Intelligent people don't like being talked down on. This article is just another example of that, "oh you're sad about not being to afford the same basic items you had two years ago? Here are four charts to prove that your feelings are invalid and things are better than ever." That logic works on the anti-intellectual right who pride themselves on subservience (when the people in power tell them what they want to hear), but not on the side that polls better-educated and more capable of critical thinking in almost every metric. No, the IRA, CHIPS, and any other acts this article mentions have not been a success and their failures are evident in voter sentiment
"No, I don't like them, so they haven't been a success and voter sentiment is the measurement by which policy is determined to be a success or failure."
Holy shit, that's literally feels over reals
That logic works on the anti-intellectual right who pride themselves on subservience (when the people in power tell them what they want to hear), but not on the side that polls better-educated and more capable of critical thinking in almost every metric.
Fucking right out of "I DO MY OWN RESEARCH".
Don't mistake the fact that the right is anti-intellectual for the idea that the left can't be anti-intellectual. Considering you're saying that being given data is being 'talked down on', I might not be throwing stones in your place.
Data collection isn't an objective process, sorry to break it to you but real people with real biases make errors (whether intentional or not) when collecting and presenting data. It's worth considering that maybe if that data conflicts with the sentiment of the overwhelming majority of the people you're trying to win over THE DATA COLLECTION PROCESS IS FLAWED. These people are experiencing real hardship that's being handwaved by charts made for, and exclusively for, a reelection campaign.
You apply that standard evenly? If so, I have some great policy and reality-oriented questions to fucking ask you.
It’s worth considering that maybe if that data conflicts with the sentiment of the overwhelming majority of the people you’re trying to win over THE DATA COLLECTION PROCESS IS FLAWED.
This is literally the same Boomer shit that dribbles out of right-wing Facebook chuds. Like, word for fucking word.
I noticed that similarity, too. And I'm sure you have a fairly good idea of what is the ultimate source where those right-wingers on Facebook picked up a lot of their arguments from? And why the arguments tend to be very emotionally persuasive even though they're wrong?
And I’m sure you have a fairly good idea of what is the ultimate source where those right-wingers on Facebook picked up a lot of their arguments from?
Nah, this is an old-one. Inherent to the human condition, you might say. You see it everywhere, just in different doses.
And why the arguments tend to be very emotionally persuasive even though they’re wrong?
Because they appeal to tribalist instincts rather than rationality.
I was thinking that they come out of literally the exact same how-can-we-produce-the-public-impact-we-want factories
I have no real evidence or basis for saying that, it's just what I think
What similarity are you referring to? Can you explain how you interpret my argument to be right-wing?
what is the ultimate source
A basic undergraduate education, in my case.
I didn’t interpret your argument as right wing - I interpreted it as based on emotion and anecdote and overt rejection of analytical thinking, and packaged up in this forceful presentation that would be perfectly at home in a campaign commercial. I can see the end where the lady looks right at the camera and says, “Well let me tell you something, Joe Biden. Me and my family are hurting. And this November, we’re going to let you know exactly what we think of all your facts and figures about how things are oh-so-good off in Washington.”
based on emotion and anecdote
My argument is based on the fact that people's opinion of the economy is more pessimistic than ever. This fact is/has been reinforced through almost every relevant poll of the past four years.
Do you believe that these people are making up hardship? Or maybe it's some sort of conspiracy against our Glorious Leader by those damn MAGAt scum? The reality is that people are actually suffering in a way that contradicts what studies are reporting to a near-unprecedented extent. That gap is unexplainable in any way other than concluding that the studies are fundamentally flawed and the charts showing how great things really are do not accurately reflect reality.
the fact that people's opinion of the economy is
This is a fascinating little construction that I’m just gonna let speak for itself
more pessimistic than ever
Are you under the impression, also, that we should measure vaccine effectiveness by asking people whether they feel optimistic that their vaccine is working?
There’s a fascinating little window into the flaws of this type of analysis, to be had in that the same people who report the nation’s economy doing badly, also report by quite a large margin the incorrect idea that their own state and their own family are doing much better than the nation as a whole. So they’re doing okay, but they’re still convinced that the nation as a whole is fucked and Biden’s definitely responsible.
This is a fascinating little construction that I’m just gonna let speak for itself
Please don't. I want to hear your real rebuttal here. "Official reports of the economy disagree with the polled sentiments of the majority of Americans" is an indisputable fact.
Are you under the impression, also, that we should measure vaccine effectiveness by asking people whether they feel optimistic that their vaccine is working?
False equivalency, but if every official body said that the vaccinated were much less likely than the unvaccinated to fall ill, yet every relevant poll showed that the vaccinated became ill at a rate similar to the unvaccinated or said that they or most people they knew were vaccinated yet had become ill, and that every person felt like their vaccines were ineffective, the sane thing to do would be to question the premise.
Your last bit is a rebuttal for an argument that I'm not making; strawman.
I can't explain it any different way than what I already said in quite a few messages now. If you want to measure economic performance, then you should measure people's wages, inflation, housing costs, and other concrete numbers.
Asking people whether they feel like the economy is good is also relevant, for a few different reasons, sure. And you need to make sure you're measuring the right metrics (e.g. wages at particular percentiles and not the stock market), sure. But you obviously shouldn't let how people feel things are going, override the actual numbers of how things are going, when you're talking about how to make economic progress.
You can disagree with that if you like (and it seems like you do), but I don't feel like going back and forth with you about it any further.
You apply that standard evenly? If so, I have some great policy and reality-oriented questions to fucking ask you
My entire point is that no one can be entirely objective, but I try to be, so sure, "fucking" ask me anything.
This is literally the same Boomer shit that dribbles out of right-wing Facebook chuds. Like, word for fucking word.
I seem to recall a pretty big guy in the conservative circle make it pretty big off the whole "facts don't care about your feelings" argument that you're peddling here... I'm blanking on his name.
The reality is that millions of people are feeling more pessimistic about the future than ever. Work backward from that. Do you think that they're all part of some conspiracy against you or that maybe, just maybe, these feelings are real, are justified, and that there's some sort of gap in the data collection process that's accounting for the discrepancy.
You are not a member of the intelligentsia, shepherding the uneducated prolies towards something they don't know they want; people aren't dumb. If things were actually as good as the current administration says they are, every single poll of the past four years wouldn't show such a large discrepancy between real and perceived conditions.
I don't like the doctors talking down to me. I don't want to see a bunch of charts and figures, I know Ginny wasn't right after she got her vaccine. That stuff might work on the liberals, but not on me.
Billionaires are doing great, therefore anyone who isn't must be imagining it. They're exactly like antivaxxers for noticing they can't make rent.
See you're doing it again. You're insulting the intelligence of critics and saying they are too daft to read charts or understand the benefits of vaccines. Instead of focusing on the actually problematic stuff.
A politician with the same level of knowledge and experience as a Doctor? Surely you know those two things are different.
How much are you scared about Trump being in office that you will bash people for criticizing democrats?
I'm insulting the intelligence (or, the education / choice of worldview) of someone who wants to look at a large analytical and hard-to-understand problem through an ancedotal lens, and actively rejects someone who wants to talk about the numerical aspect as "talking down" to them. I feel comfortable insulting that way of being because to me it's very wrong. It's not done out of hatred or anything for someone who does that, but they are making a mistake yes, and it's a deceptively infectious mistake in a way that makes it worthwhile to call out. In my opinion.
How much are you scared about Trump being in office that you will bash people for criticizing democrats?
Pretty sure I posted an excerpt elsewhere in this thread that was highly critical of most Democrats' strategy, and earlier today I posted a video of Biden fucking up the response to a question about "anti-Semitic" protestors, and briefly talked about how he fucked it up and why. Criticizing Biden or Democrats I think is great. If I think the criticism is wrong (or particularly if I think the pattern of thinking behind it is wrong) then I'll "bash" the person doing it, yes.
I’m insulting the intelligence (or, the education / choice of worldview) of someone who wants to look at a large analytical and hard-to-understand problem through an ancedotal lens
Most people don't care about broader economic trends when they're deciding which bill to not pay this month. Democrats have forgotten how to speak to that.
Yeah. Hence the good points in the OP article. Doesn’t mean that analyzing the bigger picture suddenly becomes a bad thing to do though.
Nope, but calling people who are suffering antivaxxers because they don't slap on a big doofy fake grin and pretend that Biden is their fucking savior is insulting.
Why are you so hostile to the idea of objectively trying to determine what is and isn’t working, and who is and isn’t helping the situation?
And I didn’t call anyone suffering an antivaxxer. I sort of called PP_BOY an antivaxxer, but that was specifically because he used antivaxxer style arguments.
And I didn’t call anyone suffering an antivaxxer.
Don't lie.
Okay. Let’s try the other part, then. Why are you so hostile to the idea of objectively trying to determine what is and isn’t working, and who is and isn’t helping the situation?
Objectivity doesn't involve calling people who you hate because they're poor in spite of Biden being president antivaxxers.
I already explained what I meant by what I said about antivaxxers.
If you're up for talking based on me being the absolute 100% authority on what I am claiming, and what I meant when I said something, then let's rock. That's productive conversation. I'll extend the same courtesy to you. If you're wanting to engage back and forth with me to any extent on either of those topics or say that I didn't really mean or believe something, I actually meant something different that you picked out, then you need to find someone else to talk to.
(And, more broadly, I would say that you should stop doing that as a general rule, if your goal is anything other than creating pointless bickering and wasting both participant's time.)
I already explained what I meant by what I said about antivaxxers.
You walked back what you said about people who have the temerity to be less than ecstatic about being poor. I didn't buy the walkback.
You want to be able to hurl insults at people whose very existence runs contrary to the current centrist narrative about the economy, while still being able to act put upon when someone calls you on it and doesn't accept your excuses.
If hearing from me regarding your dishonesty and your callousness toward the poor is such a burden, you can always block me.
Intelligent people don't like being talked down on. This article is just another example of that, "oh you're sad about not being to afford the same basic items you had two years ago? Here are four charts to prove that your feelings are invalid and things are better than ever." That logic works on the anti-intellectual right who pride themselves on subservience (when the people in power tell them what they want to hear), but not on the side that polls better-educated and more capable of critical thinking in almost every metric. No, the IRA, CHIPS, and any other acts this article mentions have not been a success and their failures are evident in voter sentiment
"No, I don't like them, so they haven't been a success and voter sentiment is the measurement by which policy is determined to be a success or failure."
Holy shit, that's literally feels over reals
Fucking right out of "I DO MY OWN RESEARCH".
Don't mistake the fact that the right is anti-intellectual for the idea that the left can't be anti-intellectual. Considering you're saying that being given data is being 'talked down on', I might not be throwing stones in your place.
Data collection isn't an objective process, sorry to break it to you but real people with real biases make errors (whether intentional or not) when collecting and presenting data. It's worth considering that maybe if that data conflicts with the sentiment of the overwhelming majority of the people you're trying to win over THE DATA COLLECTION PROCESS IS FLAWED. These people are experiencing real hardship that's being handwaved by charts made for, and exclusively for, a reelection campaign.
You apply that standard evenly? If so, I have some great policy and reality-oriented questions to fucking ask you.
This is literally the same Boomer shit that dribbles out of right-wing Facebook chuds. Like, word for fucking word.
I noticed that similarity, too. And I'm sure you have a fairly good idea of what is the ultimate source where those right-wingers on Facebook picked up a lot of their arguments from? And why the arguments tend to be very emotionally persuasive even though they're wrong?
Nah, this is an old-one. Inherent to the human condition, you might say. You see it everywhere, just in different doses.
Because they appeal to tribalist instincts rather than rationality.
I was thinking that they come out of literally the exact same how-can-we-produce-the-public-impact-we-want factories
I have no real evidence or basis for saying that, it's just what I think
What similarity are you referring to? Can you explain how you interpret my argument to be right-wing?
A basic undergraduate education, in my case.
I didn’t interpret your argument as right wing - I interpreted it as based on emotion and anecdote and overt rejection of analytical thinking, and packaged up in this forceful presentation that would be perfectly at home in a campaign commercial. I can see the end where the lady looks right at the camera and says, “Well let me tell you something, Joe Biden. Me and my family are hurting. And this November, we’re going to let you know exactly what we think of all your facts and figures about how things are oh-so-good off in Washington.”
My argument is based on the fact that people's opinion of the economy is more pessimistic than ever. This fact is/has been reinforced through almost every relevant poll of the past four years.
Do you believe that these people are making up hardship? Or maybe it's some sort of conspiracy against our Glorious Leader by those damn MAGAt scum? The reality is that people are actually suffering in a way that contradicts what studies are reporting to a near-unprecedented extent. That gap is unexplainable in any way other than concluding that the studies are fundamentally flawed and the charts showing how great things really are do not accurately reflect reality.
This is a fascinating little construction that I’m just gonna let speak for itself
Are you under the impression, also, that we should measure vaccine effectiveness by asking people whether they feel optimistic that their vaccine is working?
There’s a fascinating little window into the flaws of this type of analysis, to be had in that the same people who report the nation’s economy doing badly, also report by quite a large margin the incorrect idea that their own state and their own family are doing much better than the nation as a whole. So they’re doing okay, but they’re still convinced that the nation as a whole is fucked and Biden’s definitely responsible.
Please don't. I want to hear your real rebuttal here. "Official reports of the economy disagree with the polled sentiments of the majority of Americans" is an indisputable fact.
False equivalency, but if every official body said that the vaccinated were much less likely than the unvaccinated to fall ill, yet every relevant poll showed that the vaccinated became ill at a rate similar to the unvaccinated or said that they or most people they knew were vaccinated yet had become ill, and that every person felt like their vaccines were ineffective, the sane thing to do would be to question the premise.
Your last bit is a rebuttal for an argument that I'm not making; strawman.
I can't explain it any different way than what I already said in quite a few messages now. If you want to measure economic performance, then you should measure people's wages, inflation, housing costs, and other concrete numbers.
Asking people whether they feel like the economy is good is also relevant, for a few different reasons, sure. And you need to make sure you're measuring the right metrics (e.g. wages at particular percentiles and not the stock market), sure. But you obviously shouldn't let how people feel things are going, override the actual numbers of how things are going, when you're talking about how to make economic progress.
You can disagree with that if you like (and it seems like you do), but I don't feel like going back and forth with you about it any further.
My entire point is that no one can be entirely objective, but I try to be, so sure, "fucking" ask me anything.
I seem to recall a pretty big guy in the conservative circle make it pretty big off the whole "facts don't care about your feelings" argument that you're peddling here... I'm blanking on his name.
The reality is that millions of people are feeling more pessimistic about the future than ever. Work backward from that. Do you think that they're all part of some conspiracy against you or that maybe, just maybe, these feelings are real, are justified, and that there's some sort of gap in the data collection process that's accounting for the discrepancy.
You are not a member of the intelligentsia, shepherding the uneducated prolies towards something they don't know they want; people aren't dumb. If things were actually as good as the current administration says they are, every single poll of the past four years wouldn't show such a large discrepancy between real and perceived conditions.
I don't like the doctors talking down to me. I don't want to see a bunch of charts and figures, I know Ginny wasn't right after she got her vaccine. That stuff might work on the liberals, but not on me.
Billionaires are doing great, therefore anyone who isn't must be imagining it. They're exactly like antivaxxers for noticing they can't make rent.
See you're doing it again. You're insulting the intelligence of critics and saying they are too daft to read charts or understand the benefits of vaccines. Instead of focusing on the actually problematic stuff.
A politician with the same level of knowledge and experience as a Doctor? Surely you know those two things are different.
How much are you scared about Trump being in office that you will bash people for criticizing democrats?
I'm insulting the intelligence (or, the education / choice of worldview) of someone who wants to look at a large analytical and hard-to-understand problem through an ancedotal lens, and actively rejects someone who wants to talk about the numerical aspect as "talking down" to them. I feel comfortable insulting that way of being because to me it's very wrong. It's not done out of hatred or anything for someone who does that, but they are making a mistake yes, and it's a deceptively infectious mistake in a way that makes it worthwhile to call out. In my opinion.
Pretty sure I posted an excerpt elsewhere in this thread that was highly critical of most Democrats' strategy, and earlier today I posted a video of Biden fucking up the response to a question about "anti-Semitic" protestors, and briefly talked about how he fucked it up and why. Criticizing Biden or Democrats I think is great. If I think the criticism is wrong (or particularly if I think the pattern of thinking behind it is wrong) then I'll "bash" the person doing it, yes.
Most people don't care about broader economic trends when they're deciding which bill to not pay this month. Democrats have forgotten how to speak to that.
Yeah. Hence the good points in the OP article. Doesn’t mean that analyzing the bigger picture suddenly becomes a bad thing to do though.
Nope, but calling people who are suffering antivaxxers because they don't slap on a big doofy fake grin and pretend that Biden is their fucking savior is insulting.
Why are you so hostile to the idea of objectively trying to determine what is and isn’t working, and who is and isn’t helping the situation?
And I didn’t call anyone suffering an antivaxxer. I sort of called PP_BOY an antivaxxer, but that was specifically because he used antivaxxer style arguments.
Don't lie.
Okay. Let’s try the other part, then. Why are you so hostile to the idea of objectively trying to determine what is and isn’t working, and who is and isn’t helping the situation?
Objectivity doesn't involve calling people who you hate because they're poor in spite of Biden being president antivaxxers.
I already explained what I meant by what I said about antivaxxers.
If you're up for talking based on me being the absolute 100% authority on what I am claiming, and what I meant when I said something, then let's rock. That's productive conversation. I'll extend the same courtesy to you. If you're wanting to engage back and forth with me to any extent on either of those topics or say that I didn't really mean or believe something, I actually meant something different that you picked out, then you need to find someone else to talk to.
(And, more broadly, I would say that you should stop doing that as a general rule, if your goal is anything other than creating pointless bickering and wasting both participant's time.)
You walked back what you said about people who have the temerity to be less than ecstatic about being poor. I didn't buy the walkback.
You want to be able to hurl insults at people whose very existence runs contrary to the current centrist narrative about the economy, while still being able to act put upon when someone calls you on it and doesn't accept your excuses.
If hearing from me regarding your dishonesty and your callousness toward the poor is such a burden, you can always block me.