Word Origin of the Day: Score (for 20)

I recently used the word "scores" to indicate a number less than hundreds, but more than 15 or so.

Then I wondered why we call "20" a "score."

I thought it might be from "game score"—some game where the increment was 20 (like 6 for football and 15 for tennis).

But no, it is from another meaning of score: to make a mark, as in a cut or scratch on a surface. 

So in tallying something, ancient people would mark a stick or something at every 20 items: score!

Fallacy of the Day

A logical fallacy is a failure to adhere to logical progression—that is, jumping aside or over the needed explanations for a conclusion—in argument or debate.

Tu Quoque

Tu quoque (Latin for "you also"), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusions. (Wikipedia)

Tu quoque (pronounced "too quo-quay") is related to several other fallacies, such as 

• "whataboutism" (Hank says, "Your behavior is bad"; Frank says, "But look at Jane's behavior.")

(whataboutism has another relative: "and you are lynching negroes," in which an American criticizes the Soviet treatment of its citizens and the Soviet replies with the phrase in question)

• "two wrongs make a right" (Hank says, "Cheating is bad"; Frank says, "But the test is unfair.") 

I have encountered this in recent weeks. When I asked a Trump supporter how he got past some of Trump's statements, he replied asking how I got past some of Bill Clinton's actions.

For the record, although this post is meant to emphasize how irrelevant the question is, I will say that I was angry—still am—about Bill Clinton's personal behavior. The racier accusations against the Clintons are "fake news" and do not merit repeating.

To turn from a question about Trump's behavior to attacking the Clintons seems to make sense, on the surface. After all, this was an election between DJT and HRC, and many, many people equated the two in negative terms.

In the aftermath of the election, however, I wish to know how a supporter of Trump—not just someone who reluctantly voted against Clinton—can overlook his racist, sexist, and blatantly anti-Constitutional statements.

I'm still waiting.

Call Him on His Lies

Going forward, citizens and especially news organizations need to speak up when the president-elect lies.

A recent tweet of Trump's: "In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally"

There is no evidence of large-scale (or even medium-scale) illegal voting, anywhere in the United States. Trump has not given any; no news organization has come up with any as of this writing.

On the other hand, the Stein-backed recounts in three states (which are tentatively supported by the Clinton campaign) have factual impetus behind them—not illegal voting, but electronic hacking:

[A] group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers … presented findings showing that in Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots. Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000. While it’s important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation, they are arguing to the campaign that the suspicious pattern merits an independent review — especially in light of the fact that the Obama White House has accused the Russian government of hacking the Democratic National Committee. (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html)

Note that the unsubstantiated nature of the suspicions are stated right up front. This is the proper way to report on events that have yet to be confirmed.

Trump must be held accountable for lying. Some people might dismiss his untruthful statements during the campaign as politics-as-usual (although I do not); in his present role, and the one he assumes on January 20, his statements are far more serious and frightening.

Read the Headline, Believe It (aka, where do you get your information?)

For me, facebook is 80% echo chamber. Of my fb friends, the most vocal ones are fairly liberal. Many do not express (or react to) political views at all, and just a few are conservative.

From the conservative side, I have heard many objections about how they are portrayed by anti-Trumps: as “dumb,” callous, racist, and worse. I myself, in the emotional meltdown after Nov. 8, admittedly felt that Trump voters were, at the least, gullible, and at the worst, “deplorable.”

I do not think that Trump voters are dumb or callous, and I am willing to believe that only a small percentage are racist.

But what about gullible? It’s a loaded word, with connotations of weakness and ignorance, so let’s say “easily swayed” by declarations that fit one’s world view.

We are all like that, by the way, progressives, centrists, and traditionalists—it is common for us to accept an unsupported fact as long as it fits in with what we already believe. Ever since I have been harping on sources and facts so vocally, more than one person has halted me in the middle of reading a news item to say, “Hold on, Sarah, where is this from? Have you confirmed it?” And I laugh, then I get defensive for a moment and try to weasel my way out of hypocrisy, then I stop and say they’re right. (Then I check the source.) (Keep keeping me honest, friends!)

Education

It has been reported that education was a diagnostic factor in the 2016 vote (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/). According to that link, among all voters, a college degree was +9 points for Clinton, and non-college was +8 points for Trump. Among the white voters, the divide was even wider: college +4, non-college +39.

Further, a prominent element of the Republican stand on many issues is distrust of science and academia.

Which—come on—I just don’t get. It is so ass-backward. Someone please explain to me how it makes sense to distrust those with more education?

I believe it is logical to assume a correlation between lack of education and being easily swayed. (I have not found a study on this.) Education involves learning how to find sources, how to sift through information, how to collate data, and how to test hypotheses. Those who have not learned how to do these things would be more susceptible to false sources, inconsistent information, misleading data, and bogus hypotheses (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/11/25/1603978/-Fake-news-network-tried-to-write-fake-news-for-liberals-but-they-just-never-take-the-bait?).

But do those who are less educated necessarily understand that they know less? The Dunning–Kruger effect is “a cognitive bias in which … individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect).

So Trump voters are defensive (and have some cause to be), less educated (which is not a value judgment, just a fact), and unwilling to trust those with college educations.

How can those of us who are more educated (eg, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton) bridge this distrust?

Finding an Opponent

I posted an article recently about trying to have a discussion with someone you disagree with (http://intertwingled.org/separating-stories/). The writer was a liberal talking with a conservative. (I use these terms loosely, but you know what I mean.)

The writer’s experience and mine are similar. When I have had a chance to discuss an issue (let’s say “X”) calmly with a Trump voter (rare as that may be), we start with opposing views and some jockeying for position, which usually involves irrelevant attacks on the Clintons. When I make it clear that I am not interested in lionizing the Clintons and also, we were talking about X, I try to steer toward the known facts, hunting for some that we share (such as Trump’s public statements, which you would think are indisputable).

So far, that’s as far as I’ve gotten. I’ve had people immediately agree with me and defend themselves by saying they were voting on the issues, not the man (which is weird but I can get past it). I’ve had people say they don’t have time right now but would love to discuss it later (I take them at their word). I’ve had people turn out to have been playing devil’s advocate, which I applaud because it helps me delve into the issues, but a fake devil is not what I seek.

(I had one discussion with a family member that was somewhat fruitful, but without that person’s permission to discuss it here, I won’t.)

Since late summer, I have been looking (on Facebook) to find some understanding of the Trump voters, and it still eludes me. Once I get toward discussing the meat of the issues (in particular, racism), we find no common ground.

At one point, I was told that the instances of racism reported nationally are blown out of proportion by the press. I have a responsibility, given my vocal skepticism of news sources, to look into that possibility. My first forays suggest that the “don’t believe the liberal news media” attacks include that meme (ie, racism is overblown); I have more investigation to do.

So why is this well-informed opponent so hard to find?

• because of the echo chamber? certainly

• because she does not exist? I hope not

• because as soon as the discussion turns to facts, he sees that I am better informed and bails? sometimes

• because I suffer from the reverse of the Dunning–Kruger effect? (“high-ability individuals may underestimate their relative competence and may erroneously assume that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others”)

• because unlike liberals, conservatives are more easily swayed? hmmm

• because I have not found her yet?

Please help me find those conservatives who are really willing to talk about the issues, by sharing this. I am not looking for clicks on my blog, honest; I just am trying to find my way out of the echo chamber toward a better understanding of the 48% who voted for Trump.

And please help me refine this blog by commenting or just noting on the facebook notification that you read it. I admit it, I need an audience to generate the energy to continue!

miscellaneous election reactions from fb

Following are fragments I posted on facebook after the election. I have not edited them, and many of the preceding and succeeding comments from others are absent.

11.9

You might think the rest of us are sad because our candidate lost. That's not it.

We are sad because half of our fellow citizens tolerate and even embrace a sexist, racist, liar, cheat, bully. 

He is the worst of what America can produce. Now he represents all of us, to our shame.

---
 

It is not Clinton's loss that we are motivated by, but Trump's win. Clinton did not advocate racism and religious persecution, Clinton did not disrespect women, Clinton did not foment violence at her rallies. No one is saying that you personally have to be unhappy today, but our fears are not groundless -- they come straight from Trump's words. We have been paying attention. This situation frightens those of us who want to protect American rights for everybody, not just white males.

---

Friends -- and I mean that word -- I have questions about your replies, and I would love you to indulge me by answering. My original post treated the "sexist, racist, liar, cheat, bully" line as self-evident, but from your responses, it seems that many do not agree that those words -- any of them? -- apply to Trump. Is this an accurate reading of your position? If so, I am confused about how you have ignored his own statements. They are not just reports of the liberal-biased media; they are actual video- and audio- and twitter-proven statements he has made. How do you reconcile his statements and a belief that he is not these things?

I do not think those words apply to Trump, what do you want me to say. shall we continue this? I just said your side sees life differently than mine. I have spent more than a year providing evidence that he is none of those things, I am not going to today. I suppose like you can ignore Juanita Broderick and her claims of rape by Bill and being threatened by Hillary, I suppose I can ignore some of the supposed evidence that the media found and then poisoned us all with for month after month painting a man into something he isn't. I will gladly have an intelligent discussion and illustrate but not today I am trying to be positive.

Thanks, []. I am not asking whether the Clintons are faultless. I am confused about how you can deny Trump's own words. And I respect your wish to stay out of it today.

---

On the results map, seas of red with city islands of blue.

Seems like we are effectively two countries: one primarily urban/coastal and the other rural.

---
 

Thanks, [], and no one wants me to be wrong about him more than I do! And your point about his being a media personality has some merit. But. For many years -- long before I ever heard of Obama -- I have had heightened concern over the way women and ethnic minorities are discussed. I'm not talking about legislation or violence or even slur words, but everyday language. In my opinion, it is easy to dismiss words ("sticks and stones"), but the way we refer to those unlike us has profound meaning.

We are automatically suspicious of those whose skin or mode of dress (or whatever) differs from ours; that is natural. What our society works toward, ideally, is overcoming those knee-jerk reactions to understand that "other" doesn't have to mean "threat." Trump's words _during_ the campaign signaled to voters that others -- immigrants, liberals, the media, the Clintons themselves, and yes, women -- were responsible for all the perceived ills of the electorate. So he plans to deport, build a wall, take away rights, SEPARATE. I disagree with both tone and substance.

Anyway. Obviously I'm too worked up to give short answers today. Appreciate your weighing in, and I respect your opinion. I really do want to act on behalf of everybody, not just those identical to me.

---

[response to defense of wall] I think you're being disingenuous and also ignoring history. Soviet Union. Berlin. "Irish need not apply." South Boston. Hate and fear create barriers, which amplify hate and fear. []

Re: illegal immigration. Imagine a man, thirty or so, with a family. Conditions where he lives are deplorable, he has little paid work, and few hopes for his children. He hears that if he takes a chance that may kill him and will certainly be difficult and frightening, he can get work in America, where jobs pay so little that Americans don't want them but the pay is comparatively huge for him. Would you not blame him for NOT trying to go?

Our job is to lift up everyone. The conditions in some parts of Mexico and Central and South America are brutal. That is why they come here! If you lived there, wouldn't you do your damnedest to get here??? And yet you act like they are vermin? Have some humility. Let's work toward a solution rather than hate, fear, separate.

---

I have personally lost work to India more than once. Corporations are outsourcing there because they aren't finding the candidates here who will work for the low wages. As for work visas, companies are hiring from abroad because the educated Americans are too few. And you're blaming Obama? You have REALLY lost me.

---

[] Veteran care, now that we agree on. Shameful, on both sides of the aisle. Not sure what you mean about the companies "lies" -- Indians (those who work in India, not here) have wages that are a very low percentage of the same job in America. So you seem to be saying that the companies are at fault, but before you blamed Obama? Not sure of the point you're making, other than you want American citizens to have the first choice for the best jobs, a sentiment with which I agree.

---

I think that the richest country in the world, with the best educational institutions and most rigorous scientific research infrastructure, can come up with a better, more humane solution than "build a wall."

---

I think our priorities are fundamentally different -- which is what America is all about, right? My priorities going into yesterday (as a non-fan of Clinton, by the way) were to preserve a woman's choice for abortion (no one likes abortion, but the choice must be preserved), slow down or reverse income inequality, prevent corporations from being omnipotent, facilitate education, and discourage institutional racism and sexism. Plus I'm sure other things I'm not articulating right now. My priorities did not include deporting anyone, taking insurance away from anyone, or preventing anyone from practicing their religion. All this is not to convince you, but rather to encourage you to see where my dismay originates.

---

[] I hear you, I really do. The "welfare suck" has been heavily promoted by conservatives. I firmly believe that despite abuse of the system (less than Fox News would have you believe), it does more societal good than harm; not expecting you to agree. As for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, they have improved countless lives and I'll defend them strongly!

But again, I'll just say that as the richest people ever to inhabit the planet, can't we afford to uplift people rather than berate them for needing help?

---

I have the highest respect for [your family]. I think that if we want to dig down another layer, the place we differ is whether those who are committed to working hard for their lives may also need a boost, especially if they have been victims of institutional racism (poor school systems, high incarceration). I honestly think the truth is somewhere in the middle (more toward my side than yours though! ha ha) and the more we talk, the closer we get to finding unity.

---

[response to term limits] agree on the surface, but at the federal level, it takes knowledge and expertise, so working one's life to get there makes sense. We'll see how T does without that knowledge and experience; certainly he will need people around him who have that experience. Doesn't necessarily mean elected, though; civil servants. Elected officials, on the other hand -- that's tough, because viscerally I am in favor of term limits, but see above... we need knowledge and experience... and we go around and around...

---

His language has been very clear -- and vocally supported by others -- that he plans to:
- repeal Obamacare, thereby taking insurance away from millions and reinstating preexisting conditions as preventing being insured;
- cut taxes on the very wealthy (including millions to his own family) without compensating for that income, adding to the deficit;
- work toward deregulating many industries, threatening the health of Americans and further dooming the environment;
- deport millions of illegal immigrants, thereby (among other effects) creating a low-wage job vacuum;
- appoint justices that will repeal Roe v Wade.

There are many other proposed policies with which I disagree, but those are the big-ticket items.

---

I didn't mean the tax cuts were ONLY self serving. But the billions they will take from US income? Not offset by any proposal of his.

---

Uninsured people cost us too much. Obamacare is not set up correctly because it was unanticipated that so many states would forgo the federal funds and opt out. But repeal is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

---

Trump has widespread support to appoint justices that will repeal Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court, of all the repercussions of his election, will be the most acute and long lasting.

Even if you don't support a woman's right to decide what happens to her own body, consider that taking away a woman's right to a legal abortion will cause huge societal upheaval. There is evidence to suggest that two things have contributed in large part to the drop in crime the country has enjoyed since the 1980s: banning lead paint and legalizing abortion.

---
 
Some things that are hopeful:
• Tammy Duckworth won;
• Carol Shea-Porter won (first -- and only, so far -- called result from NH);
• Some states approved recreational marijuana (I'm not a user, and I worry about addiction, but I favor legalization to tamp down the worst effects of the drug war);
• AZ voted to increase the minimum wage (also maybe CO, WA, and ME);
• CA voted for stricter control on gun magazine size;
• NV initiative for stricter background checks for gun purchase is winning by a small margin;
• WA initiative to prevent dangerous individuals from gun ownership is winning by a large margin.

---
 

We have known for a while that the white male, sensing the future, would fight harder. He still has a sh*tload of power. We soldier on, the right side of history is still waiting.

---

Struggling. We know we will have to take a deep breath and go on fighting, but right now -- today -- we take time to grieve. Cry and burrow. Be horrified. Give ourselves time to process it, because we need to feel it.

11.10

[response to Trump demographic] My input is, and has been, our sources of information. I contend that Obama did hear those people who are saying they weren't heard. His policies were helping them. But the information divide between Dem and Rep is so vast that they did not hear him! Ditto Clinton. And that they are black or female added to the problem.

---

Was just talking about this. Other than a shared post on Facebook, when would a liberal like me ever look at glennbeck.com? Serious question: Is there a single source of information -- media, government -- that is both heard and trusted by both liberals and conservatives? I contend that the answer is no, and that in the absence of such a source, the divide is unbridgable.

---

[response to someone complaining about anti-Trump reaction] I agree with much of your sentiment -- I don't see the point of "protesting" per se -- he won. And I agree with working together. But I do hope that you'll address a question I have. I am what you would consider a liberal, and I have spent a lot of time and energy in this election season trying to have dialogs, trying to understand both sides, and also trying to explain my views without getting shrill. (I have not always succeeded, I admit.) But my question relates to the last eight years of governance, in which the House and Senate -- admittedly in the opposing party's control -- blocked Obama's work even when it was an issue of bipartisan agreement. Many lawmakers are on record as admitting that their only job, these last eight years, was to block Obama. Now I hope that I and my ilk can do better. But when I read comments like the above, I can't help but consider them hypocritical. I am not trying to start a fight; I am really asking: Do you see the contradiction?

[only one person on the thread commented after that, to the effect of "we should work together"]

Past posts on fb: 11.17

Posted 11.17

So. What to do.

There are many issues needing our attention (see *list at end of post).
There is value in deciding what to do based on the following criteria:

• what is most threatened soonest;
• what is most important among the threats;
• what is most achievable among the actions;
• what is most likely to galvanize others;
• what is most politically expedient to enlist those in power;
• what is most or least likely to get media attention;
• what is least threatening to any other cause or group;
• what is emotionally immediate to each of us.

After consideration, I personally feel most anxious, emotional, and intellectually insulted by racism against blacks. This is where I plan to investigate ways of helping most intensely, without ignoring opportunities to help elsewhere.

But it is important that we not imply that one cause eclipses the others. If you choose a different cause from mine, I will support and join you.

Symbols are important, peaceful protests are important, action is imperative.

-----

*in no particular order, and certainly not exhaustive: terrorism, women's rights, women's reproductive rights, immigration, racism, religious freedom, the environment, energy policy, the concerns of voters who felt unlistened-to and voted for Trump, global relations, labor rights, gay marriage, industry regulation, minimum wage, pharmaceutical profiteering, oil company profiteering, education, Native American rights, the devolution of public discourse, fake news, biased media, social media's contribution to dividing opinion, extremist groups including religious extremists, Wall Street, the "swamp," nepotism, conflict of interest of those in government who own businesses, undocumented workers, insurance, mental health, voter rights, voting methods, voter apathy, reasonable gun control, making sure responsible gun owners are not vilified, Citizens United repercussions, the continued health of RBG, science funding, respect for science, okay I'm stopping but there's tons more.

Radical Decency: my personal approach to change

Welcome to my new blog. I have had several over the years, of various themes and purposes.

This is like any blog. I will post random stuff. 

But it is unlike my previous blogs in that I hope to, above all, communicate and gather information related to the post–Election 2016 trauma and resulting galvanization to action.

Welcome, and please let me know when you've been here by commenting or just liking the link on Facebook. It will help me to know that people are reading this.

I chose the title “Radical Decency” as a play on the Hannah Arendt quote above. I am not capable of effecting radical “good,” but if there is any concept that is universal in my societal and political views, it is that of decency.

More to come.