What? A group of scientists can be pressured by government agencies to make a chemical sound safer than it is?

But, but, but… It’s The Science™…

Thank goodness there was never anything shady going on at the NIH, or CDC during Covid, like them covering up funding for the lab that might have been responsible for the entire pandemic…

Thank goodness any question of The Science™ being influenced by government was tinfoil-hatwearing conspiracy theory, just at that specific moment.

I think that not really feeling it viscerally about it is part of the problem, yeah.

But my take, for what it’s worh, is that ever since Covid people have just got a good feeling of righteousness by simply repeating the standard mainstream messaging. There was a very strong narrative that the mainstream was right and questioning it amounted to dangerous conspiracy theory (which, to be fair, it often did). So now a certain class of people (slightly left of centre, middle class urbanites) have this Pavlovian response to any questioning of the mainstream narrative, that they simply must repeat it because of that good feeling they got supporting it during Covid.

Unfortunately, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and a couple of coincidental conspiracy-bashings doesn’t change the fact that the mainstream media are fundamentally bought and paid for by their corporate advertisers and CEOs of their hedge-fund owners on the board.

The American press’s reporting on Gaza has been nothing short of actively complicit. And that’s not even a rhetorical flourish, it’s the view of no small number of international human rights lawyers.

Harris would be stupid to alienate Jewish voters going into the election.

On what evidence do you believe this. All the evidence provided thus far shows the opposite to be the case. The overwhelming majority of Democrats want to end arms sales to Israel. By what twisted mathematics does gaining a majority of supporters risk losing the vote?

The evidence in question, to save trawling through posts

https://cepr.net/press-release/poll-majority-of-americans-say-biden-should-halt-weapons-shipments-to-israel/

I don’t agree that the Dems need to change policy to win. Sure they could pick up some votes from the left but would sacrifice votes from other areas to achieve that.

What makes you think that, given the evidence to the contrary?

At the end of the day, those protesting will need to decide, Trump or not Trump.

Again, why are thousand of voters responsible for keeping Trump out, but not the Democrats?

Or, a slightly different question, why do you pin your hopes on these thousands and not on the Democrats? Do you think they’re more likely to change their minds? Do you think people are actually going to vote in favour of a party committed to facilitating genocide, often of their distant relations, than the Democrats are to change policy.

Don’t you think that’s an absolutely devastating indictment of democracy? That no amount of voting block pressure can actually get a party to change policy.

work from the inside on changing policy.

I don’t understand what this means. Voters vote. They don’t control party policy “from the inside”, they just vote on stuff.

If they don’t, and they help Trump get elected, things will be infinitely worse for the Palestinians.

And again, blaming the electorate for being moral, not blaming the Democrats for refusing to listen.

The clarity of your plan was not in question.

I asked a very simple question about that plan. Why do you think you can change the minds of all these people who currently are not going to vote, but you don’t think you can change the minds of the Democrat strategists?

You seem to be implying that getting Democrats to actually change policy to help them win is a lost cause, but then have this tremendous optimism toward changing the minds of thousands of people, many of whom are withholding their vote in protest against genocide. I asked why.

I did not ask “could you repeat your plan”. This is a discussion forum, it should have been obvious you might expect some scrunity of an argument put forth on it. If your intention is to ignore “naysayers” then might I suggest a discussion forum is not the best place for you to be posting. Maybe a blog, or Substack?

Removed by mod

It’s a damn good assumption as I also could shit out a few dozen links after one Google search, too.

It’s not, though. That’s the point. Finding sources to back an unpopular opinion is, by definition, trawling through Google to find them. If you disallow that, you disallow unpopular opinion. Epistemological integrity does not simply oblige us to believe whatever view had the most sources, it’s not dishonest to have a gut feeling about something and check that it is reasonable, based on finding supporting evidence. It’s the mainstay of all academic essaying, for example. It’s normal to check one’s opinion is reasonable, we don’t all arrive with blank slates to fill and if you think you do, you’re lying to yourself.

Epistemic responsibility is about changing that initial view if it is overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary, it’s not about updating it according to some popularity contest. Truth is not decided by vote.

So searching through Google to find sources supporting your view is perfectly reasonable so long as the sources found are valid and reputable. That indicates it is reasonable to continue to hold your view. It doesn’t matter if a greater number of equally reputable sources present the opposing view because truth is not determined by popular vote.

If he does “do his research” and happens to have a list of links at the ready, that is just weird or it’s someone with a motive other than showing how smart they are

So damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.

You’re familiar, I assume, with the self-immunised argument?

dissent with bad information is just poor form

It is. Unless the dissent is over whether the information is ‘bad’, in which case evidence must be brought to bear to support arguments to the contrary. No doubt this poster would not simply agree their information was ‘bad’, so that is the point over which you disagree. Again, assuming it’s bad when that’s the very point of disagreement is begging the question.

“despite increasingly popular opinion” is supposed to convince me of something based on the rumored opinions of what?

I was merely commenting on the increasingly popular move of repeating things back in alternating capitals aS iF tHaT pRoVeD aNyThInG At All.

Addendum:

Basically, some people’s initial view on some matter will coincide with that of the mainstream. They’re lucky. The evidence supporting their view will be plastered over every newspaper and government announcement. They won’t have to do any digging to support it since quality newspapers are (generally) reputable sources.

Others, however, will form a contrary initial opinion. They are not so lucky since, by definition, sources supporting their view will be less well disseminated. They will have to actively search.

Doublely unlucky if that view happens to oppose US policy because the US’s many enemies will also be seeking out such evidence to use in their propaganda.

Triplely unlucky these days because conspiracy theorists and online cultists are also looking for dissenting evidence to add credence to whatever bullshit they’re spouting.

But a healthy democracy requires that neither of these issues is used to simply smear all dissenting opinion. Otherwise we just have a monolith.

Dissent is not spouting off Russian propaganda verbatim

Why not? If Russia finds information which is opposed to the US/NATO position they will use it in their propaganda. It follows that anyone dissenting from the US/NATO position may also use the same information.

Something being part of foreign propaganda doesn’t mean it’s false. Propaganda isn’t just lying. If the US had done something wrong, you can guarantee Russia would use it in their propaganda. They don’t just lie about everything. They lie about things they want to hide, but if the truth helps their cause they’ll tell it. It follows from this that some Russian propaganda is likely to be true (unless you want to make the case that the US never does anything wrong, or successfully hides it from Russia in all cases).

Dissent is also not searching for every internet based opinion piece with a flashy headline that aligns with a specific view.

That’s true it isn’t. But you’ve no evidence at all that this is what’s happening here other than that the resulting opinion is a dissenting one.

If you simply assume all evidence for dissenting opinion must have been derived this way purely on the grounds that the view it supports is not a mainstream one, then you have a self-immumised argument. The antithesis of rational thought.

It is a structural necessity of dissenting opinion that it be based on fewer sources. If you deny the ability to present sources simply on the grounds that they are select, then you deny dissent, because dissent, by necessity, will be based on select sources. Opinion based on majority sources is, by definition, majority opinion (among a rational community).

Dissent is actually showing, to the best of ones abilities, real cause for action.

No, it isn’t. Because whether a cause is a ‘real’ cause is the matter over which there is disagreement, so it is begging the question to only allow those causes you consider ‘real’ into a discussion about which causes are ‘real’. You preemptively clear the field of all dissenting opinion before the debate even begins.

To properly use these articles, you have to dig. You need to understand the authors, the sources and the motivation. Again, link-boy is likely not doing this

As before, you’ve no evidence this hasn’t been done other than that the resulting opinion is a dissenting one. If your proof that sources are inadequate is solely that they are used to support a dissenting opinion then you have by definition denied dissenting opinion.

You want to get all script-flippy about “sPeAkiG diSsEnT” when the people “dissenting” don’t know what the actual fuck they are posting with.

Unfortunately, despite increasingly popular opinion to the contrary, putting an argument into alternating capitals doesn’t make it go away.

So. Out of interest. Which alternative to presenting a dissenting opinion and sourcing it, would you prefer?

1. Not presenting any dissent at all - the only opinions posted should be ones that agree with the mainstream view?

2. Present a dissenting opinion, but don’t provide any evidence for it?

3. Present a dissenting opinion but then provide evidence supporting the mainstream opinion instead?

Dissenting opinion, by it’s very nature, has fewer sources, that’s the whole point of it being ‘dissenting’, as such the character of any set of resources supporting it will be one of having “trawled through” a load of sources presenting the opposing, mainstream view.

By suggesting that any argument whose sources display that character is to be ignored, you’re arguing that we should live in a society with no dissent from mainstream opinion.

Is that the sort of society you think Ukraine are fighting for?

that’s as much energy as I’m willing to spend on someone who does not converse in good faith.

Ahh. The apocryphal ‘bad faith’. Last resort of failing argument. If in doubt, accuse your interlocutor of arguing in ‘bad faith’ and retreat to the comforting safety of your echo chamber.

Would you like a reassuring copy of the New York Times to read? I’m sure they’ll have an article somewhere about how everything’s going to be be just fine so long as we tick the right box at election time.

You’ve studiously avoided the question no one seems willing to address.

Why would anyone move their policies an inch to the left if they are assured of the votes anyway?

Doesn’t matter if they’re in the primaries, the presidential election or the bloody village mayor. No one will shift to meet the policies of a group whose votes they are guaranteed to get anyway.

Given there are other countries, like the Nordic countries, that have achieved greater quality of life for their people…

Ahh. The Nordics. You mean the countries famous for their coalitions where people vote even for the smaller candidates who suit their preferences to form small elements in a mixed government… Those Nordic countries?

Incidentally, the same Nordic countries that are now facing the same rise in racist populism that evey other country is facing across the globe?

It’s almost as if the problem were systemic and nothing to do with a bunch of leftists not wanting to vote in favour of genocide…

Indeed.

Four step process to uncontested neoliberal corporate bliss…

1. Set up a folk-devil who must be stopped at all costs.
2. Promote the idea that anyone even vaguely progressive must vote for you even if they disagree with you, in order to keep the folk-devil out.
3. Promise to support literal genocide, and watch as your scheme has self-identified leftists falling over themselves spending the majority of their energy in-fighting with other leftists to ensure you have the power to make good on that promise.
4. Enjoy your retirement on million dollar public speaking engagements and corporate executive positions.

Local politicians > work way into DNC primary machine

Sounds very cloak-and-dagger. Aren’t these systems largely democratic? If so, why aren’t they caught in the same trap, they have to give their votes to the least worst candidate?

There’s not enough of us yet.

“Yet”? From when? The beginning of the socialist movement? Is there a point in time you begin to question this slow-and-steady policy? 100 years? 1000?

Is there some threshold at which you might begin to look at the utter failure of such a process, it’s total and utter net support for the status quo and start to question who really benefits?

Because if that day ever comes, you might take a glance at the media promoting such a view and the degree to which their owners and sources of revenue benefit from exactly the outcome this policy results in.

But I’m not holding my breath. Experience has taught me that people these days seems quite happy to believe that when powerful forces get exactly the results which benefit them most, it’s most likely to be a completely fortuitous coincide and anything else is just conspiracy theory.

I got the point. Just not the mechanism. It’s all very well to hand-waive vaguely toward ‘grassroots work’, but its far from clear how, under the voting policy in question, this will affect anything.

Let us say our grassroots campaign went really well and we get some great local politicians. Now what?

They advise Kamala (or her replacement) to drop support for genocide? Why would she listen? They’re going to be in no different a position to us, they have to vote in her favour no matter what all the while there’s a worse person on the ballot.

And why would anyone even advise it in the first place when leftist votes are guaranteed anyway? It’d be political insanity to risk loosing the centrist vote for no gain.

So, explain the mechanism. We get a great local politician and she does what…?

Well, if you consider your conclusions to be facts, not theories then what are you doing here? This is a forum for discussing the item in the OP. You can’t discuss facts, they’re merely presented. I fear you have this place confused with a schoolroom. If you want to present facts, write a textbook.

But this discussion isn’t about grassroots or local politicians. Following the logic espoused in the OP you’d turn out in droves to vote for a local politician who offers policies you agree with.

This discussion is about the presidential election and what to do about two candidates who both actively support genocide.

One could conceivably not vote for Kamala and then massively support your local grassroots movement and politicians, or… You could vote for Kamala and then massively support your local grassroots movement and politicians.

Talking about whether or not to vote for Kamala has no bearing on what you then do at a local level.

And if that local-level politician doesn’t offer policies you like, same logic. Why would they ever do so if they’re guaranteed your vote anyway?

What’s at stake here is people actively arguing that we should just guarantee one political party our votes, no matter what their policies are, out of blind faith.

That’s not a democracy, it’s a theocracy.

Your post seems to be attached as a response to mine. Since it addresses nothing in my post, I can only assume this was a mistake?

That’s a reasonable argument, but it leads to some pretty uncomfortable conclusions for democracy.

During our next “leftist organizing for the next several years.”, why would the Democrats budge an inch given that they know all they need to do is hold fast until the last 90 days and we’ll all fall into line and vote for them anyway?

We end up like the boy who cries wolf. All our protest and campaigns mean nothing because our votes are, in the end, absolutely guaranteed. The Democrats can have whatever policy positions they like.

I don’t see how 4 years or 4 days makes any difference. If they are guaranteed your vote come election day, they have no reason to shift policy in order to obtain it.

when I am confronted with new information, I add that into my belief system and my belief system changes accordingly

You’ve misunderstood the paper

It’s not about information. The argument is about disagreement among epistemic peers. We all have the same information. You’ve not provided any information I didn’t already know. I’ve not provided any information you didn’t already know. We’ve been exchanging theories, not information.

The paper is about the status of disagreement in conclusions based on the same information.

As I said in my other comment, if you really can’t tell the difference between a theory and the facts on which it is based, then we can’t possibly have a rational discussion since rational discussion is premised entirely on that distinction.

We don’t discuss facts, we demonstrate them by the presentation of evidence. We discuss theories drawn from those facts.