Posted by bad_luck on 11/4/2014 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/4/2014 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/4/2014 1:21:00 PM (view original):
Talking down to people tends to shut them off from what you're saying.    Read your last sentence as if someone was reading it to you and describing you.   How far past "the low information bunch - how to you frame an argument to ignorant people" did you get?

Conservatives do that a lot more than liberals.   Liberals talks that way about cons when they think no cons are around but cons do it constantly regardless of audience. 

Lol.... Its true low information voters need some sugar coating - maybe I can hire lady gaga to help get my message across.

Honestly I figured the crowd in here could handle my point without me having to beat around the bush.

The softer version is how do you intellectually cater to someone for a vote when they care more about what Kim Kardashian is doing than what's in the wall street journal. To people that get their political news from a comedian because its ***more entertaining*** that way. Sadly, more people today can tell you who Justin Beiber is than Joe Biden when shown a picture of the two.

The Wall Street Journal...a world class news organization with an Op/Ed section run by Montgomery Burns.

Ex-cellent.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/4/2014 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/4/2014 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/4/2014 1:21:00 PM (view original):
Talking down to people tends to shut them off from what you're saying.    Read your last sentence as if someone was reading it to you and describing you.   How far past "the low information bunch - how to you frame an argument to ignorant people" did you get?

Conservatives do that a lot more than liberals.   Liberals talks that way about cons when they think no cons are around but cons do it constantly regardless of audience. 

Lol.... Its true low information voters need some sugar coating - maybe I can hire lady gaga to help get my message across.

Honestly I figured the crowd in here could handle my point without me having to beat around the bush.

The softer version is how do you intellectually cater to someone for a vote when they care more about what Kim Kardashian is doing than what's in the wall street journal. To people that get their political news from a comedian because its ***more entertaining*** that way. Sadly, more people today can tell you who Justin Beiber is than Joe Biden when shown a picture of the two.

The Wall Street Journal...a world class news organization with an Op/Ed section run by Montgomery Burns.

You've pretty much just proved my point. It's a periodical that specializes in business, finance, and economic news and you bring up the Op/Ed piece in the very back of the newspaper.

Posted by moy23 on 11/4/2014 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/4/2014 1:21:00 PM (view original):
Talking down to people tends to shut them off from what you're saying.    Read your last sentence as if someone was reading it to you and describing you.   How far past "the low information bunch - how to you frame an argument to ignorant people" did you get?

Conservatives do that a lot more than liberals.   Liberals talks that way about cons when they think no cons are around but cons do it constantly regardless of audience. 

Lol.... Its true low information voters need some sugar coating - maybe I can hire lady gaga to help get my message across.

Honestly I figured the crowd in here could handle my point without me having to beat around the bush.

The softer version is how do you intellectually cater to someone for a vote when they care more about what Kim Kardashian is doing than what's in the wall street journal. To people that get their political news from a comedian because its ***more entertaining*** that way. Sadly, more people today can tell you who Justin Beiber is than Joe Biden when shown a picture of the two.

Well, I don't think you communicate only with people in here.

I don't think people need "sugar coating".   They just don't like being spoken to like they're lesser people.  As a I said a few days ago, it's very likely that everyone on this board at least attended college.   But Joe Lunchbox, pounding nails for a living, did not.   If you make him feel like a lesser human being because of this, he's not going to be very interested in what you're saying. 

As for your point, I don't have the answer.   People today prefer everything to be served in a nice tidy package.   Points to be conveyed in seconds rather than hours.   IOW, it's easy to say "He sucks and supports killing babies" than to explain why you'd be a better candidate and elaborate on abortion issues.

Well, I do have the answer but no one likes it.  If you can't convince people that you need to show a photo ID in order to vote, a short, very easy, test that proves you're not just pushing buttons isn't going to happen.

Love this (although we are on the overall political same side):  "Lay off the crazy religious right social values, not totally but enough that they don't look like religious zealots".  This is  perfect example of how an issue has been ***framed***.

I don't want to get into an abortion debate in this thread - even though I don't mind doing that - but the abortion debate can done on either side with no reference at all to any religious values.  I would submit, however, that if someone's religion is true, it should line up with rationality.  There is a rational pro-life argument that rests on non-religious grounds.  The idea that it's primarily a religious position is a perfect example of the issue being framed (in my opinion in an attempt to marginalize the rational position).

Posted by moy23 on 11/4/2014 2:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/4/2014 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/4/2014 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/4/2014 1:21:00 PM (view original):
Talking down to people tends to shut them off from what you're saying.    Read your last sentence as if someone was reading it to you and describing you.   How far past "the low information bunch - how to you frame an argument to ignorant people" did you get?

Conservatives do that a lot more than liberals.   Liberals talks that way about cons when they think no cons are around but cons do it constantly regardless of audience. 

Lol.... Its true low information voters need some sugar coating - maybe I can hire lady gaga to help get my message across.

Honestly I figured the crowd in here could handle my point without me having to beat around the bush.

The softer version is how do you intellectually cater to someone for a vote when they care more about what Kim Kardashian is doing than what's in the wall street journal. To people that get their political news from a comedian because its ***more entertaining*** that way. Sadly, more people today can tell you who Justin Beiber is than Joe Biden when shown a picture of the two.

The Wall Street Journal...a world class news organization with an Op/Ed section run by Montgomery Burns.

You've pretty much just proved my point. It's a periodical that specializes in business, finance, and economic news and you bring up the Op/Ed piece in the very back of the newspaper.

It's a very widely read opinion page. And, for the most part, it's batshit crazy.

Posted by silentpadna on 11/4/2014 2:32:00 PM (view original):
Love this (although we are on the overall political same side):  "Lay off the crazy religious right social values, not totally but enough that they don't look like religious zealots".  This is  perfect example of how an issue has been ***framed***.

I don't want to get into an abortion debate in this thread - even though I don't mind doing that - but the abortion debate can done on either side with no reference at all to any religious values.  I would submit, however, that if someone's religion is true, it should line up with rationality.  There is a rational pro-life argument that rests on non-religious grounds.  The idea that it's primarily a religious position is a perfect example of the issue being framed (in my opinion in an attempt to marginalize the rational position).

I think abortion is one of those topics where there is no easy answer. Both sides can argue rationally for their side and no one is changing their minds.

Rationality rarely does enter the discussion, but you're right - there is no easy answer.  I disagree with you about changing minds.  I've seen many minds changed on the subject.  Like most things, if people are honest with themselves and peal back the layers of their thinking, that's that area where minds change.  I know because I was one of those people.

If I examine my rationale thoroughly and find it logically lacking (for any issue whether it's healthcare, taxes, social issues, whatever), it's my duty to either change my mind or develop my thinking deeper.

The main point of this in not abortion, but in how issues are framed to appeal to people in a way that encourages people to not think about how they think about things.  Just appeal to myth:

Wealth = Greed
Entitlements = Socialism
Global Warming Skeptic = Climate Change Denier
Pro-Lifer = Anti-Choice Religious Radical
Big Business = Anti-worker
Corporate Tax Cuts = Corporate Welfare

Etc.

Etc.

No thinking required.....

Comedians on one side, clowns(rush, beck, hannity) on the other.

Posted by silentpadna on 11/4/2014 3:16:00 PM (view original):
The main point of this in not abortion, but in how issues are framed to appeal to people in a way that encourages people to not think about how they think about things.  Just appeal to myth:

Wealth = Greed
Entitlements = Socialism
Global Warming Skeptic = Climate Change Denier
Pro-Lifer = Anti-Choice Religious Radical
Big Business = Anti-worker
Corporate Tax Cuts = Corporate Welfare

Etc.

Etc.

No thinking required.....

I think we could probably come up with a very similar list of rhetoric going in the other direction.

When I started the list I actually intended to include both sides, but only manged to get one in there as a jab at the right (you should recognize it). I was in a hurry to post it prior to a call...

Posted by bad_luck on 11/4/2014 2:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/4/2014 2:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/4/2014 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/4/2014 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/4/2014 1:21:00 PM (view original):
Talking down to people tends to shut them off from what you're saying.    Read your last sentence as if someone was reading it to you and describing you.   How far past "the low information bunch - how to you frame an argument to ignorant people" did you get?

Conservatives do that a lot more than liberals.   Liberals talks that way about cons when they think no cons are around but cons do it constantly regardless of audience. 

Lol.... Its true low information voters need some sugar coating - maybe I can hire lady gaga to help get my message across.

Honestly I figured the crowd in here could handle my point without me having to beat around the bush.

The softer version is how do you intellectually cater to someone for a vote when they care more about what Kim Kardashian is doing than what's in the wall street journal. To people that get their political news from a comedian because its ***more entertaining*** that way. Sadly, more people today can tell you who Justin Beiber is than Joe Biden when shown a picture of the two.

The Wall Street Journal...a world class news organization with an Op/Ed section run by Montgomery Burns.

You've pretty much just proved my point. It's a periodical that specializes in business, finance, and economic news and you bring up the Op/Ed piece in the very back of the newspaper.

It's a very widely read opinion page. And, for the most part, it's batshit crazy.

Whoosh.

You're right... You keep on thinking that reading the batshit crazy WSJ which specializes in business, finance, and economic news is no more intellectually stimulating than keeping up with the Kardashians.

Posted by silentpadna on 11/4/2014 3:16:00 PM (view original):
The main point of this in not abortion, but in how issues are framed to appeal to people in a way that encourages people to not think about how they think about things.  Just appeal to myth:

Wealth = Greed
Entitlements = Socialism
Global Warming Skeptic = Climate Change Denier
Pro-Lifer = Anti-Choice Religious Radical
Big Business = Anti-worker
Corporate Tax Cuts = Corporate Welfare

Etc.

Etc.

No thinking required.....

Agree. Too many people are content to ***not*** think for themselves and would rather just be told what to do. Case in point - Michelle Obama yesterday (maybe today) told a group of African Americans it doesn't matter who is on the ticket, just vote for the democratic party. Really?

Posted by moy23 on 11/4/2014 3:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/4/2014 2:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/4/2014 2:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/4/2014 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/4/2014 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/4/2014 1:21:00 PM (view original):
Talking down to people tends to shut them off from what you're saying.    Read your last sentence as if someone was reading it to you and describing you.   How far past "the low information bunch - how to you frame an argument to ignorant people" did you get?

Conservatives do that a lot more than liberals.   Liberals talks that way about cons when they think no cons are around but cons do it constantly regardless of audience. 

Lol.... Its true low information voters need some sugar coating - maybe I can hire lady gaga to help get my message across.

Honestly I figured the crowd in here could handle my point without me having to beat around the bush.

The softer version is how do you intellectually cater to someone for a vote when they care more about what Kim Kardashian is doing than what's in the wall street journal. To people that get their political news from a comedian because its ***more entertaining*** that way. Sadly, more people today can tell you who Justin Beiber is than Joe Biden when shown a picture of the two.

The Wall Street Journal...a world class news organization with an Op/Ed section run by Montgomery Burns.

You've pretty much just proved my point. It's a periodical that specializes in business, finance, and economic news and you bring up the Op/Ed piece in the very back of the newspaper.

It's a very widely read opinion page. And, for the most part, it's batshit crazy.

Whoosh.

You're right... You keep on thinking that reading the batshit crazy WSJ which specializes in business, finance, and economic news is no more intellectually stimulating than keeping up with the Kardashians.

I'm starting to think you may actually be developmentally disabled.

I'll say it again. The Wall Street Journal is a world class news organization.The Op/Ed page, on the other hand, is nuts.

But please, keep on pretending that I'm saying the entire newspaper is nuts.

Posted by silentpadna on 11/4/2014 3:23:00 PM (view original):
When I started the list I actually intended to include both sides, but only manged to get one in there as a jab at the right (you should recognize it). I was in a hurry to post it prior to a call...

I think both sides (including me) are guilty of painting the opposition's arguments as if they have zero merit. When someone tells you that your argument/opinion/analysis has zero merit, there is zero chance you are going listen to or seriously consider the opinion of the other side. It becomes a battle.