On bias in science and politics, explained with tortoises, gingers, and the Trump vs. Obama's "Muslim" ban :
Being biased doesn't always mean you're wrong - so long as you understand that bias. But is there an unfair perspective at work here ? Is one side resorting to double standards, engaging in mass hysteria because Drumpf instigated a ban but completely ignoring Obama's earlier, similar restrictions ?
If you were to say, "President Obama's Muslim ban was bad because Obama is a bad person, but Drumpf's ban is good because Drumpf is a great man and he can do no wrong", then you are irredeemably biased and unprincipled. You are supporting a policy not based on that policy itself but on who enacts it. If, however, you were to say, "I support Obama overall, but the Muslim ban was an inexcusable failure. I campaigned against it and will do the same against Drumpf's ban." then you are not biased. You are judging the policy based on the policy itself, and while you may still be an Obama supporter you aren't trying to excuse one particular action you don't like.
The flip side of this is that you could be unbiased on the other side. You could say, "I didn't vote for Obama but I supported his Muslim ban because it was the right thing to do, and I support Drumpf in part because of this policy". That's not biased or unprincipled either. I personally wouldn't support your principles in this case, and would in fact strongly object to them, but I will acknowledge that you have them.
The crucial difference is the preliminary rhetoric to the ban. Obama never made a ban on Muslims a major part of his campaign policy, and was in fact well-known for speaking out against discrimination. He also didn't institute the ban as an executive order either, though he did fail to veto it. Only the most extreme Obamaphiles would attempt to defend the Obama ban while decrying Drumpf's; the rest of us should see it as a failure.
But what was seen as a failure of the old administration is being touted as a triumph of the new - Drumpf didn't merely allow the ban, he encouraged it, enacted it as an executive order, and promoted it with discriminatory rhetoric. So it is wholly unfair to accuse all but the most extreme liberals of bias or double standards here - of course people are going to react differently when discrimination is promoted as a success rather than (at most) an excusable failure.
The most extreme supporters of a group or an individual are groupies. They care about who's saying it, not what they're saying. Such people of course certainly do exist. The mistake I see being made constantly at the moment is to assume that everyone who supports a policy does so because they favour who's saying it, rather than being viewed as favouring who's saying it because they like the policy.
https://astrorhysy.blogspot.com/2017/02/on-bias.html
hang on:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.snopes.com/president-obama-ban-muslims-2011/
Obama's and Trump's policies and methods are completely different. I'm not a die-hard Obamaphile or whatever, but the counter-factual nature of the claim is not spelled out here. Obama = visa issuing slowdown to increase vetting. Trump = cruel and harmful detention of refugees and visa holders in violation of court orders.
...that said I agree that it's a huge problem in the current moment that opposition to a policy is often misidentified as opposition to the person. It so happens that I think Trump is probably a psychopath and wantonly cruel and vindictive. But even if I didn't think that, I would find his executive order on immigration wantonly cruel and vindictive.
ReplyDeleteIt's also a huge problem that so many people are still addressing Trump's orders as planks in an old fashioned partizan platform. They are not. Instead they are quite novel in victimizing targeted groups of people and undermining the apparatus of the government. R and D alike should be opposed to this administration that is working against the democratic republic.
Obama's application slowdown slipped under the radar because he wasn't preventing people with existing visas and green cards (permanent residents) from entering the country at airports.
ReplyDeleteUpdated the post to include a link to Snopes and a Vox article which describes the differences in detail. Green card holders are already mentioned. Note also the existing paragraph (omitted in the G+ summary for brevity) :
ReplyDeleteLet's make two simplifying assumptions here just for the sake of argument. Let's suppose, in defiance of the actual facts, that there was a good reason to be suspicious of Muslims but the case wasn't yet proven. Let's also suppose that Obama and Drumpf's bans were identical and explicitly targeted at Muslims, which is also factually wrong. Don't worry, well return to the actual bans shortly.