Check out how many minds this man has changed. https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinc...
This, sorry, were different times, however I admire the patience of this man. Today it is possible for someone to hear, watch and read only fake news all day without having any kind of dissenting viewpoint, compared to prior times where the only exposure was the weekly KKK gathering and maybe some letters. It is way harder (or impossible!) to break through the psychological walls the exposure to this shit creates. In…
Ten years ago I would still try to engage “TV watching folks” about the things I had read about, for example re: Sept 11. Only later realized I never had a chance, versus the corporate idiot box on in their house 4+ hours a day.
>So speak up. Educate your fellow citizens as to why these issues are important. Break through their media bubble/snowglobe and have multiple meaningful conversations that go deeper than the talking points spewed out by media personalities. Have you ever actually gotten that to work? Have you personally ever changed a single persons mind? Not trying to be facetious, but I'm incredulous.
I largely share your incredulity, but allow me to make a more optimistic counterpoint. I frequently change my mind, which is proof that one or more people out there are changing at least one person's mind. And here's the thing: in nearly all cases, the person or, more often, the people who change my mind never know it. I am often stubborn in the moment and unwilling to admit I've been swayed. More often, I don't real…
One thing that happens is that I'll have a debate with someone, try to refute all their points and kind of end up in a stalemate because I don't want to give in. But when I have another conversation on the same topic with someone else, the points made by the person in the previous discussion become my points.
>So speak up. Educate your fellow citizens as to why these issues are important. Break through their media bubble/snowglobe and have multiple meaningful conversations that go deeper than the talking points spewed out by media personalities. Have you ever actually gotten that to work? Have you personally ever changed a single persons mind? Not trying to be facetious, but I'm incredulous.
> Have you ever actually gotten that to work? Have you personally ever changed a single persons mind? I know the question wasn't directed at me, and it's not with respect to the proposed Muslim ban, but I have changed the mind of some of the voters from this general background: specifically, would-be Roy Moore voters. I convinced a good handful of them not to vote for him[1]. And as far as I know, they stayed home. T…
That's real optimistic of the Guardian but somehow I doubt there's all that much grass roots support against rendition flights. We live in an age where "Muslim ban" sounds like appropriate policy to about half the population. In Democracy the people get the government they deserve. Guess we really don't deserve human rights and habeus corpus.
> We live in an age where "Muslim ban" sounds like appropriate policy to about half the population. In Democracy the people get the government they deserve. Guess we really don't deserve human rights and habeus corpus. So speak up. Educate your fellow citizens as to why these issues are important. Break through their media bubble/snowglobe and have multiple meaningful conversations that go deeper than the talking poi…
>So speak up. Educate your fellow citizens as to why these issues are important. Break through their media bubble/snowglobe and have multiple meaningful conversations that go deeper than the talking points spewed out by media personalities. Have you ever actually gotten that to work? Have you personally ever changed a single persons mind? Not trying to be facetious, but I'm incredulous.
Likely because he leads with “Muslim ban,” which sounds ignorant. Most people who agree with the ban realize it is a temporary ban on countries requested by DHS because there currently is no valid process for doing background checks on people from those countries. So yeah I can see why he fails to change minds.
That's real optimistic of the Guardian but somehow I doubt there's all that much grass roots support against rendition flights. We live in an age where "Muslim ban" sounds like appropriate policy to about half the population. In Democracy the people get the government they deserve. Guess we really don't deserve human rights and habeus corpus.
I dunno, if you look at specifically this kind of intelligence cooperation with "dirty" states' intelligence agencies (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc.), I've found people in "conservative" rural areas to be almost uniformly against it, even if you wouldn't be able to tell that from how their political representatives vote. I mean, to be fair, most people I've met in any location of any politics aren't really happy with it, which contrasts with how we seem to have a bipartisan consensus in favor. But the minority of people who will actually argue in favor have almost uniformly been in "liberal", urban areas. I've had a few infuriating arguments with California liberals defending Dianne Feinstein's views on intelligence cooperation, while I've never run into someone in a conservative part of Texas who really wants to convince me that CIA-Saudi connections are Actually Very Good. At most, they might fall back on "well, Clinton is even worse" in defending a GOP politician's votes, but I've never personally met rural conservatives who want to own that position. (Admittedly, I don't know any conservatives from more of a Donald Rumsfeld demographic, who I know exist and I assume are probably also on board with that kind of thing.)
I think that's a bit extreme and a black and white way of thinking. For example, suppose you're heading an FBI group, and you've got a suicidal terrorist in custody who is part of a plot to detonate a nuclear bomb in LA. You have excellent evidence this guy is involved, and that the terrorists probably have a nuclear bomb in the country, and, if they realize their coconspirator has been captured, they are likely to d…
Real life is not an action movie. Your scenario is totally made up and has probably almost never happened.
I hope my scenario has never happened, but nothing about it is implausible. The point though is to illustrate that there are moments where pragmatism must trump laws and values. If you look, there are many times throughout history where such tradeoffs have been made.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy lists a real life example along the lines of my hypothetical one. In this example, a child is stuck in a hot car that is parked in a spot known only to the in custody car thief who is refusing to talk. The police proceed to beat the thief until he talks and save the child's life. This is straightforward example of when pragmatism must overrule idealism.
Torture doesn't provide any valuable intelligence results for those doing the torturing, we're not living in "24", the TV series. I know for sure that if I were to be tortured I'd be ready to recognize even the killing of the biblical character Abel if those doing the torturing would ask that from me, and I guess I'm not the only person so predisposed.
That’s a myth, if you’re looking for objective verifiable facts you can get some useful information. Also, if you have enough statistical data on torture methods, you can have a probability that a person doesn’t know something based on how long they’ve been actively tortured.
> We live in an age where "Muslim ban" sounds like appropriate policy to about half the population. In Democracy the people get the government they deserve. Guess we really don't deserve human rights and habeus corpus. So speak up. Educate your fellow citizens as to why these issues are important. Break through their media bubble/snowglobe and have multiple meaningful conversations that go deeper than the talking poi…
>So speak up. Educate your fellow citizens as to why these issues are important. Break through their media bubble/snowglobe and have multiple meaningful conversations that go deeper than the talking points spewed out by media personalities. Have you ever actually gotten that to work? Have you personally ever changed a single persons mind? Not trying to be facetious, but I'm incredulous.
There is Daryl Davis. He's black and personally convinced 200 KKK members into leaving the organization [1].
I'm a better and more mature person at 40 than I was at 20 because people have taken the time to patiently point out flaws in my own thinking. Not every conversation moves the direction of your life, but they do collectively nudge you in the right direction.
Torture doesn't provide any valuable intelligence results for those doing the torturing, we're not living in "24", the TV series. I know for sure that if I were to be tortured I'd be ready to recognize even the killing of the biblical character Abel if those doing the torturing would ask that from me, and I guess I'm not the only person so predisposed.
That’s a myth, if you’re looking for objective verifiable facts you can get some useful information. Also, if you have enough statistical data on torture methods, you can have a probability that a person doesn’t know something based on how long they’ve been actively tortured.
All the scientific evidence disagrees with you and so do many former employees and directors of intelligence agencies, so I'd like to see some citations.
You don't even have to go into physical torture: recent history is filled with cases where people confessed to crimes under police interrogation, only to have iron-clad evidence show up that they couldn't possibly be responsible.
The most effective technique is befriending the suspect, doing nice things for them, then allowing the natural human tendency to reciprocate (and a desire for positive social interactions) work for you. It takes time but gets you much more reliable information - and much more extensive information.