Claude_Verret

I rarely post on Facebook, and when I do I never jump into the political cesspool that exists on my feed. In fact I've temporarily blocked most of the main offenders over the past few months, So last night when I saw this posted by a friend who has the same FB posting habits as I do, well I had to click on the link. Fantastic. Bernie Sanders Could Replace President Trump With Little Known Loophole Another good read on the subject. FB, Twitter etc. are your enemy if you are truly seeking news diversity. It's tough to beat the algorithms. The Reason Your Feed Became An Echo Chamber.

So this guy Ray, who is a friend of a friend, is featured in the new Rush documentary. I was in a fantasy football league that he ran and and I'd always try to show up for the draft early at his house each year so he could show me some of his insane memorabilia collection. I still have a few bootlegs stashed away that he copied for me.

Yes, it also seems like we may have lost shrader again as well.

Haidt is a liberal at heart to this day, he just stopped identifying himself as being a part of any team. Big difference. From you and others I get the idea that you believe he is trying to turn liberals into conservatives and vice versa. Nothing could be more impossible and therefore further from the truth. Second, and really for the sake of this thread I hope this is the last time we step on the merry-go-round on this. All of the quotes from you that I've posted indicate that you either do not understand or are purposely misrepresenting what Haidt is saying. It's a pointless endeavor to keep going round and round when the debate is framed in this context. I'm not saying you or anyone else has to agree with some or really anything of what he's saying, but we do both have to be debating his actual theory. Otherwise, round and round we go. Several days ago I promised to stop bringing Haidt up here. You made a suggestion that the subject just be dropped. Since that time the aptly Neo coined "Haidt Hate" keeps rearing up from you and others. So I see two options going forward for the benefit of everyone here: 1.) Don't read TRM, stop bringing up Haidt and stop being subjected to CV posts about Haidt. I'll even remove my signature. 2.) Don't read TRM, keep bringing up Haidt, and I'll keep riding the merry go round with all of you fine gentlemen. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer option 1.

Explain.

Yep, look in the mirror.

Well since you asked, he tried to help..... How Democrats Can Use Moral Foundation Theory Against Trump I wonder what Jeff Foxworthy might say? You might be an extreme partisan if.... you accuse a well documented non-partisan of being a partisan like yourself.

Ouch the condescension.

Love the proposed lobbying restrictions. Neither side is going to like that (in my best Rob Ray) atall.

Nope, in fact Haidt would say that you should go one step further and actually get to know those with whom you disagree on a personal level, offer a political olive branch where each side acknowledges the logs in their own eyes first before pointing out the specks in the eyes of their adversaries. Motivated reasoning indeed.

I know, right. Same with that dude who tries to play bass with his toes. He sounds like ######.

The values pertain to how much you build on or reject each moral foundation. So the absolute numbers don't mean much on their own, it has to be taken as a whole. His theory states that liberals respond to care and fairness the most, which you did, and not very much to the other three, which you did in spades. In fact for the other three you were even lower than the typical liberal for two of them.

Probably the same place you'd find the moral constructs of being a dick. I'd love for you to point out the condescension in my post where I acknowledged the author had valid points.

Those results say that you're a liberal. The green bars are your results to his test (blue=average liberal score, red=avg.conservative score), and you score highest in the care/ harm and fairness foundations, as one would expect from a liberal according to Haidt. MFT says liberals respond strongest to these two foundations, and not so much to the other three. You score even lower than most liberals on the loyalty and purity foundations and are right in line with liberals on the authority foundation.

Ahh the same guy that Sabres79 found last week. As I said then he has some valid points, but since Haidt himself has already had some back and forth with this guy I'll just link there again. Other than to note that Haidt's original MFT theory was generated upon a foundation of data from his studies of moralities across different cultures, it was only later that he showed the theory had relevance in politics, so I'd imagine that he'd concede that there's a sliding scale across the political spectrum. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=strict&q=haidt+pigliucci This forum and Haidt would classify you as liberal.

Ok, again I'm a simple man, you're going to have to walk me through the relevance here.

Nah, I'll stay. I joined the conversation today with a pew research study to add to the ongoing bias in the media discussion and.......boom Haidt Hate! So may I suggest that you focus your frustration elsewhere.

I can't view youtube at work, but I'll trust this is more refuting evidence against something you could understand, but refuse to try.

I think the scoreboard now is: Haidt: 82 Swamp and Sauve: 0. Seriously, every single time you guys respond it's right in Haidt's wheelhouse for a grand slam. Keep 'em coming!

We can keep going round and round on this if you like, but the two posts above from opposite sides of the aisle are what he's talking about. That kind of rhetoric comes from deeply held moral convictions, which in turn blinds you to the consideration and validity of the moral convictions held by the other side. Again, it's not about specific discussions on policy or historical minutiae.

No, we're not at all. But I wouldn't expect you to be able to see it. edit to give a little bit context: Your discussions with wydlnwoody on his specific logistical objections to a specific policy, and then seeing his point, isn't what you know who is talking about.

Hey I thought you were going to drop it? :devil: But since you didn't I've got license.... But I'm not gonna..because you're still playing bass with your toes..... Instead I'd invite you to go to the political forum over on the sister site, engage in the discussion over there and see how much you feel that there is an honest exchange of different viewpoints where people are truly challenging their own moral foundations. Good luck.

Up until a few days before the election this place was a left of center echo chamber for months, and quite frankly has always leaned heavily left. Since then I wouldn't call the bulk of whats been discussed here as an honest exchange that's led to anyone challenging their own beliefs.

Yep, this is the main problem with the worsening polarization. Cable news, social media etc. group the extremes inside large partisan echo chambers. http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/

On Lehner I'm sure the Sabres PR department wished he hadn't done that, but beyond profanity and sexual images on masks I'm not sure the NHL or the Sabres want to get involved with this and the potential slippery slope it could create with fans getting offended at every little thing. Is he even wearing it in the game or just in warm ups like with the players jerseys? edit: One angle to take on this that potentially could force Lehner to remove it, is that while yes he is the president elect, "TRUMP" is also a brand and that might go against the rules?