Completely (I think) non-partisan political statement

Completely (I think) non-partisan political statement

Post by Vijay Ramanuja » Fri, 05 Nov 2004 11:02:16


I've stated many times, but think now is a good time to repeat my
belief that in many ways attitudes towards politics are mirrored in our
attitudes towards sports. In particular, it seems to me that there is a
great similarity in the psychology of the "homer" fan and the
psychology of the partyline purist.

You saw these polls, gaining exposure in the last months of the
campaign, that said things like (made up numbers) 40% of likely Bush
voters think we found WMD in Iraq, 55% of likely Bush voters think we
found hard evidence that Saddam Hussein funded the attack on the WTC
...

I see that and my mind wanders to football. I'd bet 75% of Notre Dame
fans think the replay clearly showed there was no clip against Colorado
in 1990, and 55% of Michigan fans think Anthony Thomas was down before
he lost the ball against Illinois in 1999 (more made up numbers, but
you get my point). I'm not talking about rationalization. I'm not
talking about trying to dismiss the importance of this bad call and
harping instead on that bad call. I'm talking about watching a pass
bounce off the turf and saying "He caught it!"

People suffer blindness in the presence of a rooting interest. I've
been on the phone with a friend who was watching a basketball game, and
heard him go apeshit, calling for an offensive foul for a push off that
the replay clearly showed never happened. "See, he uses his left arm to
ward off the defender," he kept repeating, as the replay rolled and
showed the player's left arm*** idle at his side as he got
hammered by the defender. And similarly, I've seen people defend a
political gaffe by saying "he never said that" and stick to that
explanation even after the video has rolled or the transcript has been
offered.

I'm not going to try to fake up some neurological explanation, but I
think it's clear that sometimes people hold their desires so strongly
that evidence to the contrary gets rejected as obviously misleading.
Visual or factual evidence just isn't strong enough to overcome things
we want so badly to be true.

It's just sad that people have formed such a strong bond with a
political party, or in some cases against the political parties (ya,
that's you all of you "Don't blame me; I hate both the parties"
people). I'm not saying I haven't. I'm just saying it's sad.

And that's a large part of the reason that, except for the last 24
hours or so, I've given up on discussing politics here. For every
person here whom it might be interesting to discuss politics with,
there are 2 nutcases who have let their minds wander from reality and
instaed be informed solely by partyline wishful thinking.

Vijay R.

 
 
 

Completely (I think) non-partisan political statement

Post by Chris Miho » Fri, 05 Nov 2004 11:32:28

goddamn, vijay, are you me?

you pretty much have recited verbatim both my impression of modern
political discussion and my attitude towards posting politics on rsfc.

--
chris


 
 
 

Completely (I think) non-partisan political statement

Post by Matthew Henni » Fri, 05 Nov 2004 11:34:49



Quote:
> I've stated many times, but think now is a good time to repeat my
> belief that in many ways attitudes towards politics are mirrored in our
> attitudes towards sports. In particular, it seems to me that there is a
> great similarity in the psychology of the "homer" fan and the
> psychology of the partyline purist.

> You saw these polls, gaining exposure in the last months of the
> campaign, that said things like (made up numbers) 40% of likely Bush
> voters think we found WMD in Iraq, 55% of likely Bush voters think we
> found hard evidence that Saddam Hussein funded the attack on the WTC
> ...

> I see that and my mind wanders to football. I'd bet 75% of Notre Dame
> fans think the replay clearly showed there was no clip against Colorado
> in 1990, and 55% of Michigan fans think Anthony Thomas was down before
> he lost the ball against Illinois in 1999 (more made up numbers, but
> you get my point). I'm not talking about rationalization. I'm not
> talking about trying to dismiss the importance of this bad call and
> harping instead on that bad call. I'm talking about watching a pass
> bounce off the turf and saying "He caught it!"

> People suffer blindness in the presence of a rooting interest. I've
> been on the phone with a friend who was watching a basketball game, and
> heard him go apeshit, calling for an offensive foul for a push off that
> the replay clearly showed never happened. "See, he uses his left arm to
> ward off the defender," he kept repeating, as the replay rolled and
> showed the player's left arm*** idle at his side as he got
> hammered by the defender. And similarly, I've seen people defend a
> political gaffe by saying "he never said that" and stick to that
> explanation even after the video has rolled or the transcript has been
> offered.

> I'm not going to try to fake up some neurological explanation, but I
> think it's clear that sometimes people hold their desires so strongly
> that evidence to the contrary gets rejected as obviously misleading.
> Visual or factual evidence just isn't strong enough to overcome things
> we want so badly to be true.

> It's just sad that people have formed such a strong bond with a
> political party, or in some cases against the political parties (ya,
> that's you all of you "Don't blame me; I hate both the parties"
> people). I'm not saying I haven't. I'm just saying it's sad.

> And that's a large part of the reason that, except for the last 24
> hours or so, I've given up on discussing politics here. For every
> person here whom it might be interesting to discuss politics with,
> there are 2 nutcases who have let their minds wander from reality and
> instaed be informed solely by partyline wishful thinking.

Though a 2-1 ratio here is probably alot better than you see at work or
school or wherever.  There are alot of uninformed people out there.  
Rsfckers overall are pretty informed.

MH

--
Ten of Spades
Aggee Fedayeen Chief
Supreme Ruler of the Obvious

"We just got outplayed today.  That's the bottom line.  And we got
outcoached."
  - OU Head Coach Bob Stoops following the Texas A&M game, Nov 9, 2002

 
 
 

Completely (I think) non-partisan political statement

Post by marty mcmahon » Fri, 05 Nov 2004 11:51:11


Quote:
> I'm not going to try to fake up some neurological explanation, but I
> think it's clear that sometimes people hold their desires so strongly
> that evidence to the contrary gets rejected as obviously misleading.
> Visual or factual evidence just isn't strong enough to overcome things
> we want so badly to be true.

Well said.  I thought this a number of times in the last few months about
the way the polls were being interpreted.  All the polls were saying it was
too close to call, yet posters from both sides had all sorts of reasons why
that proved their side would win.  And the odd thing about it to me was, who
cared?  At that point, shouldn't the argument be about who *should* win?  I
find the polls interesting because of my interest in history, but the
obsession with believing that "my guy will win" struck me as odd.  But then,
it's much like my beliefs about football.  Despite knowing the
ridiculousness of it, I had to pick La. Tech over Auburn --  I only gave it
one confidence point, admitedly, but I just couldn't go the other way.

One thing people on both sides would do well to get is how much the starting
position you come from affects how you interpret everything, but then that's
very hard for us academic types to do

Marty

 
 
 

Completely (I think) non-partisan political statement

Post by Bill Lan » Fri, 05 Nov 2004 12:34:33

Nevermind the facts, Chris Mihos,  just give me the details!

Quote:
> goddamn, vijay, are you me?

> you pretty much have recited verbatim both my impression of
> modern political discussion and my attitude towards posting
> politics on rsfc.

Vijay described me for much of the last 12 years.  Yesterday was a
big step personally for me.  First Dem I EVER voted for.

Kerry must have cured me.  (sorry, I couldn't resist that)

--
mutt

"This is not the mystery of life.  This is sh*t."  Visitor Q

 
 
 

Completely (I think) non-partisan political statement

Post by Stephen » Fri, 05 Nov 2004 12:42:39

Quote:
> I see that and my mind wanders to football. I'd bet 75% of Notre Dame
> fans think the replay clearly showed there was no clip against Colorado
> in 1990

I'm not an ND fan, but that wasn't a clip. Terrible call.

Quote:
> and 55% of Michigan fans think Anthony Thomas was down before
> he lost the ball against Illinois in 1999

He wasn't.

--

Congratulations to George W Bush !

 
 
 

Completely (I think) non-partisan political statement

Post by Andrew Smit » Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:11:45


Quote:



>> I'm not going to try to fake up some neurological explanation, but I
>> think it's clear that sometimes people hold their desires so strongly
>> that evidence to the contrary gets rejected as obviously misleading.
>> Visual or factual evidence just isn't strong enough to overcome things
>> we want so badly to be true.

> Well said.  I thought this a number of times in the last few months about
> the way the polls were being interpreted.  All the polls were saying it
> was
> too close to call, yet posters from both sides had all sorts of reasons
> why
> that proved their side would win.  And the odd thing about it to me was,
> who
> cared?  At that point, shouldn't the argument be about who *should* win?
> I
> find the polls interesting because of my interest in history, but the
> obsession with believing that "my guy will win" struck me as odd.  But
> then,
> it's much like my beliefs about football.  Despite knowing the
> ridiculousness of it, I had to pick La. Tech over Auburn --  I only gave
> it
> one confidence point, admitedly, but I just couldn't go the other way.

Me too.

a.

 
 
 

Completely (I think) non-partisan political statement

Post by Vijay Ramanuj » Sat, 06 Nov 2004 00:31:24

Quote:

> Well said.  I thought this a number of times in the last few months about
> the way the polls were being interpreted.  All the polls were saying it was
> too close to call, yet posters from both sides had all sorts of reasons why
> that proved their side would win.  And the odd thing about it to me was, who
> cared?  At that point, shouldn't the argument be about who *should* win?

I agree with that entirely.
It also reminds me of my main complaint with mainstream news coverage
of politics. Far too much of the analysis centers around
prognosticating. When a candidate or even a sitting president
announces a policy initiative, the immediate question taken up by
(especially the television) news media is "what part of the electorate
is he trying to sway?"

If Bush comes out and says he's supporting a $0.50 increase in the
minimum wage, the networks will fall over themselves trying to figure
out what states or what demographic the president is trying to
impress, but will spend very little time on what effect that policy is
going to have on people.

Vijay R.

 
 
 

Completely (I think) non-partisan political statement

Post by Vijay Ramanuj » Sat, 06 Nov 2004 01:14:20

Quote:

> goddamn, vijay, are you me?

I wasn't going to tell you until you were a bit older, but yes.

Vijay R.

 
 
 

Completely (I think) non-partisan political statement

Post by Chris Miho » Sat, 06 Nov 2004 01:20:11

Quote:


>>goddamn, vijay, are you me?

> I wasn't going to tell you until you were a bit older, but yes.

> Vijay R.

I'M A CLONE!?

NO, YOUR'E A CLONE!?

wait, i'm confused.

--
chris

 
 
 

Completely (I think) non-partisan political statement

Post by Randolph M. Jone » Sat, 06 Nov 2004 01:29:53

Quote:

> I've stated many times, but think now is a good time to repeat my
> belief that in many ways attitudes towards politics are mirrored in our
> attitudes towards sports. In particular, it seems to me that there is a
> great similarity in the psychology of the "homer" fan and the
> psychology of the partyline purist.

> You saw these polls, gaining exposure in the last months of the
> campaign, that said things like (made up numbers) 40% of likely Bush
> voters think we found WMD in Iraq, 55% of likely Bush voters think we
> found hard evidence that Saddam Hussein funded the attack on the WTC
> ...

> I see that and my mind wanders to football. I'd bet 75% of Notre Dame
> fans think the replay clearly showed there was no clip against Colorado
> in 1990, and 55% of Michigan fans think Anthony Thomas was down before
> he lost the ball against Illinois in 1999 (more made up numbers, but
> you get my point). I'm not talking about rationalization. I'm not
> talking about trying to dismiss the importance of this bad call and
> harping instead on that bad call. I'm talking about watching a pass
> bounce off the turf and saying "He caught it!"

> People suffer blindness in the presence of a rooting interest. I've
> been on the phone with a friend who was watching a basketball game, and
> heard him go apeshit, calling for an offensive foul for a push off that
> the replay clearly showed never happened. "See, he uses his left arm to
> ward off the defender," he kept repeating, as the replay rolled and
> showed the player's left arm*** idle at his side as he got
> hammered by the defender. And similarly, I've seen people defend a
> political gaffe by saying "he never said that" and stick to that
> explanation even after the video has rolled or the transcript has been
> offered.

> I'm not going to try to fake up some neurological explanation, but I
> think it's clear that sometimes people hold their desires so strongly
> that evidence to the contrary gets rejected as obviously misleading.
> Visual or factual evidence just isn't strong enough to overcome things
> we want so badly to be true.

> It's just sad that people have formed such a strong bond with a
> political party, or in some cases against the political parties (ya,
> that's you all of you "Don't blame me; I hate both the parties"
> people). I'm not saying I haven't. I'm just saying it's sad.

> And that's a large part of the reason that, except for the last 24
> hours or so, I've given up on discussing politics here. For every
> person here whom it might be interesting to discuss politics with,
> there are 2 nutcases who have let their minds wander from reality and
> instaed be informed solely by partyline wishful thinking.

> Vijay R.

When you're right, you're right.
 
 
 

Completely (I think) non-partisan political statement

Post by Samuel Fan » Sat, 06 Nov 2004 05:49:52


<snip>

I really, really, really, really, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY hate
it when someone says "I was just saying that the other night."

That said, I was saying that just the other night.

--
Samuel Fang

"Slower cars are friends, not food."
  - Finding Nismo

 
 
 

Completely (I think) non-partisan political statement

Post by Tonawanda Karde » Sat, 06 Nov 2004 11:28:41



s/he said:

Quote:
> I've stated many times, but think now is a good time to repeat my
> belief that in many ways attitudes towards politics are mirrored in our
> attitudes towards sports. In particular, it seems to me that there is a
> great similarity in the psychology of the "homer" fan and the
> psychology of the partyline purist.

> You saw these polls, gaining exposure in the last months of the
> campaign, that said things like (made up numbers) 40% of likely Bush
> voters think we found WMD in Iraq, 55% of likely Bush voters think we
> found hard evidence that Saddam Hussein funded the attack on the WTC
> ...

> I see that and my mind wanders to football. I'd bet 75% of Notre Dame
> fans think the replay clearly showed there was no clip against Colorado
> in 1990, and 55% of Michigan fans think Anthony Thomas was down before
> he lost the ball against Illinois in 1999 (more made up numbers, but
> you get my point). I'm not talking about rationalization. I'm not
> talking about trying to dismiss the importance of this bad call and
> harping instead on that bad call. I'm talking about watching a pass
> bounce off the turf and saying "He caught it!"

> People suffer blindness in the presence of a rooting interest. I've
> been on the phone with a friend who was watching a basketball game, and
> heard him go apeshit, calling for an offensive foul for a push off that
> the replay clearly showed never happened. "See, he uses his left arm to
> ward off the defender," he kept repeating, as the replay rolled and
> showed the player's left arm*** idle at his side as he got
> hammered by the defender. And similarly, I've seen people defend a
> political gaffe by saying "he never said that" and stick to that
> explanation even after the video has rolled or the transcript has been
> offered.

> I'm not going to try to fake up some neurological explanation, but I
> think it's clear that sometimes people hold their desires so strongly
> that evidence to the contrary gets rejected as obviously misleading.
> Visual or factual evidence just isn't strong enough to overcome things
> we want so badly to be true.

> It's just sad that people have formed such a strong bond with a
> political party, or in some cases against the political parties (ya,
> that's you all of you "Don't blame me; I hate both the parties"
> people). I'm not saying I haven't. I'm just saying it's sad.

> And that's a large part of the reason that, except for the last 24
> hours or so, I've given up on discussing politics here. For every
> person here whom it might be interesting to discuss politics with,
> there are 2 nutcases who have let their minds wander from reality and
> instaed be informed solely by partyline wishful thinking.

And you're just so above it all, huh?

--
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your
country."

"America! F**k, yeah!"