Scott Walker offers a fresh new approach

[Imran Siddiqui]

for example if people believe that there is 34x more benefit fraud than there actually is, that is very likely to affect their views on what should be done about it. if people believe that there are far more immigrants than there actually are, it is likely to have some effect on their views about them, etc. etc.

This is definitely true. Lots of people who rally against foreign aid in the US believe we spend a substantial amount of the US's budget on it. I think if they become aware that it's around 1% and won't solve budget problems if it was to go away entirely, people may have a different view about slashing it.

[rah]

Just because it won't solve the budget problem is not a reason that we shouldn't be debating it's utility.
There are a lot of things that make up less than 1% of the budget that should be removed from the budget.
You make enough small cuts and it will add up.

Not an editorial comment on foreign aid/bribes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Just because it won't solve the budget problem is not a reason that we shouldn't be debating it's utility.
There are a lot of things that make up less than 1% of the budget that should be removed from the budget.
You make enough small cuts and it will add up.

Not an editorial comment on foreign aid/bribes.

The reason people like to rail on it is because they assume that it's like 25% of the budget. People are fine with foreign aid, they just think we give a ton of it. If they knew it was 1%, they'd most likely be ok with that number.

[rah]

I really don't care about what percentage it is. We still waste money there and to dismiss it from a conversation just because it's not that much money is how we keep such a large deficit.

But yes, I agree that some people would be OK if they realized the small amount. BUT that shouldn't be used to say we shouldn't discuss it. There are some countries getting money that shouldn't be.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But yes, I agree that some people would be OK if they realized the small amount. BUT that shouldn't be used to say we shouldn't discuss it.

The second sentence is completely irrelevant to the point.

[rah]

No because it's typical crap thinking. You're implying that most of the people that rail against it don't understand that it's not 25% of the budget. There are many people that know the true percentage and still rail against it. Everything is worthy of discussion regardless of what percentage of the budget it represents.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Talk about shifting goalposts. And that's the problem. Statistics showing that people's ideas of how much is spent is much higher than actual and people saying, well, so... it's still important to talk about. The only reason its a talking point is because people think its so much!

It's akin to the people who said that even though we didn't find WMD in Iraq, that getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do - even though the reason that most folks agreed to the invasion was that threat of WMD. It's classic shifting goalposts.

[C0ckney]

No because it's typical crap thinking. You're implying that most of the people that rail against it don't understand that it's not 25% of the budget. There are many people that know the true percentage and still rail against it. Everything is worthy of discussion regardless of what percentage of the budget it represents.

but irman's (and my) point is that people's attitudes to things change based on what they believe to be the facts about them, and therefore if they have, or are given, the wrong impression about them, they will make different choices, in their actions and at the ballot box, than they would if they knew the truth. i mean imagine your household budget, you'll take a different view of something if it costs 1%, to that same thing if it costs 25% of it. it would be very odd if you didn't.

[Thoth]

Unions have no reason to exist at all, and to the extent that they do, they are harmful. The only exception I can conjure is the sports unions, and that's because the sports leagues themselves are literally trusts and have to be by the construction of their business.

Spoiler:

[Hauldren Collider]

It's not a troll if it's a sincerely held belief.

[rah]

but irman's (and my) point is that people's attitudes to things change based on what they believe to be the facts about them, and therefore if they have, or are given, the wrong impression about them, they will make different choices, in their actions and at the ballot box, than they would if they knew the truth. i mean imagine your household budget, you'll take a different view of something if it costs 1%, to that same thing if it costs 25% of it. it would be very odd if you didn't.

I remember agreeing with that

But yes, I agree that some people would be OK if they realized the small amount.

But added on that just because it's less than 1% doesn't make it irrelevant.

[kentonio]

of course there's an element of that; the right wing media need some raw material, and they find it among a certain section of the british population. however it's striking that all these misconceptions are for areas about which a certain view is presented to the public by the right wing media. you seem also to ignore the rather obvious point that believing these untruths will change people's views of certain things. so for example if people believe that there is 34x more benefit fraud than there actually is, that is very likely to affect their views on what should be done about it. if people believe that there are far more immigrants than there actually are, it is likely to have some effect on their views about them, etc. etc.

You're talking as if there's some heavily right wing media that is peddling a message outside the control of the people to change their beliefs about various issues. My point is that you're looking at the whole thing the wrong way around. Yes the media might lead people to belief something is much more serious than it actually is, but the only reason people buy that media is because its the kind of reinforcement of their existing beliefs that they want.

Answer me this, what's the difference between someone buying a newspaper that tells them that benefit fraud is rampant (when it's really not) and someone casting a vote in an election for a politician who declares that benefit fraud is rampant and they are going to stamp it out? Should we blame the politicians for people electing them? Because if not why on earth would we blame the media for people choosing to consume their message?

[Dinner]

It seems Scott Walker has been caught lying again. He claimed he had to break the teachers union because, supposedly, last year's teacher of the year got fired to make room for a less effective teacher who had more union senority. The problem is nothing remotely like that ever happened and it was just a lie made up by Walker to pass his antiworker legislation.

He, of course, gets both a big chunk of his funding and his marching orders from the Koch brothers and their motivation is purely political. The side which has to lie is seldom the side with facts on its side.

[rah]

I'm sure the teacher's union and other unions donations to his opponents are not politically motivated.

While I'm not a big fan of his, not everything he does is wrong.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You're talking as if there's some heavily right wing media that is peddling a message outside the control of the people to change their beliefs about various issues. My point is that you're looking at the whole thing the wrong way around. Yes the media might lead people to belief something is much more serious than it actually is, but the only reason people buy that media is because its the kind of reinforcement of their existing beliefs that they want.

People think the media is giving them facts, however. A news station that feeds into that mentality and gives slanted facts that basically give more credit to things that people fear (but hope is not true) is going to get people to switch their beliefs.

There is one example which overwhelmingly validates this: Fox News.