1. IrvingSnodgrass - May 24, 1999 - 9:52 AM PT
This thread was inspired by a post from Slackjaw in the Suggestions thread:
-----
23852. Slackjaw - May 21, 1999 - 11:37 PM PT
how about a thread on the quality of public debate on social/policy issues? Is it getting better, worse, neither, and why? Is it possible to learn anything from it? If someone criticizes John Lott's study on concealed carry laws and offers some reasons why it was flawed, how many people can sort out valid criticism from dressed-up ideology? Does it matter?
------
Has the fact that everyone can now join in public debate on any issue through the internet cheapened the quality of the debate, or has the increased number of opinions made debate better? Are the sides in public debate becoming increasingly polarized?
2. cllrdr - May 24, 1999 - 9:54 AM PT
No one can "join a debate" when ground rules have been laid in (Rosetta)stone in advance.
3. cllrdr - May 24, 1999 - 9:57 AM PT
I have seen the center move so far Right that the Right now constitutes Timothy McVeigh. There is no debate when the air is alive with the constant chatter of Think Tank Hacks and political cut-outs. "Issues" consist of two "sides" that are in fact only one, for there is only one question:
"Why don't you vote Republican?"
4. JJBiener - May 24, 1999 - 9:57 AM PT
Unfortunately the vase majority of public debate has become carefully crafted and focus group tested sound bites designed to evoke emotional responses while transferring the least amount of usable information.
5. cllrdr - May 24, 1999 - 9:58 AM PT
Exactly, JJ!
6. IrvingSnodgrass - May 24, 1999 - 10:01 AM PT
JJ:
I like that line... it is a memorable quote, quite applicable to the media.
But what about the "new" public debate, as found on the internet, in forums like The Fray (and others more notorious).
7. judithathome - May 24, 1999 - 10:24 AM PT
JJ:
Is the "vase majority" a group of florists?
Okay, I promise to stay out of your way now.
8. JJBiener - May 24, 1999 - 10:26 AM PT
Irv - I haven't seen a great many forums outside the Fray, but those I have seem amateurish and childish by comparison. That's not to say many posts on the Fray aren't equally childish. So many posts are just the carefully crafted talking points repeated endlessly without any analysis or question. These sound bites and talking points at best represent an extremely one-sided view of an issue and at worst they are out-right lies. Unfortunately they are repeated in the media so often that like all good propaganda they become the conventional wisdom whether they are accurate or not. Merely repeating these talking points in the Fray or elsewhere accomplishes nothing. On the rare instances where we get past the sound bites and really delve into an issue, I think we accomplish a great deal. We may not change many minds, but real information is exchanged to an extent that is impossible for the media.
The Faithful will never change their minds, but there is a group out there who is interested in the reality of the issues and would like to make things better. It is that group in the Fray that makes this forum interesting and why I continue to post here.
9. JJBiener - May 24, 1999 - 10:27 AM PT
Judith - You can criticize my typing skills in the PlayPen, if you please.
10. glendajean - May 24, 1999 - 10:30 AM PT
I am not so sure that the two poles of American politics are really ideologies (strong belief systems) than a collection of similar temperments, some issue agreement, and a sense of common enemies.
What has been raised to a fine art is the ability to pitch so-called wedge issues to heighten those feelings of uniting against the dreaded other.
If all Republicans are truly racist, if all Democrats are truly wild eyed Marxists, then anything uttered by a member of one side doesn't have to be taken seriously by the other.
It's been fashionable to reject the notion of compromise, of politics and government being a sense of give and take, of cutting the difference.
We talk about normal legislative politics as being too inside the beltway, too difficult to understand, and we don't want to sully ourselves with the practicalities of governing or passing laws.
So, I think, we settle for competing fictions instead of debate.
11. Ronski - May 24, 1999 - 10:44 AM PT
I think the Fray is one of the better places for political debate nowadays. Everyone knows that among the regulars there are those who will spew a party line; others will make their philosophical orientation very clear but will be open to a genuine exchange of information. The latter group is larger here than among TV's talking heads, or in the chat rooms where the invective is far worse and considerably more childish than anything we see here.
12. MsIvoryTower - May 24, 1999 - 11:17 AM PT
So what Ronski?
Does that make the Fray better? Or simply less ridiculous?
I haven't seen much evidence that people here evaluate evidence or information much better than anywhere else on the net.
13. 109109 - May 24, 1999 - 11:26 AM PT
I agree with Ronski, but I can also delineate exactly where public debate in the Fray falls apart. It occurs, regularly, in two forms upon one instance.
When someone is on the losing end of a debate, or they perceive as such, there are the time-honored traditions of:
1) going personal
2) relying on a previous error of your debating nemesis, largely divorced from the subject matter of the new matter at hand.
Most people have some pretty fixed opinions. Some have never wavered a centimeter from a previously established position in the year or so since I've been here. I assume they consider that laudable consistency. They become the worst offenders in a quick decline of public debate. And they invariably go to 1 or 2, when things get nasty.
A case in point. One fraygrant was in a heated discussion with me over the death penalty. He haughtily intoned to someone that juries do not mete out the death penalty in the United States. He was woefully wrong, and I think even he realized that admission of this wrong might seriously undermine his credibility on the overall issue. So, he held his breath. And, when called on it, he lashed out with greater vituperation than normal.
His error was so great that I even use it as my own no. 2, but only because he has the audacity to leap upon the factual errors of others in other threads. This is my contribution to a decline in the quality of public debate.
That said, without the involvement of many of these banner-carrying zealots, you will often find the most edifying of discussions - case in point, the recent jury nullification discussion. Not weak, and often very stout, but Au, Ronski, Ace, Grey, spud, Cal, and many others made it very interesting and II've thought a great deal about it. Best, when a pig-head zealot does get mashed in the mix, he or she is often nicely muted by the reason of the collective.
14. MsIvoryTower - May 24, 1999 - 11:33 AM PT
Oh please.
I disagree. What occurs here is people listening to their own voices.
And sometimes 1 and 2 occur on your list as the OPENING shot for some posters.
15. AceOfSpades - May 24, 1999 - 11:34 AM PT
Let's not go down this road, eh?
16. Jenerator - May 24, 1999 - 11:36 AM PT
I really appreciate a good speech. The best orators are more entertaining than any television show. I especially enjoy war-time speeches. I feel that they encapsulate all of the elements of a fine speech.
17. AceOfSpades - May 24, 1999 - 11:36 AM PT
For christ's sake, Niner didn't use his nemesis' name, even if you could figure it out. There's no point rushing in to defend one of your pals. He's made a criticism of a pattern here in the Fray, which many people are guilty.
Deal with the criticism on its merits.
18. 109109 - May 24, 1999 - 11:38 AM PT
MsIt
The folks whom I regularly get involved with in extended discussions are almost always reasonable. Not always amenable to a mind change, but none of us here are in high school. Still, they are decidedly thoughtful, for the most part, and their listening skills are noticeable and adept.
As for others, I agree. 1 and 2 is their opening. Which is why you can actually develop a lovingly antagonistic relationship with the zealots, and you need never write anything of substance. Often, mockery is the only appropriate modus.
19. MsIvoryTower - May 24, 1999 - 11:41 AM PT
Spade
You talking to me?
What pal? I could care less what 109 thinks about anyone here. My point is that I disagree with the process he outlined.
There are many posters who leap right into the personal, or attack on straw men, from the beginning of their comments.
And I disagree that the quality of debate here is any better, or worse, than what is found elsewhere on the net. That is my main point.
In fact, there are some sites I'd consider better, some, worse. All in all, the Fray suffers from some of the same problems of debate inherent anywhere in our society, except for a closed group of scholars, and there, the problems are different but no less apparent.
20. 109109 - May 24, 1999 - 11:42 AM PT
I have no idea about other venues on the "net." I once wandered into Table Talk but it looked bizarre, and I'm very comfortable here, with no complaints.
21. CalGal - May 24, 1999 - 11:43 AM PT
Ms,
"haven't seen much evidence that people here evaluate evidence or information much better than anywhere else on the net."
I think that some people expect the change to happen at the tangible level.
"I used to think that welfare moms were lazy slobs, but now, thanks to the enlightenment I've received from the Fray, I realize they are victims of a male hierarchy and should be protected at all costs."
When in fact, the changes are something like this:
"Hmm. Well, not *all* libertarians are morons, even if it is ridiculous philosophy."
"Okay, I rebutted pretty effectively, but that *is* a good point--I wonder what the best approach is?"
"Oh, my god, I'm a wretched monolingual!"
22. AceOfSpades - May 24, 1999 - 11:44 AM PT
I don't know if this is the right forum for this, but...
One thing I'd like to see less of is the *purely* personal spat. I get into spats with Ohio, for example, and while a few "dickheads" might be tossed around, the argument is *about* something other than our personalities. There's an actual disagreement about facts at the heart of the dispute.
I'd like to see an end to the purely "you said this No I said this you said that No I said this" type of arguments. These disputes should be settled by e-mail (it's easy to create an address on yahoo).
23. AceOfSpades - May 24, 1999 - 11:46 AM PT
That said, I agree with the Miz that the level of debate here is pretty shallow. I'm not sure it it *could* be much better though.
24. Jenerator - May 24, 1999 - 11:47 AM PT
Speaking of debate, did any of you participate in college debate?
25. benear - May 24, 1999 - 11:48 AM PT
Over the past two decades I have occasionally awakened in the morning to particulary sad news. Three examples come to mind. The morning the helicoptors crashed in Iran while on a mission to rescue the hostages. The morning of the marine barracks bombing in Lebanon. The morning of the marines dragged through the streets in Somolia. My reaction was one of sadness in all three cases.
I did not feel these were partisan events. Yet all three events were immediately seized upon by the opposition party as evidence of the failed policies of the party in power. You know, sometimes, things just happen. There is no evil intent on the part of politicians and policymakers of either side. This business of using tragic events as fodder to make partisan political points is the most distasteful part of public discourse.
26. 109109 - May 24, 1999 - 11:48 AM PT
Now, the ideological baggage in the Fray is also problematic. But, you cna parse pretty clearly, and the camps are really no different than those on TV. You have folks that will stick their dick in a blender rather than offend their own ideology. These are the Eleanor Clifts, Paul Begalas and the second-tier MSNBC hacks (invariably, present pollsters or consultants to either party).
The Fray, however, has many of the best the punditry has to offer. There are a Hitchens, one or two Gigots and Shields . . . smart folks who can even be ideological without appearing to rape themselves with a garden tool.
27. MsIvoryTower - May 24, 1999 - 11:49 AM PT
Calgal
Well, that's a valid point. However, the people most prone to those positions are the same ones in real life who are reasonable. The voice of reasonableness gets drowned out everywhere in todays world, particularly on the net.
It is simply NOT fashionable to be reasonable. It is in vogue to be extremist, and to take an in-your-face attitude toward anyone who disagrees with you or your positions.
I think we've lost the ability to judge quality in public debate in this society. We want to see a winner and a loser. It's everywhere we go in the media. Winners and losers. It's here in the fray as well.
28. AceOfSpades - May 24, 1999 - 11:51 AM PT
Benear:
Indeed. But while it is true that "sometimes things just happen" -- and sometimes they just do, like the bombing of the Chinese embassy -- it is also true that in many cases "mistakes were made" as Washingtonians like to say.
One side will try to find out where the responsibility lay. The other side will immediately cry "Partisanship!"
There is an awful lot of partisan posturing. But there is also of the Boy who Cried Partisanship in order to deflect any criticism about decision-making.
29. AceOfSpades - May 24, 1999 - 11:52 AM PT
"There is also A LOT of the Boy who Cried Partisanship..."
30. MsIvoryTower - May 24, 1999 - 11:53 AM PT
"The Fray, however, has many of the best the punditry has to offer. There are a Hitchens, one or two Gigots and Shields . . . smart folks who can even be ideological without appearing to rape themselves with a garden tool."
And this is supposed to be a path to quality in public debate? This makes the Fray somehow different than the shallow, mindless ideologues we see every day on the news?
I think it's just wrapped up in a more educated wallpaper around here, and sometimes it's not even that.
31. 109109 - May 24, 1999 - 11:53 AM PT
A solid gauge is the following:
If you can remember a fraygrant saying "I never thought of that" or "I was mistaken" by and large, you've hit upon someone worthwhile. I've seen that from fraygrants as disparate as pseudo and Ace, and many, many more. There are many who couldn't do it if it were true, and, invariably, they tend to be the most concentrated on winning, the most ideological, the most personal (or, the dumbest, but the dumb folks a different kettle of fish).
32. MsIvoryTower - May 24, 1999 - 11:56 AM PT
Oh please, 109, you're killing me with this smaltz.
This is purely a matter of who is in the debate. I've apologized hundreds of times on this forum, but there are some whom I'd rather slit my throat than apologize to. I don't think I'm alone in this either.
Nor is it ideologically based on my part (or others I've observed, yourself included), it's personality based.
33. benear - May 24, 1999 - 11:57 AM PT
Oh really. And of the three examples I cited, which were "mistakes" for which responsibility must be pinned?
34. 109109 - May 24, 1999 - 11:59 AM PT
MsIt
I speak no paths. The Fray is often tedious, but as a voluntary process, you sign on, look about, see who is speaking,a dn go from there.
If you see a lot of Clifts and Begalas and Matalins, you see what is up in Movies (or hone your mockery skills).
If you catch a day of Hitchens or Gigot or Shields, you can learn alot in an adversarial format without the battle, the attendant idiocy ("FEEL THE LASH!"), the loathsome shorthand ("The A.P. Yea. Right."), and the tired institutional memory ("Oh yea, and the GOP was going to pick up 25 seats").
35. AceOfSpades - May 24, 1999 - 11:59 AM PT
I think some of the rancor here would be cut down dramatically if people spent more time in the non-political rooms.
I disagree strongly with Cartman and Rask about a whole host of subjects, but I've come to like them because of shared non-political interests. I was also touched when both admitted their repressed homosexuality to me.
36. 109109 - May 24, 1999 - 12:01 PM PT
MsIt
Another problem is people who read really fast, get exorcised, and post in emotional haste.
My post was neither directed at "apologizing" or you. I don't think you or I have ever discussed much of substance.
37. ChristiPeters - May 24, 1999 - 12:02 PM PT
Yep, MsIt, we are definitely humans here.
I have lurked through some interesting discussion, participated in a few, too. I have also skipped by hundreds of posts of invective and petty bickering.
The Quality of Debate here? I don't feel qualified to judge, but I expect it is about average for this sort of forum.
38. Slackjaw - May 24, 1999 - 12:03 PM PT
there is another issue besides the willingness of participants and/or bystanders to change their minds. Even presuming a willingness to change one's mind, how does a malleable soul decide which arguments are good and which are bogus?
I have in mind not issues like "should homosexual marriages be formally recognized," but rather issues for which all anyone really cares about is the connection between a policy choice and outcomes. Like gun control, as I mentioned in suggestiosn. (I think) most (certainly not all) people would be happy the see concealed carry laws enacted if they would eliminate or dramatically reduce violent crime. The question is, what is the relationship between concealed carry laws and incidence of violent crime? (Yes, there are people for whom guns themselves are a moral object--forget that for a minute.)
Can you learn about it by watchins Hardball or Politically Incorrect, or reading a newspaper article? "A recent study by XXX argues that concealed carry laws actually reduce violent crime. Critics say the study has ABC flaws." Well who the hell knows what those flaws mean and whether they are to be worried about?
The problem as I see it is that some people have agendas and will say or do nearly anything to see them enacted. Even if a person doesn't, you as an onlooker usually can't or at least don't know which people are which. So when someone makes a claim about the (uncertain) relationship between a policy choice and an outcome we care about, what can you infer about that relationship?
39. AceOfSpades - May 24, 1999 - 12:03 PM PT
Benear:
I forget your third example, but I'd say Reagan's decision to send troops to Lebanon should certainly have been criticized (and was). And, of course, the laxity of security was certainly fair game for investigation. Although it is always a bit disgusting when the military pins a failure entirely on one man. (Did this happen wrt Lebanon? I seem to remember this happening.)
WRT Carter's failed rescue mission, no *political* criticism could be made, but certainly there was room for criticism of the execution and planning.
40. Slackjaw - May 24, 1999 - 12:06 PM PT
actually even homosexual marriage is not without uncertain connections to other outcomes we care about, or at least some participants in the debate say it is. E.g., "it will send the wrong message to children," stuff like that.
41. glendajean - May 24, 1999 - 12:07 PM PT
Getting back to the general "quality of public debate."
1) entertainment values are very important now days (see Crossfire).
2) what are real life examples of good public debate, (spirited, factual, witty, vital)?
42. 109109 - May 24, 1999 - 12:07 PM PT
benear
In Somalia, you could fairly attribute error to many sources: David Hackworth, for example, does a fine job of assessing blame on the Clinton Administration and then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin, the then-defense establishment, with its emphasis on high-tech over the down-and-dirty, and muddled policy/intelligence (especially salient in light of the bombing of the Chinese embassy). See Hazardous Duty, Chapter 4.
As for Lebanon, there is much to criticize in placement of the barracks and the Reagan Administration's refusal to let the offensive capabilities of the Marines be utilized.
On the Iran fiasco, where do you start?
I am fatigued, as you are, by the immediate leap to partisan advantage, but often, the mistakes are in the face of prior criticism that is not highlighted until disaster strikes. And we do hope to learn something from the disasters. I don't see that as a detraction to the quality of public debate.
43. CalGal - May 24, 1999 - 12:10 PM PT
Speaking for myself, I find I've learned a huge amount on the Fray. Sometimes what I've learned has resulted in a systemic change of view--which are the only kind I make. Othertimes I've just gotten a clearer understanding of where those who disagree with me come from, and whether or not their views make sense, given their stated goals.
I find that debates over facts are tedious. Debates over interpretation of facts is where most of the vehemence comes into play. The third kind of debate is my favorite--where the facts and the interpretation are agreed upon, and the only thing that is left is to find out where the difference in value system lies that is causing the debate.
For example, Niner and I always agree about facts and nearly always about interpretation (I shall skate quickly past Clinton for the moment). Most debates we have center on what value is more important in determining what action to take. This is also generally true with Raskolnikov and me, where our clear breakdown is that I'm far more civil lib than he is--a value, not interpretation or fact.
I will quite often get into debates of interpretation with people who have fundamentally the same values as I do. Interpretation debates fascinate me, but it is so often that they get confused as debate over facts.
44. AzureNW - May 24, 1999 - 12:14 PM PT
The quality of debate has declined as the Fray has become more homogenized and Californized, but not nearly so much as the quality of the humor. Now even trouserPilot and KurtMondaugen are gone. JadeGold is gone, and adrienne has said she will not bother to post here any more. How long has it been since ScottLoar posted anything but a grumble? The list of interesting contributors that have dropped out of the Fray in the last year is long. Interesting new contributors are practically non-existent.
45. Slackjaw - May 24, 1999 - 12:14 PM PT
in regard to the problem I mentioned, I think the fray is actually not bad. A lot of people here are knowledgable in some thing or other and a substantial part of fraygrants are self selected on the basis of willingness to read lengthy explanations in order to understand an argument.
46. CalGal - May 24, 1999 - 12:16 PM PT
Slack brings up a good point: "The question is, what is the relationship between concealed carry laws and incidence of violent crime? "
In other words, how do you make up your mind about gun control if you *don't* have an agenda and you genuinely want to know if it will help?
This is something that is fascinating me at the present time--particularly in regards to gun control, but other areas as well. I have found that there is relatively little data that isn't tainted by ideology--either it's tainted because the study was done badly, with a desired outcome in mind, or it's tainted because it was funded "ideologically".
Yet how does one know what constitutes a good study?
Of course, once you have a good study, you're only at the "fact" level. You've still got interpretation and value to get through. But it's a start.
I find so many people think facts are the be all and end all of a debate. So I'm trying to figure out how to find *good* facts. Me, I'm perfectly happy with "If this fact is true, then..."
But it makes other people cranky, and I'm an obliging soul.
47. MsIvoryTower - May 24, 1999 - 12:17 PM PT
109 reMessage #36
Ya, well in order to admit a mistake sometimes one has to admit they were wrong, and that sometimes involves an apology so I leapfrogged into a discussion of apologies but the essence of my comments apply also to 'just making an admission of error'.
And why in the world would you think I interpreted your comments as if applying to me? No, my response was only using myself as an illustration, since I manage to fall into just about every situation one can think has occurred around here. I was being kind, by focusing on my own behavior rather than others.
Btw, I'm a firm believer that no one here is above guilt in any of the more unpleasant behaviors exhibited here from time to time.
48. AceOfSpades - May 24, 1999 - 12:17 PM PT
Azure:
I think it would be best not to name names here. There's no point getting into a Jade sucks/Jade rules "argument."
49. coralreef - May 24, 1999 - 12:18 PM PT
"The Fray, however, has many of the best the punditry has to offer. There are a Hitchens, one or two Gigots and Shields."
And a Barry Scheck.
50. 109109 - May 24, 1999 - 12:19 PM PT
Glenda
There are very few really entertaining folks either here or on TV (most people think entertainment is self-immolation), but there are a few. Hitchens is dangerously entertaining, Carville (soulless hack that he is) is also very good viewing, Bill Buckley and Michael Kinsley, when unconstrained by the parameters of some 30 minute show, are very good. Another strong entertainers is Pat Buchanan, who has the short-format down pat. And Gore Vidal, before he became dowdy, was entertaining.
Sadly, the television viewer can choose hacks (fill in the consultant or pollster of your choice) and freaks (Coulter, Klayman, et al.) on MSNBC or CNBC or some other wasteland, or they can go with duds and the truly mundane on the netoworks:
McLaughlin
Barnes
Kondracke
Stephanopoulos
Press
Carlson
Hunt
Page
Germond
Thomas
the horsey woman who nailed the Supreme Court justice
and on and on.
51. Slackjaw - May 24, 1999 - 12:21 PM PT
"if this fact is true then..." is usually perfectly satisfying to me as a participant, but where the rubber meets the road decisions have to be made. The best one depends in part on *whether* "this fact is true," so if we want to make the best one we need to ascertain that.
As you say, CalGal, there is always a value component. But often facts matter too.
Cost benefit analysis is another example. Crimony, it's nearly useless to hear of a CBA done on a controversial issue by some team of researchers you don't know much about. It is such an easy technique to botch, on purpose or by accident.
52. AzureNW - May 24, 1999 - 12:22 PM PT
AceOfSpades -
It's actually a "The Fray sucks" vs. "The Fray rules" argument, focusing on the contributors as the essence of the Fray. Most of the contributors left here aren't smart enough to be really funny. The forum is becomming very homogenous and dull.
53. 109109 - May 24, 1999 - 12:22 PM PT
MsIt
No. You're right. I should have recognized your illustration. I apologize.
As for guilt, that is such a judgmental word. It is easier to find that there are zealots, dunderheads, weirdos and conspiracy-theorists, and then there are the more firmly grounded.
54. 109109 - May 24, 1999 - 12:24 PM PT
I think, for her own purposes, Azure is quite right. To her, the prevailing body politic here must seem rather homogenous and dull, as opposed to other, previously active contributors. One can obviously take solace, heart or despair in that fact.
55. AceOfSpades - May 24, 1999 - 12:25 PM PT
Azure:
Oh. Thanks for explaining. I didn't realize that's what you were getting at. The point was entirely lost on me. It was so subtle.
Now that I know what you're talking about, I will resume my previous policy of ignoring everything you say.
56. marjoribanks - May 24, 1999 - 12:26 PM PT
Methinks a certain amount of ANW's rehtoric can be attributed to the lack of a certain PseudoErasmus in this forum. Star-crossed and all that.
57. MsIvoryTower - May 24, 1999 - 12:26 PM PT
ChristiP
"The Quality of Debate here? I don't feel qualified to judge, but I expect it is about average for this sort of forum."
No quarrel here.
58. coralreef - May 24, 1999 - 12:27 PM PT
Yes, Azure is right and the only chance the fray has is the unlikely event that they make it free again. Once the magazine went free, it sealed the fray off from most newbies unless it too goes free. And the only influence we have over that happening, I suppose is to ask them often to see the light.
59. MsIvoryTower - May 24, 1999 - 12:28 PM PT
"It is such an easy technique to botch, on purpose or by accident."
Gasp!
I assure you, I've never done this, ever. Ever, ever, ever. I'm pure and clean I tell ya!
60. AceOfSpades - May 24, 1999 - 12:28 PM PT
Good. Let's everybody get into it. Let's stop talking about the quality of debate and just start making out who's hot/who's not lists.
But let's do it in the PlayPen. I have opinions on the subject and I'd love to share them with you all.
61. MsIvoryTower - May 24, 1999 - 12:30 PM PT
RE Message #54
Or do down with the dying ship drinking champagne that all those others are gone now.
CR
Ya, this is the critical problem facing the Fray. Attrition without replacement is killing it.
62. CalGal - May 24, 1999 - 12:31 PM PT
Slack,
Yes, I agree that the rubber does have to hit the road eventually. But the "if this fact is true" process is useful for determining what needs to be known in order to find the road, yes?
And it's not that I don't like facts. But I can come up with plenty of examples where people use the wrong ones to try to persuade.
63. MsIvoryTower - May 24, 1999 - 12:31 PM PT
do down?
sheesh....
go down...
64. Jenerator - May 24, 1999 - 12:31 PM PT
When I first came to Slate, I was surprised as to how hostile people would get. It really bothered me that people could be so nasty so quickly. For the first couple of months, I actually took some of the insults personally. As a result, I found myself being much more defensive in here than I am in real life.
65. AceOfSpades - May 24, 1999 - 12:32 PM PT
My #60 was to CoralReef, and I retract it. CR was making a different point than I assumed she was.
I don't disagree that we need more people here, certainly.
66. CalGal - May 24, 1999 - 12:35 PM PT
I agree with Ace--what's the point of declaring the Fray ruined? Those people saying so have been saying so for a long time, incidentally.
I don't see that making it free will help. In fact, did anyone notice Irv pointing out last week that Slate subscriptions were *up*? If so, that means that more people are paying this year--and pretty much to Fray. So where are they? Apparently, it's not the price that's keeping them away.
67. coralreef - May 24, 1999 - 12:37 PM PT
"If so, that means that more people are paying this year--and pretty much to Fray"
I think most are paying for past articles and email delivery.
68. Slackjaw - May 24, 1999 - 12:38 PM PT
CalGal Message #62, 1st paragraph:
Why that's even a fundamental tenet in the theory of dynamic choice. There is no difference between an ex post decision after learning some fact and a complete ex ante plan of action about what to do contingent on any given fact (only they are called "states of the world" or "states of nature").
69. Slackjaw - May 24, 1999 - 12:39 PM PT
or maybe you meant something different
70. AzureNW - May 24, 1999 - 12:39 PM PT
Re: Message #56
I do miss PE and his sense of humor, but he is a real pain in the butt to talk to. When he attributes distorted opinions to me, it makes me want to smack him on the forehead with an axe.
71. CalGal - May 24, 1999 - 12:41 PM PT
Well, I think that Irv is planning on having another thread devoted to the Fray sometime soon, so this probably isn't the best forum to discuss it. But I'd be interested in finding out what percentage of the people paying originally were interested in Fraying.
Incidentally, did anyone ever see those PBS shows, Ethics in America? Round table discussions, people from all POVs, moderated? I loved those. The one on ethics and the military--where Mike Wallace and Peter Jennings were asked some pretty tough questions--was awesome. But all of them were fantastic.
72. davidtudor - May 24, 1999 - 12:44 PM PT
There are, I gather, now about 30,000 people (or libraries or other institutions) who have paid subscriptions to Slate. Give or take a few, there can't be more than about 100 more or less active participants on the Fray (and I'm being charitable by not subtracting the rather astonishingly large number of once very active participants who apparently have left). God knows how many active lurkers, but do they count in terms of participation? I think not.
So, it cannot be just a matter of the Fray needing to be free to attract more participants. Which it sorely needs.
73. 109109 - May 24, 1999 - 12:44 PM PT
It is neither ruined nor ressurrected. It is barely different.
I'll use a name here, just because it illustrates my point. Kurt. Apparently gone. For some, a very bad thing. For me, I never understood 99% of what he was saying, so, no real registration of loss.
For each person who comes and goes, you'll have the same issue. I use Kurt because he was unique (most of the other folks who are posting less or appear to be on hiatus are run-of-the-mill in comparison to Kurt's expertise).
Has the "quality" of debate lessened since Kurt left? Of course, because, I assume, many people could understand what he was saying. The Fray lost an expert.
But his loss is rare. Most people who come and go will be worker bees, and the quality of debate will not tremor upon their departure or introduction.
As for new blood, it is always good, but you can't lead a human lamb to slaughter.
74. glendajean - May 24, 1999 - 12:44 PM PT
Calgal, those were Fred Friendly produced programs.
75. MsIvoryTower - May 24, 1999 - 12:46 PM PT
Slack
I think most people have gone to far down the road of "trust no data". There are clearly standards for judging the efficacy of some research, facts, data, over others, but few are willing to invest the time to understand those standards.
What one gets in a forum like this is a gathering of people who know enough to be dangerous, that is, to be skeptical, but not good evaluators of the quality of information available.
I blame it on the politization of all research in the current environment. Since the early 80's, all scholarly research has become the tool of ideological battles, sometimes with the consent of the scholars, sometimes not.
76. 109109 - May 24, 1999 - 12:47 PM PT
And I agree with tudor, in that we are talking about 100 folks here. We are, in many ways, like the late monarchies of Europe at the turn of the century.
A little dull from inbreeding, some syphillitic, some hemophiliac, but nice uniforms and a penchant for the dramatic.
77. AuNaturel - May 24, 1999 - 12:47 PM PT
What I see lacking in the fray is the willingness to agree to disagree. Okay you feel this way, I feel that way, our cases have been presented. Lets go on yo something else. On the other hand one thing I do like is the shifting alliances. One minute Elliot and I will have out backs to the wall against the whole fray, the next minute we're beating each other over the head. I can't build up any real animosity against anyone because of that.
78. CalGal - May 24, 1999 - 12:48 PM PT
Slack,
Actually (and it astounds me to say so), that *is* what I meant. How exciting!
Yes, I spend much of my time operating in "if this is true" mode, whereas I think sometimes people assume that I'm operating in "this is true" mode. In other words, I'm just defining my ex ante plan of action but people think I'm ex post.
But the issue in the Fray--as in real life--is that we often *can't* get to "the rubber meets the road".
For example, suppose that the Lott study is largely accurate. (I truly don't know if it is or not, so just consider this an example.) All it does is define more questions to be asked.
79. MsIvoryTower - May 24, 1999 - 12:48 PM PT
too far down the road....
80. glendajean - May 24, 1999 - 12:48 PM PT
MsIT, can you give us some examples of politicized research?
81. MsIvoryTower - May 24, 1999 - 12:51 PM PT
Yes.
Gun control research.
School effectiveness and productivity research.
Welfare research.
Domestic violence research.
The list goes on and on.
82. 109109 - May 24, 1999 - 12:51 PM PT
glenda
I can.
A woman gets beaten every 3 seconds.
400,000 people die each year from smoking-related illnesses
Every 10 seconds, a child is wounded by a gun.
blah, blah, blah.
Best bet for politically driven numbers?
See if the goal is a "good" and "proper" one. If so, it is usually accompanied by some hysterical figure, justified by the golden aim.
83. CalGal - May 24, 1999 - 12:51 PM PT
What's interesting is that the first time I counted up Fraygrants--back in April of 98, there were about 100. That is about what there are today.
In other words, it hasn't changed all that much.
I would like more people, but not by becoming sticky sweet and nice. I mean, who the hell expects anything to be accomplished in Religion or Politics? I mean, it's not like these disciplines accomplish a great deal in real life.
84. 109109 - May 24, 1999 - 12:52 PM PT
I'm looking for more teenage girls, inquisitive yet innocent.
85. CalGal - May 24, 1999 - 12:53 PM PT
GJ,
Yeah, I know. He always closed out the hour with a brief wrapup. God, they were good stuff.
86. CalGal - May 24, 1999 - 12:54 PM PT
In Catholic school girl uniforms, of course.
87. AceOfSpades - May 24, 1999 - 12:54 PM PT
NeinMeinFurhrer:
On absurd statistics and "data":
A friend of mine from law school loved going to parties and stating, straight-faced, "By the year 2000, the entire state of California will be homeless."
88. CalGal - May 24, 1999 - 12:55 PM PT
Um, 86 is to 84. Fred Friendly did not wear Catholic school girl uniforms. On air, at any rate.
89. 109109 - May 24, 1999 - 12:56 PM PT
Ace
Did you beat him bloody raw?
Cal
Well, in the uniforms for a little while, at least.
90. glendajean - May 24, 1999 - 12:58 PM PT
Cal, I thought maybe you knew some inside scoop on the late F. Friendly.
91. AceOfSpades - May 24, 1999 - 12:58 PM PT
Neiner:
Sorry, I didn't explain. He was fucking with people. We were discussing hyperinflated "facts" one day, and he decided that day to tell everyone that "By the year 2000, the entire state of California will be homeless."
No one ever questioned this factoid. Just accepted it and nodded.
92. CalGal - May 24, 1999 - 12:59 PM PT
GJ,
Can't you just see it, though?
It's a look that would really work for him.
93. davidtudor - May 24, 1999 - 1:01 PM PT
Well, whether it takes a lot more of give and take or more conscientious efforts to really listen or to contribute in sincere ways or whatever, it certainly is in everyone's interests here to make the Fray a more inticing place. Both in terms of attracting and keeping people (and, at least to me, it really does seem like a number of the more interesting souls are gone.)
For, if not, hang the absurd expense of maintaining it all, surely eventually Slate will become embarrassed about the paltry little appendage to its magazine and it will be gone with the considerable wind it produces.
94. AceOfSpades - May 24, 1999 - 1:04 PM PT
DavidTudor:
They're all at Table Talk. I hear they're having a wonderful time.
As a matter of fact, they were just asking about you. Maybe you could drop in and let them know how you're doing.
You might enjoy it. They've got a kick-ass interface which lets you correct inticing spelling errors.
Highly recommended-- to you.
95. 109109 - May 24, 1999 - 1:06 PM PT
Ace
Ah. Thanks.
The fact of the matter is, if the cause is comfy for the proponent, they generally don't give a shit about the veracity of the numbers.
And if they have some rat-ass "Institute" to stand behind the numbers, it becomes gospel.
Two pieces of evidence. First, second-hand smoke, the EPA labeled it a carcinogen and a major health hazard and it gets front-page, and it also becomes the impetus for anti-smoking regs nationwide. Later, Judge Osteen completely deconstructed the study as a politicized piece of shit. Moreover, the EPA deemed other practices with higher risk factors (i.e., the rate of breast cancer in women who have abortions) as "insignificant."
Second, the use of such stats by one fraygrant is regular. However, when you use them against him (as I did with a NOW study that had abortion as being under assault nationwide), suddenly, NOW is merely "exaggerating" (NOW's numbers did not comport with his point at that moment).
Tied to the quality of public debate, if you rely on a shit number, from the get-go, you are an idiot or a hack. If you rely on some shit numbers on some occasions and disapprove on others, you are both. Either way, the fact of the numbers is a blessing and a burden on public discourse. It is bullshit, but . . . it does cull the charlatans and morons early.
96. davidtudor - May 24, 1999 - 1:09 PM PT
Highly as in eye as in enticing, I suppose.
Boba - I rest my case.
Leaving that aside, I at least applaud your honesty. You really do want a private little playpen around here. Three of you and maybe a few more, eh.
97. Slackjaw - May 24, 1999 - 1:11 PM PT
"it does cull the charlatans and morons early."
depending on how you define participation in debate, I think it brings them out. *All* you need is a few grand and, as you say, an institute to be a participant.
98. AceOfSpades - May 24, 1999 - 1:12 PM PT
DavidBoringTudor:
Perhaps you haven't read the latest posts.
I have attempted to dissuade people for mourning their heroes, because there's no reason for this thread to degenerate into yet another wholly personal who's hot/who's not thread.
You, however, wish to whine about absent friends, while simultaneously demeaning those who remain. No shying away from contentiousness for you.
If you really miss all your buds, I once again implore you to go to Table Talk. Try it-- You'll like it. You'll be happier, I'll be happier, everyone'll be happier.
99. davidtudor - May 24, 1999 - 1:12 PM PT
And, a few grand will indeed buy you that institute.
100. davidtudor - May 24, 1999 - 1:15 PM PT
whine?
Get real, Boba. It is you who hasn't really been reading well.
Whatever degeneration there is started with your cute little post telling me to get lost.