John Kerry, not a fan of the 1st Amendment

[hoot1]

I don't think so. Because I think bias is inherent in human nature - it never hasn't been present in all of us.

I don't even want to cast it in a bad light, really. I'm just as biased as anybody else. I do make a good faith effort to be cognizant of it. Because having biases (which we all have) and seeing things through their filters, while considering or presenting ourselves as neutral and objective, necessarily puts us in a place of falsehood. It's not our biases, preferences, and passions which close our minds towards alternative views and arguments. It's an unchallenged denial that we even have biases, preferences, and passion which closes our minds.

Anybody who is so convinced that their views are not just the right ones but are indeed the only valid ones almost certainly isn't going to be receptive to anything -- be it fact or argument -- which might call them into question. So I just don't think genuine neutrality is attainable when passions and biases are involved.

As a passionate Colts fan, it's not hard for me to be neutral when two NFC teams I don't care about are playing each other. But that's not the case when it's two AFC teams that, for instance, I expect the Colts might be competing with for a playoff spot -- let alone when it's the Colts themselves.

However, I can't imagine a sports fan being in a state of denial about any bias they have in favor of the team they support. But when it comes to peoples' opinions about political issues, candidates, parties, etc., I think a lot of people discount, deny, downplay, or simply aren't even aware of their biases.

This is why a whole bunch of people who were outraged by allegations from Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick that Bill Clinton was sexually inappropriate with them seem totally oblivious to E. Jean Carroll's similar allegations about Donald Trump. And vice versa.

In truth, these people are entirely motivated by political bias -- while convincing themselves (and hoping to convince others) that they're actually motivated by outrage over the alleged actions of Clinton/Trump. It's easy to say they're being deliberately disingenuous. But I think it's probably more often the case that they're just in denial about the dispositive role their political bias plays in how they view those two situations.

So why don't I think we're hopelessly divided? Because I think, in spite of our biases and passions, we still occupy a lot more common ground than we realize. At least, certainly hope that's the case -- because, if it's not, then you're right to use the word "hopelessly" in this question.

Craze, appreciate your well thought out and we'll written post.

When mentioning "hopelessly" divided my thoughts were more along the lines of how Republicans and Democrats see themselves and how they see the other guys.

It is one thing to have a bias or preference for a party. However, IMO, when you see the other guys as dangers to the values you hold dear then reaching consensus with the other guys becomes virtually impossible.

My reading of the Kerry comments isn't that he somehow doesn't believe in free speech or the 1st Amendment. All he is saying is the social media is a place which reinforces the divisiveness which exists between the two parties and makes reaching concensus between our legislators more difficult.

Finally, don't think Kerry is calling for censorship of the social media as much as he is just recalling the good old days of Walter Cronkite when the members of both political parties elected people more prone to reach consensus.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Craze, appreciate your well thought out and we'll written post.

When mentioning "hopelessly" divided my thoughts were more along the lines of how Republicans and Democrats see themselves and how they see the other guys.

It is one thing to have a bias or preference for a party. However, IMO, when you see the other guys as dangers to the values you hold dear then reaching consensus with the other guys becomes virtually impossible.

My reading of the Kerry comments isn't that he somehow doesn't believe in free speech or the 1st Amendment. All he is saying is the social media is a place which reinforces the divisiveness which exists between the two parties and makes reaching concensus between our legislators more difficult.

Finally, don't think Kerry is calling for censorship of the social media as much as he is just recalling the good old days of Walter Cronkite when the members of both political parties elected people more prone to reach consensus.

Well, I don't agree re: Kerry. He did say the things you're saying he said. But he also lamented that the 1st amendment stands in the way of government and public policy "curbing the entities" -- which, to me, is clearly a complaint. And I do believe that, were it not for the 1A, Kerry would be supportive of laws restricting speech on social media.

Personally, I feel blessed to live in a country where the government can't censor social media or any other vehicle for information. Because there are governments in the world that do censor it. I think social media is a double-edged sword in ways. But, for me, the good outweighs the bad -- in the sense that information is no longer controlled by gatekeepers. Yeah, I realize there's misinformation, too. But I can't say I've ever had a problem with reading and believing false info online.

Lastly, I honestly don't think that social media is the root cause of our division. I won't say it hasn't played any role in it. But it's not the primary source of it.

The primary source of it, IMO, is that we're on an unsustainable path as a country, people sense it, and passions run deep on how we're going to respond to that. The circles on the Venn diagram just don't overlap as much as they used to. And circumstance requires us to address the issue, one way or another.

Entitlements have long been called the "third rail of politics" -- touch them, and you die. The problem with that venerable paradigm is that, now, the entitlements themselves are going to die if they're not touched.

 

[hoot1]

Well, I don't agree re: Kerry. He did say the things you're saying he said. But he also lamented that the 1st amendment stands in the way of government and public policy "curbing the entities" -- which, to me, is clearly a complaint. And I do believe that, were it not for the 1A, Kerry would be supportive of laws restricting speech on social media.

Personally, I feel blessed to live in a country where the government can't censor social media or any other vehicle for information. Because there are governments in the world that do censor it. I think social media is a double-edged sword in ways. But, for me, the good outweighs the bad -- in the sense that information is no longer controlled by gatekeepers. Yeah, I realize there's misinformation, too. But I can't say I've ever had a problem with reading and believing false info online.

Lastly, I honestly don't think that social media is the root cause of our division. I won't say it hasn't played any role in it. But it's not the primary source of it.

The primary source of it, IMO, is that we're on an unsustainable path as a country, people sense it, and passions run deep on how we're going to respond to that. The circles on the Venn diagram just don't overlap as much as they used to. And circumstance requires us to address the issue, one way or another.

Entitlements have long been called the "third rail of politics" -- touch them, and you die. The problem with that venerable paradigm is that, now, the entitlements themselves are going to die if they're not touched.

Craze, quick reply.

Don't think Kerry is calling for government censorship of social media, nor are Democrats or Republicans in general. Yea, the majority in both parties do share important values.

Social media is a place where our political divisiveness is evident and only perpetuates it. Social media didn't start the disivisiveness, it only perpetuates it.

The unsustainable path which includes federal deficits and global warming creates both passion and a sense we cannot reach consensus on solutions to curb the unsustainable path.

Craze, think our biggest disagreement is you see political passion as both natural and productive. I see a country where democracy cannot survive effectively when we passionately disagree too sharply. This sharp disagreement is evident on social media places such as The Water Cooler.