- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Pelosi calls Trump āunhingedā and reveals exchange with doctors at 2019 memorial for top psychiatrist
In early 2019, at a memorial service for a prominent psychiatrist, a succession of ādoctors and other mental health professionalsā told Nancy Pelosi they were ādeeply concerned that there was something seriously wrongā withĀ Donald Trump, āand that his mental and psychological health was in declineā.
āIām not a doctor,ā the former speaker writes in an eagerly awaited memoir, ābut I did find his behaviors difficult to understand.ā
Itās not confirmation bias, itās a rudimentary undersanding of how political messaging works.
Thatās a really confusing response. Rudimentary understandings of political messaging have nothing to do with logical fallacies or biases.
Letās first get this out of the way: I donāt think Iāve heard any credible doctors say that Pelosi is showing signs of concerning cognitive decline. Highly respected and trusted doctors have said that and more about Trump, on the other hand.
In no way are any of my statements intended to support Trump. Iāll take Pelosiās insider-trading any day over Trumpās attempts to incite a civil war for personal gain.
Getting back to the argument at hand, letās break things down into less loaded terms:
A is a trusted and respected source of information whose opinion must be taken into account. A says that B and C are problematic and should be replaced.
Factoring in what A has said, B and C have both been similarly weighed down by Aās analysis and both should be equally considered for replacement.
Now, letās consider other factors. After careful observation, youāve noticed that B has crapped itself and is on fire. C, on the other hand, appears to be fine.
When considering which to replace between B and C, the obvious answer is B and B absolutely should be thrown out and used as an example to avoid anything like B ever happening again. After this careful consideration, then you can factor in Aās opinion on C and decide if Aās opinion is concerning enough to follow.
What youāve suggested though is that because B is covered in shit and on fire, that Aās opinion of B must be taken seriously and any opinions of Aās about C carry less weight. Youāre letting Bās shit-n-fire status influence Aās validity.
You canāt do that, though. Well, you can, but your arguments wonāt be taken seriously and any influence you hoped to have in swaying peopleās opinions will actually serve counter to your intents.
So, while I donāt agree with @[email protected]ās āno uā sort of statement and worry about it eroding very serious concerns people should have about Trump, I have to say that youāre not helping. Your conclusion is correct: Trump is a shit-covered flaming sack of senility. But your argument of āAās equal opinions of B and C can be disregarded for C because B is badā provides ammo to those would claim, ādonāt listen to @[email protected], they use illogical and bad-faith arguments.ā
So, if doctors who are medically motivated, not politically, are saying that theyāre concerned about Trump and Pelosi, then you have to treat these concerns the same.
You can either
By trying to have your cake and eat it too, youāre revealing your unreliability and biases. Not only that, but your willingness to accept arguments against Trump and then disregard the same arguments against Pelosi, I believe youāre falling into the trappings of confirmation bias. If you want to disprove those arguments against Pelosi by showing that no credible news source has been approached by doctors who have argued anything about her except to disprove the edited ādrunk Pelosiā video, then thatās a great way to accept medical opinions and bolster arguments about political messaging.
But by saying āitās your prerogative to extend that [medical opinion] to Pelosi or not, which I donāt particularly care aboutā on the foundation of a ārudimentary understanding of how political messaging works,ā you are using your logic to shit the sheets while weāre all in bed together.
Clean up your arguments before you cause more damage.
I am not even dignifying that with the one line of engagement I gave to the previous one. Talk about not understanding messaging.