Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Daughter of Where We Stand, Ideologically Speaking

Daughter of Where We Stand, Ideologically Speaking
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2015, 03:48 PM
 
The Slate Star Codex Political Spectrum Quiz | Slate Star Codex

I like this one, but you should take it before reading the inevitable discussion.

In that vein, I'm giving it it's own thread so respondents are less likely to come into the test contaminated.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2015, 03:49 PM
 
No, look, I'm serious. You shouldn't be reading this yet.

Take the test first.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2015, 04:37 PM
 
I'm unable to finish the test, too many of the questions are overtly biased and/or lack context.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2015, 04:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I'm unable to finish the test, too many of the questions are overtly biased and/or lack context.
If the bias mainly annoys you, and makes you think the results won't be worth the effort, I can only ask you to trust me. It pays off.

If the bias genuinely makes the questions somehow difficult to answer, then it's not worth the effort. I say "somehow", because for me the bias made the questions easy to answer, even if I felt I was being led in a certain direction.

Similarly, compared to most quizzes, I was thrilled with the level of context the questions and answers provide. Each one was crystal clear to me.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2015, 07:00 PM
 
The questions are built to be thought provoking, not to be real world questions. Do your best with the information provided and the test serves its purpose.

It was quite interesting. I got an "interesting" score....

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2015, 07:51 PM
 
Okay, I kept going and kind of figured out what was up by the beginning of the second grouping.

Score: 5

Questions 5 and 15 aren't the same at all. Corporate welfare, no matter how onerous, does not blow people's limbs off. The needs of the many outweigh the butthurt of the N Koreans.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2015, 10:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Okay, I kept going and kind of figured out what was up by the beginning of the second grouping.

Score: 5

Questions 5 and 15 aren't the same at all. Corporate welfare, no matter how onerous, does not blow people's limbs off. The needs of the many outweigh the butthurt of the N Koreans.
The policies aren't what make the questions comparable, it's how they both exist within a structured democracy. The overarching question is do you follow the rules?

For me, in a democracy, my philosophy leans so hard towards answering "yes", the actual content of the policy barely registered. Ironically however, I answered 5 counter to my philosophy. The way the choices were phrased, it made me forget loopholes are part of the rules.

I scored a 4.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2015, 11:12 PM
 
I follow the rules, to a point. Break the rules to save lives due to landmines, when only N Korea is in the way? Yes. (**** little Kim.) Break them to bypass senate protocol to curb corporate welfare? No. The repercussions of doing that could last for decades, setting precedence that could destabilize the legislature. It would have to be a hell of a lot more important than cutting pork for me to agree to anything like that.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2015, 09:44 AM
 
My score was 4 as well.

I went with "by the rules" with the UN, not just because an above-the-board win against Kim in the UN would be much more pleasing than having to be underhanded to get it, but because it's a much better bit of anti-Kim PR to say "look who wants to keep blowing up kids!"

There were a couple that were hard to process, but I mostly went with principle over details. Let the Klan yammer in front of everybody - it shows how lame their ideology is. And let the protestors make the suits uncomfortable, as long as there are no real physical threats to the suits. As for the anti-commie stuff, "stuff it!" anti-reds! Freedom is about NOT buckling under to pressure like yours... "Have you no decency?" I like that line.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2015, 11:03 AM
 
I sit on the other side of the N Korea line, personally I believe that ignoring the little bugger is better than letting him think he has international power. I'd kick his regime from the UN altogether, if I could, it's not like he obeys int'l law, anyway. Treat him like the spoiled brat that he is and he'll start to understand why no one wants to play with him.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2015, 12:15 PM
 
As soon as someone mentions "UN" I just quietly chuckle.

Assuming we're not talking about the women of whichever shithole country baby blue helmet guys are raping right now.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2015, 12:18 PM
 
The more I reread 5 and 15, the more I have problems with the way it's phrased (and think I misinterpreted it in my previous post about it), but I like that the scoring system and how things are weighted are there for us to see (and criticize).
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2015, 09:25 AM
 
Got a 3.

---

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
kind of figured out what was up by the beginning of the second grouping.
Same here.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2015, 09:38 AM
 
On 5/15 I initially went with doing the resolution in public, but then I went utilitarian because saving lives removing old land mines was more valuable than outing NK as the jerk we all know it is. 15 I could go either way on – I have respect for the filibuster if it isn't procedural and could support him torpedoing the bill that way. Also, corporate welfare isn't as big a deal.

11/16 bothered me in that I saw 11 as a public boycott while 16 read as coercion – they threatened them behind closed doors (It doesn't help that they refer to their retribution as 'tarring' them). If they publicly called the companies out without a threat of retribution, I'd have been fine with it.

Still, point made, albeit in the most overt manner possible.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2015, 09:53 AM
 
If you're going to filibuster, you damned well need to filibuster. That means you stand and deliver, for however long it takes.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2015, 09:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
If you're going to filibuster, you damned well need to filibuster. That means you stand and deliver, for however long it takes.
Bingo.

Also, I believe the procedural filibuster is anonymous, which is extra shady.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2015, 10:02 AM
 
I remember one senator read the phonebooks from his constituency for 3 days, listing everyone a proposed bill would harm. That's impressive as hell.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2015, 10:11 AM
 
Its the right mix of dull and poignant
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2015, 01:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
On 5/15 I initially went with doing the resolution in public, but then I went utilitarian because saving lives removing old land mines was more valuable than outing NK as the jerk we all know it is. 15 I could go either way on – I have respect for the filibuster if it isn't procedural and could support him torpedoing the bill that way. Also, corporate welfare isn't as big a deal.

11/16 bothered me in that I saw 11 as a public boycott while 16 read as coercion – they threatened them behind closed doors (It doesn't help that they refer to their retribution as 'tarring' them). If they publicly called the companies out without a threat of retribution, I'd have been fine with it.

Still, point made, albeit in the most overt manner possible.
I'm curious about your 6/16 commentary.

It sounds like you're saying:

Public boycott: cool.
Heads-up about impending public boycott: coercion.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2015, 01:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm curious about your 6/16 commentary.

It sounds like you're saying:

Public boycott: cool.
Heads-up about impending public boycott: not cool.
SOPAFAMPA threatens to tar them in the press as Commies if they refuse.
That's not a boycott. That sounds like a PR campaign – which is still fine – but it sounds venomous. It's not 1:1 with marches, IMO. I bring it up because I have no problem with a boycott of books based on their contents. What I'm not cool with is their attempt to almost censor the content – which again is not synonymous with asking Disney to create more diverse products (They don't have to stop making one type of movie to release another type).


Maybe it's the historical aspect that bothers me, as it ratchets up the stakes, much like the land mine resolution. Here's a more contemporary re-write:
16. Focus on Family notices that a lot of writers seem to lean left, and worries that movies are promoting gender-blind ideas (perhaps by portraying gay families in a very positive light or having lesbians and gay men as heroes). They meet with the heads of various movie studios and ask the companies to re-evaluate their films to make sure they are suitably heteronormative. FoF threatens to call for their boycott in email newsletters as unChristian if they refuse.
That I have no probs with. Also, its probably not far from what's actually happened. What do you think?
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2015, 01:45 PM
 
I got a 4. Had to really think about #16.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2015, 05:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That's not a boycott. That sounds like a PR campaign – which is still fine – but it sounds venomous. It's not 1:1 with marches, IMO. I bring it up because I have no problem with a boycott of books based on their contents. What I'm not cool with is their attempt to almost censor the content – which again is not synonymous with asking Disney to create more diverse products (They don't have to stop making one type of movie to release another type).
How do boycotts exist without a PR media campaign to get the word out?

I think using FOTF brings in unnecessary "real world" baggage.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2015, 02:02 AM
 
Wait... is "Focus on Family" is supposed to be a fake organization?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2015, 07:09 AM
 
James Dobson would disagree.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2015, 09:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
How do boycotts exist without a PR media campaign to get the word out?
"They meet with the heads of various publishing companies and ask the companies to self-monitor their books to make sure they are suitably American."

This was cycling in the background yesterday and the problem finally resolved itself to me last night. My issue with their actions is that they were shrouded in secrecy. It was basically, "Nice publishing company you got there, shame if someone were to tar it in the press." Basically, they avoided the public and kept their own actions from public scrutiny; What if they released an open letter to publishers in newspapers and the American Public said "We don't care" or even worse "Leave publishers alone, they have a right to publish anything they want under the first amendment?" In the real scenario, their threat carries more weight because the public reaction is an unknown.


Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think using FOTF brings in unnecessary "real world" baggage.
When keeping it real goes wrong? I thought the feminist one was based on real life.

Alright, try number 2:

The Society Of Patriotic Americans For A More Patriotic America is annoyed at publishing companies for releasing too many books portraying businessmen in a very negative light or having rebels and political agititators as heroes. They publicly demand publishers stop releasing novels from writers that seem to lean left. They will tar them with prominent articles accusing everyone in the industry of Communism until they comply.
I'm ok with this, too. Please illustrate for me why I'm being a crazy psycho about this distinction.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2015, 02:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
"They meet with the heads of various publishing companies and ask the companies to self-monitor their books to make sure they are suitably American."

This was cycling in the background yesterday and the problem finally resolved itself to me last night. My issue with their actions is that they were shrouded in secrecy. It was basically, "Nice publishing company you got there, shame if someone were to tar it in the press." Basically, they avoided the public and kept their own actions from public scrutiny; What if they released an open letter to publishers in newspapers and the American Public said "We don't care" or even worse "Leave publishers alone, they have a right to publish anything they want under the first amendment?" In the real scenario, their threat carries more weight because the public reaction is an unknown.
Let me put it this way...

I only know I "should" be boycotting Nestle because of a PR campaign to tar them.

I'm not an activist, so I'm only assuming, but don't boycotts usually kick off after negotiations break down between interest group leaders and businesses?

Doesn't, say, Jesse Jackson have a little "chat" with you before you feel the full faith and credit of the Rainbow Coalition?


I'm still working on proving you're a psycho. When you hear me yelling "it's alive... IT'S ALIVE!" you should check back.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2015, 02:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm not an activist, so I'm only assuming, but don't boycotts usually kick off after negotiations break down between interest group leaders and businesses?
I'm not an activist, but boycotts usually kick-off a certain amount of time after its been revealed an entity is engaging in undesirable behavior and don't modify it. Think Chick-Fil-A, the Russian Olympics or Qatar's World Cup.


Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm still working on proving you're a psycho. When you hear me yelling "it's alive... IT'S ALIVE!" you should check back.
I also wouldn't mind a little feedback on the two scenarios I recrafted and said I was okay with. Worthless? Incomparable? Fabulous?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2015, 04:14 PM
 
That's what I meant.

I guess I "soft" object to the rewrites because they're changing your answer by lowering the stakes, or what you believe are the stakes.

I'm going to go with free speech almost every time, whether it's above board and public, or low-down dirty and private.

It appears "low-down dirty and private" is a break point for you. Isn't the point of the test to determine if you have a break point?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2015, 04:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I guess I "soft" object to the rewrites because they're changing your answer by lowering the stakes, or what you believe are the stakes.
I'm equalizing the stakes.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm going to go with free speech almost every time, whether it's above board and public, or low-down dirty and private.

It appears "low-down dirty and private" is a break point for you.
I'm against dirty, most likely (We need examples!). The private thing is just the icing on the asshole cake. In case I haven't communicated this properly, I read SOPAFAMPA as trying to black mail the companies with the fear of a retributive media campaign, rather than publicly stating their position and calling for the public to support it. If you see those two things as being the same, then yes, I disagree with you.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
Isn't the point of the test to determine if you have a break point?
The point of the test is to reveal partisan bias in comparable situations. I'm arguing in its original form it's not comparable (Same with the UN one).

v3
A feminist group notices that Disney is making many movies where a dashing male hero saves a helpless princess. They meet with the CEO and demand Disney stop making this kind of movie and instead make movies with strong female heroes. They threaten to tar them in the press as Misogynists if they refuse.
Am I cool with this? Not really. Does it evoke as strong a reaction as the Communist one? No. But then again, that can be said for many of the questions I was consistent on as well.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2015, 06:18 PM
 
I apologize for being so scattered here (and elsewhere).

Forget everything I said about the PR campaign and the boycott being comparable.

There's only one way in which the two questions need to be comparable: they must involve the same underlying principle.

What is being tested for isn't partisan bias, it's whether you adhere to the principle.

For this pairing, the underlying principle is "free speech".

Question 6 asks if you think one of the nicer ways of leveraging free speech to achieve an end is acceptable.

Question 16 asks if you think a nasty way of leveraging free speech to achieve an end is acceptable. Really nasty. Verging on (but not quite) extortion.

Why do the questions need to be equalized along the axis you're trying to equalize them? Does not a zero score on the original pair of questions accurately indicate someone who isn't adhering to the principle?

I'm against "dirty" as well, but I'll fight for your right to be that way if the weapon is language. I'll fight for your freedom to use it to try and curtail my freedom.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2015, 09:16 PM
 
I honestly think question 16 crossed the line. Given the way things worked in the 1950s, threatening to paint someone as a Commie WAS extortion. Not nasty leveraging, but ANTI-free speech.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2015, 12:52 AM
 
How would you combat this?

The only way I can think of is to censor back.

As I said, I'll fight for your ability to use language to be anti-free speech. I will fight for your ability to attempt and censor me with the tool of speech.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2015, 10:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What is being tested for isn't partisan bias, it's whether you adhere to the principle
....in the face of obvious partisan issues.


Originally Posted by subego View Post
Why do the questions need to be equalized along the axis you're trying to equalize them? Does not a zero score on the original pair of questions accurately indicate someone who isn't adhering to the principle?
No, because as v3 shows, I'm consistent in principle, but not in the manner you'd support. That's why your interpretation of the test is incorrect.


Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I honestly think question 16 crossed the line. Given the way things worked in the 1950s, threatening to paint someone as a Commie WAS extortion. Not nasty leveraging, but ANTI-free speech.
gh gets me. Why can't you?!
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2015, 03:40 PM
 
Is not the principle at play whether you object to legal political speech?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2015, 10:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is not the principle at play whether you object to legal political speech?
You don't know what I voted for from the score.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2015, 11:53 AM
 
This is getting even more non-sequitur than our normal misunderstandings.

I don't see what your statement has to do with my question.

I apologize if the following comes off as a snarky, it's not meant to... did you answer my question in some way I missed?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2015, 12:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
TI don't see what your statement has to do with my question.

I apologize if the following comes off as a snarky, it's not meant to... did you answer my question in some way I missed?
You're right, I didn't answer your question – because you ignored my comment that you're misunderstanding the point of the quiz. Let me try to correct you again:
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Does not a zero score on the original pair of questions accurately indicate someone who isn't adhering to the principle?
A zero score indicates a person is being inconsistent in the principles. Case in point: With questions 6 and 16, I can choose option B (The anti-Free speech one, by your perspective) and I still score a point because I'm being consistent. Therefore, the test isn't about where you stand on free speech, it's about where you stand on how its applied to both sides of the spectrum.

To hammer it home, I can answer all As and you can answer all Bs and we come out looking the same according to the test, even though we're polar opposites, ideologically.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2015, 01:24 PM
 
Using the original pair of questions...

Principle: objection to legal political speech.

Both A: this person has consistently not objected to legal political speech.
Both B: this person has consistently objected to legal political speech.
Zero: this person has shown no consistency in their objection to legal political speech.

Does not a zero score accurately indicate someone who isn't adhering to the principle?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2015, 01:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Using the original pair of questions...

Principle: objection to legal political speech.
No. All the questions are a reflection of the tests goal: Objectivity. The various questions merely test that objectivity under an array of topics.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
Does not a zero score accurately indicate someone who isn't adhering to the principle?
Only if the questions are equitable, which is the other drum I've been beating.
But I'll repeat: You can't know that from the test score. If I tell you my score is 5, you don't know which "principle" of yours I've failed. That's why your view on the point of the test is wrong. The results tell you nothing specifically.

---

You've been disagreeing with me that one of the questions is unfair while at the same time trying to get me to agree to a position that would compromise me.

Edit: Further, you seem to reject my alternatives not because they are inaccurate or inequitable with their counterparts, but solely because they aren't the original question.
( Last edited by The Final Dakar; Jul 23, 2015 at 01:56 PM. )
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2015, 02:07 PM
 
Don't think it as me rejecting them, only that it's the cart before the horse.

While I (more or less) understand your objection to the original questions, I'm confused by how the objection applies. I can't really address the fix properly if I'm still lost on what the problem is.

I'll work on that for a bit, but I wanted to get this part out.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2015, 02:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
While I (more or less) understand your objection to the original questions, I'm confused by how the objection applies. I can't really address the fix properly if I'm still lost on what the problem is.
WHAT?!

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Maybe it's the historical aspect that bothers me, as it ratchets up the stakes, much like the land mine resolution.
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'm equalizing the stakes.

I'm against dirty, most likely (We need examples!). The private thing is just the icing on the asshole cake. In case I haven't communicated this properly, I read SOPAFAMPA as trying to black mail the companies with the fear of a retributive media campaign, rather than publicly stating their position and calling for the public to support it. If you see those two things as being the same, then yes, I disagree with you.


The point of the test is to reveal partisan bias in comparable situations. I'm arguing in its original form it's not comparable (Same with the UN one).
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I honestly think question 16 crossed the line. Given the way things worked in the 1950s, threatening to paint someone as a Commie WAS extortion. Not nasty leveraging, but ANTI-free speech.
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Only if the questions are equitable, which is the other drum I've been beating.
What else do I need to say? 6 and 16 are apples and oranges.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2015, 03:11 PM
 
I apologize if you felt I was prompting you for further clarification.

"I'll work on that for a bit" was meant to imply, well... I should work on it for a bit and stuff.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2015, 03:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I apologize if you felt I was prompting you for further clarification.
You didn't I'm just surprised at that statement.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm confused by how the objection applies.
Okay, new tactic, question form.
7. Congress approves 150 M in additional funding for National Endowment of the Arts.
a) It's fine because it enriches US culture
b) It's not fine because deficit

17. Congress approves 150 B in additional funding for the Department of Defense.
a) Its fine because it improves US defense
b) It's not fine because deficit

Regardless of how you answer, this is not apples to apples because the difference in money is absurd. All but hardliners can see there's a difference between 150 M and 150 B. Much like the actions of the groups in 6/16 are wildly different.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2015, 07:11 PM
 
To me, it was obvious that the scenarios were chosen to make the situations less than crystal clear. And to add some partisan-like spin to them as well. By looking at the principles in each case, you can see that they are essentially the same for each pair of questions. The problem is seeing past the smoke and mirrors to get the real issue.

With questions like "let the anti-commies stifle free speech," it's pretty clear (at least to me), but the suits being "uncomfortable" about protestors and wanting them far away makes it harder to see the point - free speech (that does not include direct threats) is free speech. (Direct threats of violence, economic ruin, etc. are a different thing and cross the line every time - but how to see where these become economic threats is difficult too.)

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2015, 05:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
You didn't I'm just surprised at that statement.

Okay, new tactic, question form.
7. Congress approves 150 M in additional funding for National Endowment of the Arts.
a) It's fine because it enriches US culture
b) It's not fine because deficit

17. Congress approves 150 B in additional funding for the Department of Defense.
a) Its fine because it improves US defense
b) It's not fine because deficit

Regardless of how you answer, this is not apples to apples because the difference in money is absurd. All but hardliners can see there's a difference between 150 M and 150 B. Much like the actions of the groups in 6/16 are wildly different.
It's not the money which makes your questions and responses apples to oranges.


8. I offer you a billion dollars to sleep with me.
a) Sign me up!
b) Of course not! What do you think I am?

18. I offer you a dollar to sleep with me.
a) Sign me up!
b) Of course not! What do you think I am?


What's being tested here is do you evenhandedly apply your principle. The disparity of money is irrelevant as long as the same principles can apply to both questions and their pair of responses.

The problem with your question above isn't the gap in money, it's that the responses for "a" have no general principle to apply beyond "spend money on whatever, be it guns or butter". The responses for "b" are better, because "spend no money because of the deficit" is at least something akin to an actual principle.


For those not familiar with the joke, the response to people who score zero on 8 and 18 is "we've already determined what you are, we're only negotiating price".
( Last edited by subego; Jul 24, 2015 at 06:51 AM. )
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2015, 05:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
To me, it was obvious that the scenarios were chosen to make the situations less than crystal clear. And to add some partisan-like spin to them as well. By looking at the principles in each case, you can see that they are essentially the same for each pair of questions. The problem is seeing past the smoke and mirrors to get the real issue.

With questions like "let the anti-commies stifle free speech," it's pretty clear (at least to me), but the suits being "uncomfortable" about protestors and wanting them far away makes it harder to see the point - free speech (that does not include direct threats) is free speech. (Direct threats of violence, economic ruin, etc. are a different thing and cross the line every time - but how to see where these become economic threats is difficult too.)
I cannot, and will not, put a direct threat of economic ruin on the same plane as a direct threat of violence. Full stop.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2015, 10:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What's being tested here is do you evenhandedly apply your principle. The disparity of money is irrelevant as long as the same principles can apply to both questions and their pair of responses.
You're just repeating yourself now. And stakes matter as much for consistency.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
I cannot, and will not, put a direct threat of economic ruin on the same plane as a direct threat of violence. Full stop.
Let me put it this way – what SOPAFAMPA was threatening was borderline libel.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2015, 11:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
You're just repeating yourself now. And stakes matter as much for consistency.
I'm not just repeating myself. I provided a set of questions which attempt to clarify my position.

Are you familiar with the joke the questions are based on? It poses a basic philosophical question. Can you sum up your opinion on it?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2015, 11:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm not just repeating myself. I provided a set of questions which attempt to clarify my position.

Are you familiar with the joke the questions are based on? It poses a basic philosophical question. Can you sum up your opinion on it?
I think it reinforces my point. There are no absolutes in the face of stakes. That's why even Pro-life people make exceptions for the health of the mother.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2015, 04:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I think it reinforces my point. There are no absolutes in the face of stakes. That's why even Pro-life people make exceptions for the health of the mother.
There are absolutely absolutes.

Someone who feels abortion is tolerable under certain circumstances cannot claim they are against abortion in all circumstances.

Someone who will prostitute themselves only for very large amounts cannot claim they are unwilling to be a prostitute.

Someone who thinks borderline libel is unacceptable cannot claim they have no objections to legal political speech.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:38 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,