*There Is Oversimplification In Politics ~ Do You Agree?

@Raspberry_yoghurt , your #29 is not the first time somebody who disagrees with me politically has attempted to shift to me the burden of making THEIR argument and defending THEIR views. With all due respect, that's not really an answer to or an explication of anything.

I defend my own views. And, as above, I even attempt to provide hard numbers when they can help. I have never tried to defend one of my own views by telling somebody who disagrees to "google" it or to "go read the Library of Congress."

I CAN defend my own views, so it would hardly be necessary to shift the burden of that to a political adversary.

Because of your wave toward google, I will assume that an easy answer has not presented itself. If it had, it could be presented, could it not?

Please don't convince yourself that I was looking simply to "waste your time" -- that would have no value for me, and I respect you too much to do that deliberately. I was looking to see how those who seem to disagree with me can justify that.

And I actually read and consider meaningful responses, like the earnest and reasonable response given by @Watermelon343, for example. From time to time, I even change my mind -- as I have, for example, with respect to certain actions taken by former presidents who I otherwise generally supported and still nevertheless generally admire.

Indeed, I often disagree with some politicians who I otherwise admire and support generally. For example, I'm not a fan of tax cuts at this moment in history. But I'd listen to reasonable counter-arguments and consider them, in the event any are made.

Just as I'd listen and consider to any reasonable response to my statements above.

@Noflaps said in #31:
> @Raspberry_yoghurt , your #29 is not the first time somebody who disagrees with me politically has attempted to shift to me the burden of making THEIR argument and defending THEIR views. With all due respect, that's not really an answer to or an explication of anything.

This is nonsense in this context here.

It's not a matter of "defending" anything that you or somebody else would google the Biden clean air plan. It's just a matter of doing it.

> Because of your wave toward google, I will assume that an easy answer has not presented itself. If it had, it could be presented, could it not?

Nah because no matter what I link to, you will likely just reject the source. Then I sort of have to keep posting linkstrying to guess which sources you like.''

It's really much easier if you just google it yourself.

Just copypaste "biden clean air plan" into google or duckduckgo for that matter.

@Raspberry_yoghurt said in #32:
>[...]
> Well ok, I copypasted "biden clean air plan" into google, here is the link to the google search
>
> www.google.com/search? - Heart Broken Link ==0a6ab453dca08831&sxsrf=ADLYWILxHy7UDVeOy_gVWdn2zpaS5dZ_Lw%3A1722900415224&ei=v1-xZqWrDc-A9u8P1Z-fwA0&ved=0ahUKEwjlhu6ZgN-HAxVPgP0HHdXPB - Heart Broken Link
Money is in the Snail Mail Service.

Nothing I said was "nonsense," @Raspberry_yoghurt .

I'm still awaiting a useable, clear response.

Somebody smart once said: we really understand something when we can explain it to a child.

I never try to teach a kid something by saying, simply, "google it" or, when pressed, throwing out a mass of links. If I did that, the kid would wonder why I didn't simply put the explanation into words myself.

Throwing a mass of links at somebody doesn't make even any actual, readable single statement that be considered, agreed with or refuted. And that, I suppose, is its advantage. There's no chance it can effectively be disagreed with. It allows clinging to current positions without being confronted by anything that might need to be considered.

But if my spouse disagrees with me, I know better than to respond: you're wrong, "google" it or check the library of Congress.

@Noflaps said in #34:
> Nothing I said was "nonsense," @Raspberry_yoghurt .
>
> I'm still awaiting a useable, clear response.

COPY PASTE "BIDEN CLEAN AIR PLAN" INTO GOOGLE

This is eminently useable and clear.

> Somebody smart once said: we really understand something when we can explain it to a child.

And another smart person said "if you genuinely want to know, then you find it yourself, you do not eait for someone to spoon feed you the information".

> I never try to teach a kid something by saying, simply, "google it" or, when pressed, throwing out a mass of links. If I did that, the kid would wonder why I didn't simply put the explanation into words myself.

Are you claiming that you are a child ??

> So if we just toss out links instead of attempting to make any statements of our own, we don't have to encounter any carefully-worded, factually-laden disagreement and have to consider it.

You're just trying to troll.

What you did was this:

1: Ask for links

2: whatever answer you get, you will use that as a way to move the discussion away from the topid, bidens green energy

3: now you managed to make the discussion end in nonsense.

You're just a troll that want you ruin debates. You're not arguing in good faith.

I didn't "ask for links."

If you reread what I wrote, you'll find that at no point did I request "links." To the contrary. I don't find mere "links" helpful. I've repeatedly tried simply to discuss the matter, as @Watermelon343 reasonably and clearly did with me. Mere "Links" can't speak for us and reveal what we think and why. They can't pinpoint what things we find to be most important and persuasive.

Accusing me of not arguing "in good faith" and of writing "nonsense" suggests that we should just end the conversation at this point. @Raspberry_yoghurt . I wish you well and have enjoyed many of your posts. Perhaps we'll meet over the cyber-chessboard some time. I play 1 d4, typically. But I don't get angry at those who disagree with that first move. Opinions can differ in good faith.

Oversimplification? When it comes to the propaganda poured on the voters during the elections, oversimplification is an understatement. A little less in Europe than in the US, but nonetheless.

When it comes to the actual politics, there's no simplification. Everything is spot on. Too bad we are not part of it.

Just my opinion but it does seem much political rhetoric is reduced to buzz words and catch phrases and appeals to base level fears and manipulation. There seems to be too much Us vs. Them rather than any common ground solutions. Devisiness and fear mongering do seem to be common themes as well as promises of solutions without an explanation of how the same would be implemented.

I'm oft reminded of the mushroom principle ,

Keep them in the dark and feed them bullshit.

@You're quite right, @Dukedog.

It's very obvious that when people don't wish to defend their own policy choices and the bad results which those have caused, they start instead shouting things like:

"the other guy's weird!" or "the other guy's a threat to democracy itself!"

Even though both claims are transparent, demonstrable nonsense.

But what's genuinely disturbing is the large number of people who can't tell that it's nonsense. Who instead dutifully nod along and try to fit in, and even get angry and red-faced when confronted by obvious, contrary fact.

People who try to spread scorn and fear instead of real facts and policy discussions are powerful now, and seemingly in the ascendancy. Why? Because, apparently, spreading scorn and fear works and moves polls, and too many don't notice, or even want to notice, the lack of real substance being provided by the scornful, distracting fear mongers.

Notice when the reaction to a post pointing out the use of scorn to avoid talking about substance is ... simply scornful and provides no substance or real counter-argument.

What I point out becomes more obvious every day. But not to everybody.