And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[SimonNZ]

How do you know YOUR certainty doesn't come from hardly knowing the subject at all? You are not even American. He is.

I don't claim certainty.

[71 dB]

I don't claim certainty.

You seem pretty certain I am wrong.

[SimonNZ]

The graph I was thinking of:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[71 dB]

That's the second time you've called a Guardian article anti-Bernie in as many days. I can only assume you don't actually read them, just assume anything less than cheerleading is a "hit piece".

It is a positive surprise thing if it's not a hit piece, because about 95 % are, but then again why would Karl use it against my belief in Bernie is it wasn't negative?

[71 dB]

The graph I was thinking of:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Yep. That's the one. 

[SimonNZ]

You seem pretty certain I am wrong.

We're not arguing about you being right or wrong. I'm trying to impress upon you that your range of input is cripplingly limited, to the point of toxicity even. I don't care if you support Sanders, in fact differing perspectives would be welcome, but you reasons are unpersuasive because they're based exclusively on such shallow material. You should be addressing criticisms as legitimate rather than dismissing them on sight with the same few buzzwords.

[SimonNZ]

Yep. That's the one. 

Okay...and where do you see yourself on that graph?

[Karl Henning]

Bernie is not after the votes of the too far gones. They will vote for Trump no matter what. He is after everybody else, 2/3 of the country. The democrats, independents and even some Trump voters who are not so convinced about Trump anymore. The strategy is to inspire young people to vote in masses. Have a high turnout. Hillary Clinton wasn't inspiring. Bernie Sanders is.

Your link looks like a hit piece against Bernie. How you don't see it is beyond my comprehension.

You didn't bother reading the article. It's probably beyond your comprehension.

[71 dB]

You didn't bother reading the article. It's probably beyond your comprehension.

I assumed it is hit piece because you used it against me. I read it fast because I am tired (3.30 am Finland time) not hit piece
does not rule Bernie out

[71 dB]

Okay...and where do you see yourself on that graph?

depends on the issue

[71 dB]

We're not arguing about you being right or wrong. I'm trying to impress upon you that your range of input is cripplingly limited, to the point of toxicity even. I don't care if you support Sanders, in fact differing perspectives would be welcome, but you reasons are unpersuasive because they're based exclusively on such shallow material. You should be addressing criticisms as legitimate rather than dismissing them on sight with the same few buzzwords.

so it's my attitude?

[JBS]

so it's my attitude?

Well, you seem to have two postulates
1) the people who share your political views, and only the people who share them, accurately present the facts.
2) progressive ideas are opposed only by people who are corrupt or deluded.

The combination of the two makes you reflexively reject any contrary information.

[SimonNZ]

so it's my attitude?

Its the narrowness of the information that creates your attitude.

[Madiel]

Madiel was right to abandon this thread. You are insufferable.

I just clicked on the thread to rapidly remove it from the list of unread things from the past 5-6 days, and I kid you not, this is the one and only post that registered on my retina.

As you were.

[71 dB]

Well, you seem to have two postulates
1) the people who share your political views, and only the people who share them, accurately present the facts.
2) progressive ideas are opposed only by people who are corrupt or deluded.

The combination of the two makes you reflexively reject any contrary information.

I try to pay attention to these. It's very difficult when you defend your opinions, but I try.

1) Yes, I want to base my political views on facts.
2) In a society like the US progressive ideas benefit overwhelming majority of people. They "unrig" the rigged system. You have a "solid" reason to oppose progressive ideas if you are one benefitting from the rigged system. I'd say if your net worth is $50 million or more I can understand you opposing progressive ideas because wealth taxes etc. will hit you. Corporate media benefits from oligarchy and protect it fiercely.

[71 dB]

Its the narrowness of the information that creates your attitude.

The information I get is not only left-wing. Kyle Kulinski or Ana Kasparian commenting on right-wing "information" gives me both sides. I know what Meghan McCain or Lou Dobbs say and I know what John Iadarola or David Pakman think about it. Also, nobody needs to know everything about everything to realize Bernie Sanders is a historical opportunity for the US. The man has fought for half a century to make the country better while having been on the right side of history on everything from gay rights to opposing wars. He has earned the presidency. How narrow is your own "book" information you can't see that? I guess none of the books you have read told you about the political momentum Bernie Sanders has: High in the polls, most small individual donations averaging $18, most dedicated supporters. All that despite the corporate media hating him. My information is narrow? Maybe, but at least I know what counts. I see what is happening.

[71 dB]

It's over. The other candidates can as well drop out. Danny DeVito is endorsing Bernie Sanders.  0:)

[greg]

Its the narrowness of the information that creates your attitude.

I was literally just listening to a discussion on the Rogan podcast about how this guy met a group of self-titled "freethinkers" and that they ended up being the most narrow-minded people in their ideals, to where they couldn't even tolerate each other, and it reminded me of this thread lol.

[Florestan]

I was literally just listening to a discussion on the Rogan podcast about how this guy met a group of self-titled "freethinkers" and that they ended up being the most narrow-minded people in their ideals, to where they couldn't even tolerate each other, and it reminded me of this thread lol.

I once read something that stayed in my mind ever since: Thinking freely is great. Thinking correctly is even greater.

[Karl Henning]

I once read something that stayed in my mind ever since: Thinking freely is great. Thinking correctly is even greater.

I get the gist, and it's a good thought, though there is perhaps a better way to put it. The reason I chime in, though, is that (no doubt) Poju is satisfied that he is the only one here who thinks both freely and correctly.