Crying Wolf and RussiaGate Should We Still Listen?

So with the fresh infusion of excitement into the RussiaGate conspiracy theory (you like what i did there?) as a result of the Trump Jr. emails and what they might mean we have all seen the supporters of said theory experience a revival of optimism and the usual snarky "i told you so" mentality that goes along with a juicy new twist. As we all put our political boxing gloves back on for a few more rounds of tit for tats I cant help but wonder if there will ever come a time when those of us who believe the Russian boogey man tale is nothing more than a scary story should continue to pay any attention AT ALL to something that by now is getting rather boring and perhaps more than that, just simply annoying.


We all know the story of the boy who cried wolf. Its a great story and even if you know it i encourage you to go to the tube and freshen up with one of the newest kids versions with the most views, there are some good ones. Whats great about that story and why it endures in its message is how critically important it is that when it comes to things of a dangerous nature we do not over use or abuse our ability to cry for help or issue warnings or other strong statements designed or meant to call a force into action. We dont yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire for this very reason.

Boy Who Cried Wolf


There is an aspect of human psychology that very quickly acclimates to the constant barrage of bad news, alarms, danger and other things that by their very nature are designed to cause our fight or flight system to come online and prepare us for imminent danger and action. The abuse of this part of our survival instinct and psychology is what leads to what is called "Alarm Fatigue".

Alarm Fatigue

We all probably remember this quite well with the infamous color coded threat rating system our former dear leader President Bush Jr.'s Administration created. You also probably remember how long it took for people to stop taking it seriously.

Color Coded Warning System Is Dumb


And that is the point of this post. Should intelligent people continue to invest (read: waste) any more brain cells, finger strokes, minutes or hours, breaths or words or even thoughts on what is to many of us so clearly a totally made up fairy tale to discredit Trumps admin and hamper his efforts and doing what few politicians have ever actually done after being elected: make good on campaign promises? I'm starting to think maybe its no longer a good idea and heres why.


1) "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"

Why Being Right Is Still Wrong

Many have heard this old timer saying and if you've argued with enough people in your life you know it to be absolute veritas. Often you can tell even before the exchange gets going that the person is already dead set against changing their view no matter what evidence you might furnish. So then, if you get a sense that its a futile effort why go through with it? Intellectual exercise is about the only reason i can imagine.

2) Evidence is only evidence if its evidence to YOU.

Confirmation Bias and Evidence: Not Playing Nice

The whimsical nature of evidence and how it is interpreted by each person makes the very nature of evidence murky and amorphous. When two people see the same evidence as having a totally different meaning and or application it can diminish the value of evidence with regard to the final conclusion. Even when evidence mounts which can eventually make a conclusion obvious some people will continue to disbelieve regardless. There is not much anyone can do about this phenomenon except the one affected and as long as the issue is not one in which a persons physical welfare is immediately in jeopardy most of the time we are allowed to get away with it.


3) The Death of Logic and Reason

Why Was The Trivium So Important?

Since the Trivium was removed from all higher education most people have become mental midgets incapable of rigorous, higher level critical thinking. This inability to parse information in an orderly, meaningful fashion, has left the public at large rather susceptible to propaganda and programming from those who set themselves up as authorities over the various affairs of our lives. Unfortunately when there is a meeting of the minds or a discussion on a complex topic invariably one or both the people involved are lacking in basic critical thinking skills such that the conversation is all but doomed. Without a fairly uniform and universal standard of thought, reasoning and discourse which the Greek Trivium provides, having arguments about politics and social issues is almost always an exercise in hurt feelings, confusion and damaged relationships.




Like many of you I have engaged in dozens if not hundreds of conversations and arguments about the Trump Russia Collusion story and like many of you i have YET to encounter a single person who held one strong opinion on the matter but changed it in any meaningful way. This experience would seem to prove at least anecdotally that people are not inclined to admit when theyre wrong even when presented with convincing arguments or evidence that counters what they believe. This is not an encouraging experience to have. It can make one despair of ever having a fruitful discussion with people who have opposing viewpoints. It would seem the disgust or negative feelings people have with being shown to be wrong about something is so incredibly powerful that in many cases they would rather intellectually cut off their nose to spite their face instead of admitting they had believed a lie.


So what do you say ATSers? Is it time to stop talking to those who refuse to evolve their views as new evidence is presented?

What is the point of no return for you personally?

Was there ever a certain part in the ongoing discussion during which you realized no amount of clever, profound, solid arguments would ever get someone to admit misapprehension of or incorrect deconstruction and synthesis of information?

a reply to: tribal

Should We Still Listen?

I was under the impression y'all weren't listening already with all the cries of "Fake News!" instead of actually vetting the information presented. So why should I care about this opinion that is just rehashing the same disinterest you guys have always been showing?

As for your thread topic. You should never stop listening to the information presented and vet it. Ignoring it just shows you want to keep your head in the sand. Even if you don't immediately believe it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Should a reasonable person keep "vetting" new information when its clear that new information is just goalposts having been moved when the earlier information was shown to be incorrect, manipulated or just totally fake? (PeeGate for example)

We?
It doesn't matter if we listen or not. what matters is if evidence gathered is enough to start prosecution. Public opinion is just the spin both sides are shoving out for whatever end goal / victim narrative.

You put a lot out there, but citizens can never really get the full story of the uncoverings unless they are either directly working on the case and privvy to the classified info not released to public, or are a juror should there ever be any type of trial. Until then, its just guesses as to the real/fake aspects of what is going on.

Should you therefore listen to claims? sure...but until there is solid evidence provided, take it as just a claim. Keep in mind counter claims dismissing things is pretty par for the course also..and I think its healthy to always be skeptical of government. Perhaps not cynical, but skeptical...if there was something going on between T and Russia, it would be in his interest to try and dismiss it.

a reply to: tribal

Yes. You should always vet new information. That keeps you informed.

a reply to: tribal

So with the fresh infusion of excitement into the RussiaGate conspiracy theory (you like what i did there?)

Not buying it here, either.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bulls***.

It's said and done. Just a bunch of butt hurt politicians wanting to blame the Russians.

Should we listen??

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: tribal

Should We Still Listen?

I was under the impression y'all weren't listening already with all the cries of "Fake News!" instead of actually vetting the information presented. So why should I care about this opinion that is just rehashing the same disinterest you guys have always been showing?

As for your thread topic. You should never stop listening to the information presented and vet it. Ignoring it just shows you want to keep your head in the sand. Even if you don't immediately believe it.

You literally made a thread about Fox being fake news some minutes ago but you ignored the mother of all fake news called CNN. Are you #ing kidding me with this bull#.

a reply to: SaturnFX

are you saying the court of public opinion is irrelevant? It seems to me that this entire affair is basically being tried in the court of public opinion because if there was actually any evidence of wrong doing real proceedings would have already begun.

People say "well we need a proper investigation". I think what people like myself have a problem with is that the investigation IS the scandal because an investigation can be artificially manipulated to take as much time as one wants. if you have ever been part of a drawn out court or legal battle you know there are loopholes or mechanisms built into the process that allow unethical attorneys to exploit and make what should be a short matter take an egregiously long time. I believe that is whats happening here. There is only smoke, no fire....and since there is no evidence the only power Trumps opponents have against him is in continuing the investigation and continuing to find reasons to keep it going even when those reasons (like Trump Jrs. emails) are obviously only optically problematic but not in substance.

We've all been listening. For MONTHS nonstop because it's all the liberal media will report.

Yet still no crime found, no indictments, no collusion, no quid pro quo, no destroyed ipads/iphones, no deleted E-mails....

Media has been screaming Wolf for 3 months and here we are with nothing.

originally posted by: Perfectenemy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: tribal

Should We Still Listen?

I was under the impression y'all weren't listening already with all the cries of "Fake News!" instead of actually vetting the information presented. So why should I care about this opinion that is just rehashing the same disinterest you guys have always been showing?

As for your thread topic. You should never stop listening to the information presented and vet it. Ignoring it just shows you want to keep your head in the sand. Even if you don't immediately believe it.

You literally made a thread about Fox being fake news some minutes ago but you ignored the mother of all fake news called CNN. Are you #ing kidding me with this bull#.

Are you my mother or something? Who are you to tell me what to talk about?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ok, in principle i agree with you because that is the scientific ideal put into real world practice. However im sure you would admit that vetting every new piece of information, every new wrinkle or he said/she said is exhausting even to people who have time and not even possible for those who dont.

My question is somewhat philosophical in that i see this entire thing in its gestalt....the forest rather than the tree, as it were, and to my mind it seems like the expenditure of time and energy may at some point no longer be worth it. In other words, maybe for some of us it might be a better use of our time to just check out of the conversation until someone gets some real evidence (not a process crime like Clinton was tried on) that can be brought against Trump in real court proceedings. But unless anyone can prove me wrong, all we have so far is guilt by association, bad optics, innuendo and sometimes outright fabrications.

In light of the profound lack of hard evidence that could be presented in a court of law, should reasonable people just bow out entirely?

Part of my frustration too is that people like Alex Jones, who should know better than to jump into the political mud pit just to fill the minutes on his show, seems to be milking the political theater for all its worth instead of focusing on real issues like the fact that we are still illegally in syria and close to engaging North Korea and perhaps setting off WW3. He has spent precious little actual air time to REAL issues that literally make the collusion story almost trivial by comparison.


I think those of us who would like to see our representatives and tax dollars do what they are supposed to be doing might look at this russia thing and start to think maybe its just a great big grand distraction to make it appear DC is working hard for the people but in the meantime might just be engaging in a huge political play in which they are all laughing at us after the curtain falls and joking about it over drinks at the local bar.

originally posted by: tribal
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ok, in principle i agree with you because that is the scientific ideal put into real world practice. However im sure you would admit that vetting every new piece of information, every new wrinkle or he said/she said is exhausting even to people who have time and not even possible for those who dont.

Well life is hard. Staying informed is hard. You have to put out the effort to be knowledgeable. Most people who criticize journalism these days come off like they've never even spoken to a real journalist in their life.

My question is somewhat philosophical in that i see this entire thing in its gestalt....the forest rather than the tree, as it were, and to my mind it seems like the expenditure of time and energy may at some point no longer be worth it. In other words, maybe for some of us it might be a better use of our time to just check out of the conversation until someone gets some real evidence (not a process crime like Clinton was tried on) that can be brought against Trump in real court proceedings. But unless anyone can prove me wrong, all we have so far is guilt by association, bad optics, innuendo and sometimes outright fabrications.

In light of the profound lack of hard evidence that could be presented in a court of law, should reasonable people just bow out entirely?

Part of my frustration too is that people like Alex Jones, who should know better than to jump into the political mud pit just to fill the minutes on his show, seems to be milking the political theater for all its worth instead of focusing on real issues like the fact that we are still illegally in syria and close to engaging North Korea and perhaps setting off WW3. He has spent precious little actual air time to REAL issues that literally make the collusion story almost trivial by comparison.


I think those of us who would like to see our representatives and tax dollars do what they are supposed to be doing might look at this russia thing and start to think maybe its just a great big grand distraction to make it appear DC is working hard for the people but in the meantime might just be engaging in a huge political play in which they are all laughing at us after the curtain falls and joking about it over drinks at the local bar.

Here's the deal. The Russian narrative isn't going away anytime soon. It was stated back in January that this investigation would last longer than a year and possibly even years. To expect it to have fizzled out and be a "nothing burger" by now is just willful ignorance. At no point has it been confirmed that this investigation is winding down or that nothing has occurred. So until that happens you damn well should be vetting all new information released if you want to stay properly informed.

House Democrats want to know why a major Russian money-laundering case was abruptly settled

Link

Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Wednesday asking why the Department of Justice settled a major money-laundering case involving a real-estate company owned by the son of a powerful Russian government official whose lawyer met with Donald Trump Jr. last year.

That attorney, Natalia Veselnitskaya, represents the family of Pyotr Katsyv, the former vice governor of the Moscow region, whose son, Denis, owns the real-estate company Prevezon. The DOJ had been investigating whether Prevezon laundered millions of dollars through New York City real estate when the case was unexpectedly settled two days before going to trial in May.

a reply to: tribal
I have actually enjoyed what you have written and I'm pretty sure I "get" what you are getting at.
I myself have chosen to disengage from the "endless debates." This does not mean I'm not engaged in my own private thoughts about matters.

I think you have just presented two different points of thoughts to consider here is all. One being "The crying of wolf," and the other "How long will one choose to argue with a wall?"

Personally at this point I have found both to be rather tedious. Fortunately it is much easier to disengage from arguing with walls. I assume if I lived out in the middle of nowhere, which ironically I sort of do, it would be easy enough to go about ones life in peace without the overload of information. Funny one of the first things people say when they are going to go on vacation is that they will be so happy to have no cell phones and news etc... a vacation of bliss to become unplugged.

It is clear both sides of the fence have problems. What I don't get is why people are so worried about the other sides problems and not more interested in cleaning up their own sides mess. I don't think anything will change until the people start demanding that their own houses need to clean up their act. Most will readily admit it's just two sides of the same coin. We know it's all up to the people, but the people tend to put so much energy into us versus them instead of we are all in the same boat, it's no wonder it's always a constant stalemate.

Sorry if I drifted a bit there... I choose not to argue and I try to listen for the silence of what's not being heard under all the noise. Sort of like keeping a watch on the other hand...

Maybe if they could explain it differently then the people would be more receptive to their thoughts on it.

According to University of Virginia it is because the students(children) do not know how to communicate and have conversations with other people with a different point of view. Here is a quote from the study

“If you can understand why they believe what they believe – rather than attacking them for what they believe – that’s where you can find common ground.”

news.virginia.edu...

a reply to: tribal

What revival?
We never wavered.
They're shaking in their boots over there on Pennsylvania Avenue and on the hill.

a reply to: tribal

You should also know that despite common opinion politicians usually do or try very hard to keep campaign promises. It's like saying the weatherman is always wrong when in fact they are mostly correct. These are cultural fallacies oft repeated and accepted as fact. The grumblings of the common man.

a reply to: tribal

When that happens let us know.
For now you should know that America's media works very diligently to confirm facts before presenting them.
That they don't is another cultural fallacy. The industry actually has ethics and standards and agreed upon rules. It's not a creative writing free for all.
No matter what trump wants us to think.
He thinks if he says everybody thinks so that it gives his arguments weight. Mostly it's not true and secondly it's childish but that's the extent of his vetting information. Everybody says so.

My dear old mum had an answer for that that involved me, everybody and a bridge.

a reply to: tribal

I still listen, but I stopped taking them seriously a long time ago.

And the tone in which I engage with depends on the person.