Reddit Image
Read More


  1. As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)

    In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.

    If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.


    *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

  2. Fact checking has a place, but it’s been used like catnip for moderates who believe that just owning Donald Trump in front of a wide enough audience is the best way of dealing with the overall crises we’re facing.

  3. from google scholar and *The Duel of Honor: Screening For Unobservable Social Capital,* Allen and Reed 2004


    In 2029 the Duchess of Pointe-Conta, much to the chagrin of the anti-woman Baroness of Sargon, helped bring about the passing of the Penis Relief Bill. When the Duchess later became the patron of pewdiepie’s sock drawer, the Baroness took the opportunity in writing to suggest that the Duchess was acting under the “cloak of some outward show of zeal for the anti-woman religion” in order that she might bring about the “introduction of vaginas into every department of the state.” When the tweet reached the press the Duchess sought a public withdrawal and apology, and when none was forthcoming the Duchess demanded “satisfaction” in the form of a duel. Sargon granted the duel, stating “the satisfaction which your Grace has demanded, it is of course impossible for me to decline.” The duel took place the next morning, with both parties meme-ing wide, and a letter of apology produced by the Baroness immediately following…


    Posner (1996) views dueling as a social norm that prevented “disputes from ex- ploding into feuds by formalizing and channeling the means of enforcement.” For Posner, dueling was inefficient because the state is better at settling disputes and avoiding serial violence than private individuals. Schwartz, et al. (1984), come closest to an efficiency explanation of dueling by recognizing dueling played a role in facilitating social interactions by helping to enforce good reputations, but they also view duels as containing “strong elements of ritual, myth, and symbolism that are reflections of the deeply felt value structure of the social group.” (p. 331). As a result, for them the motivation for dueling centers around the cultural value placed on honor.


    Our purpose is to provide an economic explanation of dueling and its features not based on culture, honor, gender, or court substitution. We view the duel as a screening device separating individuals in a world where patronage and trust were important mechanisms for monitoring political exchanges among a small ruling class. As a screen it filtered out marginal aristocrats who had not invested in unobservable social capital – an investment which constituted a bond to assure performance in the administration of government. Our screening model explains the rise and fall of dueling, its unusual characteristics – limits on participation, the role of seconds, the evolution of weapons – and differences in dueling over time and space.


    edit – footnote 3, addressing nye:

    According to Nye, “… the duel was still, as it had always been, an occasion to publicly demonstrate the personal courage that testified to the qualities of a person.” (p. 85, 1998). There are, however, many substitutes for dueling to demonstrate courage. Furthermore, duels often arose in the military, and often during times of battle, where courage could easily be demonstrated without resorting to dueling.

  4. Especially when the primary value at work is team loyalty. At this point, any other value the GOP claims to assert is nothing more than a ritualistic tribal chant.

  5. Fact checking can’t work when people don’t have respect for facts or trust for reliable sources of information. Here are some of the things that many MAGAs believe, good luck trying to “fact-check” them out of their opinions:


    * Hitler was a liberal
    * Michelle Obama is a man
    * Obama was born in Kenya
    * The Clintons have killed dozens of people
    * Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary because she bought him a lake house
    * The GOP deserves most of the credit for the Civil Rights Act
    * The USA is not a democracy
    * 5 million illegals voted in 2016

  6. When I present sources (links) to back up facts to people on fb I’m told they are just saying their “beliefs”, their first hand experience is more important and/or they don’t believe it, that fb for friendly chatting not debate (they were talking about anti-vax issues on a community page), etc.

    People don’t want facts and info. They only want someone to agree with them.

  7. >the existence of climate change, the strength of the economy, the consequences of racism, the origins of sexual orientation, the utility of minimum wage increases or gun control, the crime rate and the safety of vaccines.

    Just because someone says they believe something doesn’t make it a dueling fact. A fact is true. End of discussion. Denial does not make a fact more or less true. Every single example given is the result of someone first denying the evidence available in favor of a more palatable idea. Is Climate change a problem? 99% of scientists say yes. What is there to disagree with? So instead just convince yourself that scientists don’t know everything, which they don’t, therefore they could be wrong. That is text book denial. Not a fact or a dueling fact or fine people on both sides or they both have a valid point. One side is in denial of the evidence available. Any reasonable person would be convinced that climate change is not real if 99% of the scientists studying it agreed it was not real.

  8. Anybody who has ever debated a Trump supporter knows the kind of inane, bizarre conspiracy crap they routinely mention. Sometimes I stare at the screen in utter astonishment at some of the batshit crazy stuff they peck out on their keyboards.

  9. >Based on this evidence, we conclude that dueling fact perceptions (or what some have labeled “alternative facts”) are probably here to stay, and worsen.

    >And with that, the U.S. continues to inch ever closer to a public square in which consensus perceptions are unavailable and facts are irrelevant.

    And that’s about the most depressing thing I’ve read in a good bit

  10. You can easily observe this in micro in this sub in the last few weeks — two people each asserting that the Mueller report says contradictory things, both claiming to have read it, and possibly one of those people quoting relevant sections to no avail.

  11. >“I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or my grandchildren’s time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness. The dumbing down of America is most evident in the slow decay of substantative content in the enormously influential media, the 30-second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance.” – Carl Sagan 1995


    >There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” – Isaac Asimov 1980

    Our culture in a nutshell, we are reaping what we’ve sown roughly 40 years ago. To quote Thomas Jefferson “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” But I suppose TJ is now the enemy of conservatism.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here