My advice to DU: self-doubt and constantly playing devil's advocate is good

jpgray

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Sep-19-07 01:45 AM
Original message

My advice to DU: self-doubt and constantly playing devil's advocate is good

Edited on Wed Sep-19-07 01:46 AM by jpgray

DU is excellent at constantly doubting the motives of authority, Democrats of all kinds, and especially right-wingers. Those qualities should never disappear from this board. However just because an event contains the -elements- of an important cause doesn't necessarily mean it is de facto evidence that supports that cause. Also, beware statistical analysis based on wishful thinking rather than evidence. Picking out a discrete cause from data formed by a massive interdependent glut of possible causes based solely on what you want to believe isn't a great idea, and risks error. A few examples:

1. Police overreact and use excessive force to tase a mostly subdued asshat, who pushed to the front of the question line and disrupted an event. Just because the guy asked some important questions dealing with crucial issues such as impeachment and electoral fraud -doesn't- necessarily mean he got tased because of that. It is possible that he was tased for the disruptive behavior.

2. A man gets pissed off by the need to display a receipt, and doing no direct wrong frustrates the manager into detaining him, eventually involving an officer who is equally frustrated by a lack of cooperation. The officer arrests the man for obstructing a police investigation. It is true that ID checks should not be compulsory and that receipt checks should be voluntary, but it is not at all clear a subversion of civil rights was the motivating factor of the manager or the officer. Another likely motivation would be suspicion that the person of shoplifting, as cops and managers see said behavior as being consistent with theft all the time, and will not as readily connect it with acts of civil disobedience to make a point about unwarranted search and seizure. Doesn't mean what happened to the guy is right, but it shows the case for it being a direct civil liberties assault isn't the only possibility, as suspicious and frustrated cops have behaved this way all over the world and at almost all points in their history.

3. Polls indicate the public is extremely displeased with Congress. Congress is displeasing to DU because the Democrats are not mounting an effective opposition. The polls do -not- necessarily indicate the public has the same grievances with Congress that we do, or that the public wants Congress to do the same things we want. Therefore the poll is not de facto evidence that defunding the war would be popular.

4. Results in 2000 indicate votes for Nader, had a reasonable gone instead to Gore, would have tipped the scales to a Gore presidency. That does not indicate that Nader is the sole, primary, or major cause of Bush's victory. Does it indicate he indirectly helped? Yeah. To what extent that help can be weighed against the myriad other causes and come out as the major determining factor is certainly questionable.

I've seen all these examples of "this must exclusively be the answer" for these situations in actual DU posts. I'm not saying "agree with me or shut up," I'm just asking that we not be so exclusive and binary in our thinking. To use one of the examples it's not a choice of "you're for free speech or you think the guy deserved to be tased." Nor is it a choice of "you hate John Kerry or you're a polite individual that dislikes disruptive assholes."

Gray areas exist. That's all. "Stuff your advice, you didactic busybody" is a valid interpretation of this thread, for example. :D