incapable of figuring that out themselves?

 

How often is there actually "truth?" I'd say seldom. There are viewpoints and opinions. There is seldom objective truth.

[HuskerExpat]

(snip)

Studies on extremism by pro-big government educators, the DHS report on domestic terrorism and liberty-bashing articles by the likes of pseudo-economist/sheep Paul Krugman are examples of this happening already.

(snip)

Calling Paul Krugman a "pseudo economist" pretty much cements your biased opinion of him. He did, afterall, win a Nobel Prize in Economics. I'm not saying that means that you have to agree with him, but it does show that he is generally respected among economists.

[HuskerExpat]

Thanks HuskerExpat. That's an excellent application of the theory presented in my article.

 

Again, as someone who probably tends to lean more conservative than liberal, I am worried about the direction of the Republican Party. Yikes.

 

I'm more worried about the direction the government is headed. Actually worried is not the correct term, because that would mean I cared if the government crumbled today, which I absolutely do not. So, what I meant to say is, I am encouraged by the actions government, and those who support it, are being forced to take. This can only mean more and more people are opening up their eyes, searching and figuring out the truth. This has those in power very, very worried.

 

However, the downside to this revelation is that we will see an increase in propaganda looking to link disturbed, loner psychos such as McVeigh, Von Brunn, and other fringe lunatics to those who logically and rationally question what the government is doing, how they are doing it and why we even need government to begin with. Studies on extremism by pro-big government educators, the DHS report on domestic terrorism and liberty-bashing articles by the likes of pseudo-economist/sheep Paul Krugman are examples of this happening already. This increase in propaganda will no doubt help shape public opinion in favor of government; which in turn will lead to an increase in government power, more regulation, and all at the expense of freedom. But hey, that’s government for you.

 

The Slate article and Sunstein’s study assume that people want moderation and compromise, not extremism. But what if people just want the truth? Is that extremism too? Is it bad for people to be exposed to the different issues, choose what they agree with, and make choices based on their own preferences and logic? From the article, it sounds as if Sunstein isn't so much worried about “public disconnect,” but more worried about the loss of control those in authority have over individuals. Sunstein acknowledges that good and bad extremism exist, but who gets to decide which is which? Are individuals too incapable of figuring that out themselves?

 

The point of the article I posted wasn't to say that big government is good. I don't see how you could interpret it that way. The point was to say that all sides should be careful about what they say to wind up the crazies on their side. And there are crazies on both sides. The quotes in that article from commentators who are apparently mainstream conservatives are disturbing. I wouldn't think of defending a liberal commentator who suggested a prominent conservative politician was sympathetic to Muslim terrorists. I can't, for the life of me, why anyone would defend a conservative commentator who does the same thing.

 

And in the vein of Krugman's article, credit where credit is due: Thank you carlfense for a recognizing that some scary things are happening right now...

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Calling Paul Krugman a "pseudo economist" pretty much cements your biased opinion of him. He did, afterall, win a Nobel Prize in Economics. I'm not saying that means that you have to agree with him, but it does show that he is generally respected among economists.

Are those the same economist whom Obama referred to here?

 

You're right though, I shouldn't have called him pseudo-economist, because he is well respected in the economics community, and quite well-schooled in economics. I think he might even still be a professor at Princeton. However, if our recent economic problems are any indication, the so-called "economic experts", whom Krugman is more than glad to be lumped, clearly need to rethink a majority of their logic and maybe even study basic economics for a change. More specifically, the Keynesian genius idea that one can become more prosperous by falling further into debt. Government logic at its best.

 

So yes, if by "bias" you mean that I know he is wrong, you would be correct. With his background one would think he might actually come up with some valuable input for society, but instead Krugman has spewed forth one fallacy after another. So if none of what he says is actually true, how much of an expert does that really make him?

 

If you actually read my entire post, the point of even mentioning his name wasn't to degrade him, but to merely show what to expect from someone who is so over-the-top pro-big government. His article was an attempt to villify those who aren't pro-government and if your response is any indication, instead of actually looking into and deciphering what he says, you merely state that he won the Nobel Peace Prize and therefore must be well-respected and truthful. Isn't that the so-called "problem" and the opposite of the logic you, and both the articles posted, are suggesting for people to form opinions?

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

The point of the article I posted wasn't to say that big government is good. I don't see how you could interpret it that way. The point was to say that all sides should be careful about what they say to wind up the crazies on their side. And there are crazies on both sides. The quotes in that article from commentators who are apparently mainstream conservatives are disturbing. I wouldn't think of defending a liberal commentator who suggested a prominent conservative politician was sympathetic to Muslim terrorists. I can't, for the life of me, why anyone would defend a conservative commentator who does the same thing.

 

And in the vein of Krugman's article, credit where credit is due: Thank you carlfense for a recognizing that some scary things are happening right now...

 

I didn't say that, I said the basis of the article was to villify those who aren't pro-government in order to change public opinion in favor of bigger government. Which is exactly what the article was about. By painting Fox News and conservative commentators as instigators of recent violence and presenting DHS reports and the likes as a solution, Krugman attempts this quite well. If your words, that a few crazy lunatics are what is causing scary things to happen, are any indication of how you really feel then the article has clearly done it's job.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Thanks HuskerExpat. That's an excellent application of the theory presented in my article.

 

Again, as someone who probably tends to lean more conservative than liberal, I am worried about the direction of the Republican Party. Yikes.

 

I'm more worried about the direction the government is headed. Actually worried is not the correct term, because that would mean I cared if the government crumbled today, which I absolutely do not. So, what I meant to say is, I am encouraged by the actions government, and those who support it, are being forced to take. This can only mean more and more people are opening up their eyes, searching and figuring out the truth. This has those in power very, very worried.

 

However, the downside to this revelation is that we will see an increase in propaganda looking to link disturbed, loner psychos such as McVeigh, Von Brunn, and other fringe lunatics to those who logically and rationally question what the government is doing, how they are doing it and why we even need government to begin with. Studies on extremism by pro-big government educators, the DHS report on domestic terrorism and liberty-bashing articles by the likes of pseudo-economist/sheep Paul Krugman are examples of this happening already. This increase in propaganda will no doubt help shape public opinion in favor of government; which in turn will lead to an increase in government power, more regulation, and all at the expense of freedom. But hey, that’s government for you.

 

The Slate article and Sunstein’s study assume that people want moderation and compromise, not extremism. But what if people just want the truth? Is that extremism too? Is it bad for people to be exposed to the different issues, choose what they agree with, and make choices based on their own preferences and logic? From the article, it sounds as if Sunstein isn't so much worried about “public disconnect,” but more worried about the loss of control those in authority have over individuals. Sunstein acknowledges that good and bad extremism exist, but who gets to decide which is which? Are individuals too incapable of figuring that out themselves?

 

How often is there actually "truth?" I'd say seldom. There are viewpoints and opinions. There is seldom objective truth.

 

That still doesn't answer the question. Are individuals too incapable of figuring that out themselves?

[HuskerExpat]

 

The point of the article I posted wasn't to say that big government is good. I don't see how you could interpret it that way. The point was to say that all sides should be careful about what they say to wind up the crazies on their side. And there are crazies on both sides. The quotes in that article from commentators who are apparently mainstream conservatives are disturbing. I wouldn't think of defending a liberal commentator who suggested a prominent conservative politician was sympathetic to Muslim terrorists. I can't, for the life of me, why anyone would defend a conservative commentator who does the same thing.

 

And in the vein of Krugman's article, credit where credit is due: Thank you carlfense for a recognizing that some scary things are happening right now...

 

I didn't say that, I said the basis of the article was to villify those who aren't pro-government in order to change public opinion in favor of bigger government. Which is exactly what the article was about. By painting Fox News and conservative commentators as instigators of recent violence and presenting DHS reports and the likes as a solution, Krugman attempts this quite well. If your words, that a few crazy lunatics are what is causing scary things to happen, are any indication of how you really feel then the article has clearly done it's job.

 

No it wasn't. The point of his article definitely was not to vilify those who oppose big government. Please note that he gives credit to prominent FOX NEWS anchors who have called out extremists and those commentators who are encouraging extremists. Not once did Krugman's article vilify anyone for opposing big government. He said it was wrong to claim Obama sympathized with muslim extremists, that it was wrong to call Obama totalitarian, that it was wrong to justify the killing of George Tiller. You can't point to a single incidence in that article where Krugman said someone was wrong for advocating for a smaller government, a lower taxes, etc.

[carlfense]

Thanks HuskerExpat. That's an excellent application of the theory presented in my article.

 

Again, as someone who probably tends to lean more conservative than liberal, I am worried about the direction of the Republican Party. Yikes.

 

I'm more worried about the direction the government is headed. Actually worried is not the correct term, because that would mean I cared if the government crumbled today, which I absolutely do not. So, what I meant to say is, I am encouraged by the actions government, and those who support it, are being forced to take. This can only mean more and more people are opening up their eyes, searching and figuring out the truth. This has those in power very, very worried.

 

However, the downside to this revelation is that we will see an increase in propaganda looking to link disturbed, loner psychos such as McVeigh, Von Brunn, and other fringe lunatics to those who logically and rationally question what the government is doing, how they are doing it and why we even need government to begin with. Studies on extremism by pro-big government educators, the DHS report on domestic terrorism and liberty-bashing articles by the likes of pseudo-economist/sheep Paul Krugman are examples of this happening already. This increase in propaganda will no doubt help shape public opinion in favor of government; which in turn will lead to an increase in government power, more regulation, and all at the expense of freedom. But hey, that’s government for you.

 

The Slate article and Sunstein’s study assume that people want moderation and compromise, not extremism. But what if people just want the truth? Is that extremism too? Is it bad for people to be exposed to the different issues, choose what they agree with, and make choices based on their own preferences and logic? From the article, it sounds as if Sunstein isn't so much worried about “public disconnect,” but more worried about the loss of control those in authority have over individuals. Sunstein acknowledges that good and bad extremism exist, but who gets to decide which is which? Are individuals too incapable of figuring that out themselves?

 

How often is there actually "truth?" I'd say seldom. There are viewpoints and opinions. There is seldom objective truth.

 

That still doesn't answer the question. Are individuals too incapable of figuring that out themselves?

 

I guess it doesn't answer the question. Rather it raises a more relevant one: do people want something that doesn't exist?

[SOCALHUSKER]

Thanks HuskerExpat. That's an excellent application of the theory presented in my article.

 

Again, as someone who probably tends to lean more conservative than liberal, I am worried about the direction of the Republican Party. Yikes.

 

I'm more worried about the direction the government is headed. Actually worried is not the correct term, because that would mean I cared if the government crumbled today, which I absolutely do not. So, what I meant to say is, I am encouraged by the actions government, and those who support it, are being forced to take. This can only mean more and more people are opening up their eyes, searching and figuring out the truth. This has those in power very, very worried.

 

However, the downside to this revelation is that we will see an increase in propaganda looking to link disturbed, loner psychos such as McVeigh, Von Brunn, and other fringe lunatics to those who logically and rationally question what the government is doing, how they are doing it and why we even need government to begin with. Studies on extremism by pro-big government educators, the DHS report on domestic terrorism and liberty-bashing articles by the likes of pseudo-economist/sheep Paul Krugman are examples of this happening already. This increase in propaganda will no doubt help shape public opinion in favor of government; which in turn will lead to an increase in government power, more regulation, and all at the expense of freedom. But hey, that’s government for you.

 

The Slate article and Sunstein’s study assume that people want moderation and compromise, not extremism. But what if people just want the truth? Is that extremism too? Is it bad for people to be exposed to the different issues, choose what they agree with, and make choices based on their own preferences and logic? From the article, it sounds as if Sunstein isn't so much worried about “public disconnect,” but more worried about the loss of control those in authority have over individuals. Sunstein acknowledges that good and bad extremism exist, but who gets to decide which is which? Are individuals too incapable of figuring that out themselves?

 

How often is there actually "truth?" I'd say seldom. There are viewpoints and opinions. There is seldom objective truth.

 

That still doesn't answer the question. Are individuals too incapable of figuring that out themselves?

 

I guess it doesn't answer the question. Rather it raises a more relevant one: do people want something that doesn't exist?

 

So now truth doesn't exist?? That's a good one!!

 

The fact is truth does exist, you just have to sift through piles of government lies to find it. Any sensible person, willing to logically and critically decipher information, will without a doubt, always find the truth.

[huskerjack23]

false dilemma

[carlfense]

Thanks HuskerExpat. That's an excellent application of the theory presented in my article.

 

Again, as someone who probably tends to lean more conservative than liberal, I am worried about the direction of the Republican Party. Yikes.

 

I'm more worried about the direction the government is headed. Actually worried is not the correct term, because that would mean I cared if the government crumbled today, which I absolutely do not. So, what I meant to say is, I am encouraged by the actions government, and those who support it, are being forced to take. This can only mean more and more people are opening up their eyes, searching and figuring out the truth. This has those in power very, very worried.

 

However, the downside to this revelation is that we will see an increase in propaganda looking to link disturbed, loner psychos such as McVeigh, Von Brunn, and other fringe lunatics to those who logically and rationally question what the government is doing, how they are doing it and why we even need government to begin with. Studies on extremism by pro-big government educators, the DHS report on domestic terrorism and liberty-bashing articles by the likes of pseudo-economist/sheep Paul Krugman are examples of this happening already. This increase in propaganda will no doubt help shape public opinion in favor of government; which in turn will lead to an increase in government power, more regulation, and all at the expense of freedom. But hey, that’s government for you.

 

The Slate article and Sunstein’s study assume that people want moderation and compromise, not extremism. But what if people just want the truth? Is that extremism too? Is it bad for people to be exposed to the different issues, choose what they agree with, and make choices based on their own preferences and logic? From the article, it sounds as if Sunstein isn't so much worried about “public disconnect,” but more worried about the loss of control those in authority have over individuals. Sunstein acknowledges that good and bad extremism exist, but who gets to decide which is which? Are individuals too incapable of figuring that out themselves?

 

How often is there actually "truth?" I'd say seldom. There are viewpoints and opinions. There is seldom objective truth.

 

That still doesn't answer the question. Are individuals too incapable of figuring that out themselves?

 

I guess it doesn't answer the question. Rather it raises a more relevant one: do people want something that doesn't exist?

 

So now truth doesn't exist?? That's a good one!!

 

The fact is truth does exist, you just have to sift through piles of government lies to find it. Any sensible person, willing to logically and critically decipher information, will without a doubt, always find the truth.

 

Who was talking about government? You sound like a one trick pony.

 

Also . . . 1. I say truth doesn't always exist, (which is not debatable by the way) 2. You say that doesn't answer the question, 3. I repeat that truth doesn't always exist, 4. NOW you argue that truth always exist.

 

That raises a better question . . . do you even address what others are posting? Or do you just jump in head first with an anti-government rant?

 

As far as there always being a "truth," a quick test is to pick any hot button issue. There is usually no "correct" answer. Go on down the line: abortion, immigration, gun control, etc. etc. etc. These are not black and white issues. They are gray issues. That is what I mean by there not being "truth." To argue otherwise is to risk sounding uninformed or unintelligent.