I guess we don't disagree nearly as much as I inferred from your earlier post. But I also worry about the narratives surrounding Schiff. I agree that AOC is more rational. But many of the right-wing sites are claiming Pelosi is as questionable as Schiff. And I disagree completely. Pelosi is partisan. But everything I've seen her do seems completely above board. So, if there are credible complaints against Schiff, those making them should, themselves, be rational -- specific and particular -- rather than painting all Democrats with the same brush. If you're serious about your 500-1000 particular people, it helps to name a few inside that set and name a few outside that set. If you did that, you could come up with a better name for that set than "they".
It's the over the top rhetoric that's causing the problem. E.g. when you say things like: On 11/10/19 1:26 AM, Prof David West wrote:
They dismiss ideas, like solving the cow flatulence problem by banning meat and making everyone a vegetarian/vegan, as nonsense, ...
You're installing that straw man, that anyone's seriously suggested banning meat and forcing everyone to be veg, into your rhetoric. And those little rhetorical injections color/weaken the whole argument. The farmers and ranchers I've talked to are *also* committed to conservation, including exploring ideas like no-till and organic pest control. The same's true of sport hunters and fishermen, who often side with environmentalists against things like motorcycles and atvs in the woods. So why inject the silly straw man? Why not try to construct your best representation of the "other side"? E.g. it's clear that *reducing* meat in the 1st world diet would help a little with climate change. But removing meat altogether presents lots of problems, problems we could work on if people would quit their bad faith characterizations of the other side. On 11/10/19 12:59 AM, Prof David West wrote:
is dead on, with a minor caveat: ... rational people should welcome rational challenges ... What Schiff, and the 500-1000 people I am including in "They" is not rational - it is emotional and ego-driven. Based on her questioning of several Trump admin witnesses, Ocasio-Cortez should be leading the impeachment effort - quiet, informed, questions that clearly demonstrate the errors of the other side — rational challenges absent all the ad hominen rhetoric. It would quickly be obvious to the majority of the population why Trump should be removed. And, in the short run, it would give the Republicans the grounds for actually supporting impeachment and convicting — something that will never happen with the toxic-partisan Schiff-led efforts.
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
