… and ilks.
My grandfather was an Ilk.
Or was he a Rotarian?
I guess the vaccine was manufactured in Nilbog.
That all makes sense to me. And of course we’d gotten onto a tangent (though the topic of ‘what should we, and should we not, say to Republicans’ is not entirely divorced from the topic of ‘Stupid Republican Ideas’).
There are always arguments over the question of how to deal with people who do things like voting for Donald Trump, as well there should be. And I’d be glad to continue discussing it in some other thread, if anyone can point to an existing one on the general themes:
-
When the news is full of clips of Trump voters saying things like ‘I have evidence that the election was stolen, but I decline to share it,’ is it useful to share them? Or is it in some way counterproductive (and if so, in what way)?
-
When encountering someone who says ‘I have evidence that the election was stolen, but I decline to share it,’ is it appropriate to engage with them? If so, what would be some helpful ways to do so?
-
Etc.
So if there’s no such thread already, perhaps it might make sense to create one. But, where…in the Pit? In Politics & Elections? Hmm…
Appropriate? … Possibly.
Productive? … Hell, no.
Conducive to your mental health? … See “Productive”.
I had considered using “entertaining,” but discarded it as being too cynical.
I think it’s a good idea to start a thread so we can discuss these issues more pointedly. May as well start it in P&E… who knows? Maybe it will stay there. 
In answer to your questions:
-
Yes, I think it’s useful to share such clips if only to demonstrate how completely out of touch these people are. It’s also a useful springboard to start a conversation with others to point out the bad faith nature of holding a position for which you’re not willing to share your “evidence.” Evidence should always be defensible. If it’s not, the individual ought to question themselves as to why they can’t defend it. But I think that’s exactly why they won’t share their “evidence.” Deep down, many of them are aware it won’t withstand even nominal scrutiny.
-
I would be unlikely to engage with anyone who declined to show their “evidence,” because it indicates bad faith and an unwillingness to have the “evidence” challenged in any way. That’s not an appropriate, productive or even entertaining discussion.
As @Mijin points out, basic critical thinking is a big part of what’s missing in our society. Given that Republicans have actively worked against good education in this country for the past 50 years, I’m not hopeful there will be any short term fix.
This.
I think, rather, most of those who are reluctant to show their evidence are so, not because they know it’s crap evidence, but rather because they don’t have any evidence (beyond some crank’s word they saw on the 'net) and they know it.
This is both kinda stupid and kinda evil:
That doesn’t feel right to me (I could be wrong). I feel like there’s a mindset that I don’t understand and I would like to understand what’s going on. What is someone who says that really thinking/feeling? For example, someone might say it because they don’t want to have a confrontation or argument. They might not want to share with someone who will dismiss and demean them. That, I get. But in situations where that’s not going to happen, what else is driving the sense of secrecy?
The last time a Constitutional Convention was held the purpose was to amend the Articles of Confederation. Instead they were tossed wholesale and the constitution we’re currently under implemented instead.
At the time, the convention was not referred to as a “Constitutional convention”, nor did most of the delegates arrive intending to draft a new constitution. Many assumed that the purpose of the convention was to discuss and draft improvements to the existing Articles of Confederation, and would not have agreed to participate otherwise. Once the convention began, however, most of the delegates – though not all – came to agree in general terms that the goal would be a new system of government, not simply a revised version of the Articles of Confederation.
Of course, with the sense of history these yahoos have, they either know nothing of it or worse, don’t figure it’ll happen to them.
Our wacky Pubs tried to do the same thing here in Kansas.
A Republican state legislator(*) in Texas has introduced a bill to ban vegetarian products from using the words meat, beef, pork or poultry product in their names (they’re looking at you Beyond Meat).
In and of itself, it’s not a completely stupid idea; I don’t support it, but if you squint a bit and look at it in a dimly lit room, you can sort of see his point. However, the reasoning of the legislator has some stupidity in it. In addition to protecting regular Texans from accidentally ingesting plant-based food, he claims that his bill will also help protect “those who choose not to eat meat” and that “The most frequent call I’ve gotten is from vegetarians that are for this bill.”
Now, I’m not a vegetarian myself, nor have I spent any time discussing labeling laws with vegetarians, but are there really that many people out there accidentally buying real hamburger when they intended to buy Impossible Burger? I have to think
this bill would protect literally zeroes of people.
(*) I’m sure you won’t be surprised to hear that said legislator helps to run a cattle operation.
Rand Paul tacitly connects Dr. Fauci and NIH with “super viruses” being created in Wuhan.
I have been a vegetarian for over 30 years and IMO your assessment is accurate.
It becomes easier to understand his neighbor’s actions the more I learn about Rand Paul.
I learned enough years ago.
Nonetheless, Dr Fauci needs to count his negatives a little more carefully
I’ve recently started buying various vegetarian foods, just as an alternative to meat (which I still eat) and it’s been my experience that they are kept in a separate freezer section than meat products. I can’t imagine how I could accidentally buy real hamburger from a freezer filled with BocaBurgers and Morningstar Farms products.