There are two historical elements for why the electoral college was invented. One, discussed by Hamilton in Federalist 68 was to provide a final stopgap against demagogues like Trump http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp. The second was to give the slave states more power http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar and it should be clear why that shouldn't be ok. As for the argument involving counties: that's just silly. There's no reason that amount of total area won should mean anything at all. Moreover, there's no reason you can reasonably object to cities dominating simply because they happen to be dense areas. Disagreeing with a group doesn't mean you get to use essentially arbitrary criteria to decide you'd like to ignore their wishes.
There are good arguments against having the electoral college change in this case (especially given that we don't know if Hillary would have won the popular vote if both her campaign and Trump campaign had optimized voter turnout rather than focused on swing states) but trying to make an argument that relies on county number is just awful.
There are a lot of good arguments for the electoral college voting for Hillary. Lessig lays most of them out. There are also good arguments against (among other issues we don't know if Hillary would have won the popular vote if both she and Trump had been competing to optimize turnout). It is also utterly irrelevant: the electoral college members are primarily bog-standard Republicans, and we've seen in the last few months that most establishment Republicans hate Hillary more than they love their basic ideology and beliefs (whatever Trump stands for, it damn well isn't conservativism by any standard definition of the term). So pushing for this at this juncture is a waste of resources.
Actually, having thought about this slightly more, another possible motivation occurred to me: there is a fair bit of evidence of Russian meddling in this election and that some of the anti-Hillary propaganda came from Russian sources to try to push the election to the candidate they favored. By the same token, Musk is potentially a real danger to Russian interests, since Russia is heavily oil dependent and also has an advantage when the US is dependent on Russia for manned space launches. If they have the now existing resources and hooks into the US public, then using it to harm Musk is a natural thing.
I'm not sure what the motivation is for these attacks. Musk hasn't been particularly political and mainly stayed out of this election. As far as I can tell, the primary motivations are one of two things. Either one, the people behind this are simply hateful and without a major target like Hillary must choose another, or two, they hate Musk because much of his work (electric cars, solar cells, even wanting to use methane for rockets because methane is a potentially renewable resource) has been to deal with issues related to global warming. If the second is the motivator, then it says something really fascinating: that there are elements of the right which not only are convinced that global warming is some sort of evil hoax, but that they actively hate people who disagree with them and are trying to take steps to destroy someone who is trying to help. If that's the case, it is truly a frightening example of the depth that people can sink to, and the levels they'll go to not just ignore facts they don't like but to actively try to harm people who try to deal with those factual issues.
85% is still not at all a low chance. I agree that there were media sources which assigned him a low probability in general, but that's a distinct claim than anything about the polling numbers or the claim that the "who had Hillary winning by a land-slide up until the day of the election" since the NYT model predicted a 4-5% popular win for Hillary which is not generally considered at all a land-slide by most notions of the term.
That's not at all accurate. The polls going into the election had Hillary up 2-5% points, and she did ultimately win the popular vote by about 1-2% points, well within reasonable error given the noisiness of polls and the last minute issues with Comey's letter which may have depressed Hillary turnout or increased Trump turnout slightly. Fivethirtyeight for example kept saying that this was a close election.
Thank you for completely missing the point. At no point in my comment did I make any argument about whether the popular vote winner should win. The point is that the claim that Trump got a majority of the votes is *false*. Heck, what you are talking about is the even weaker issue of a plurality of the votes. Discussion of the electoral college is a complete sideshow.
But, if you want to discuss the electoral college and the popular vote we can. There's nothing wrong with people in cities having a lot of votes if there are people there. It is in only because those people don't vote the way you like that you have the opinion you do. Moreover, the actual cause for an electoral college was primarily two things: First, to prevent populist demagogues by having another layer between the population and the electorate. Hamilton discussed this in Federalist 68 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp. In that context, having an electoral college that just votes the way the state popular vote directs it to is exactly counter to that goal. Second, the electoral college preserved the power of the slave states http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar. It should be clear why the second reason is not acceptable.
And if you really want to look at the "popular vote" numbers, you have to take into account the number of votes the Dems should not have gotten due to fraud such as illegal immigrants voting. The D's cheated and STILL lost. Their policies are obviously so popular that they're now trying to implement them by force.
Thank you for giving an excellent further example of the complete disregard for facts that some on the right are demonstrating. There is essentially zero evidence of any substantial immigration voting. See for example here http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-noncitizen-voters-20161025-snap-story.html. Facts matter. And if you want to play that game then it is worth noting that massive numbers of legitimate votes in swing states were disenfranchised due to voter ID restrictions, and even federal judges agree that many of those restrictions were designed to deliberately target minorities. Look for example at North Carolina http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/north-carolina-voting-rights-law/493649/. Again, facts matter. There's a good argument for not using the popular vote in this *specific election* because we have a system right now, and we don't know if it would have ended up this way if Hillary and Trump had focused on turning out the maximum number of voters rather than voters in swing states, but that's a distinct issue that's completely removed from the basic facts.
Unfortunately, Trump has shown a complete unwillingness to care about facts when they don't fit his narrative. Many on the right have taken this as a cue to do the same. I've now had two separate arguments with Trump supporters who have claimed that a majority of voters voted for Trump in the election. One of them kept repeating the claim in other locations even after I had explained to him the myriad things incorrect about the claim. Most likely the same is happening here. At one point I had a very negative view of the whole "reality has a left-wing bias" meme, but it seems like we're moving closer and closer to that.
So? This is recentism in a nutshell. It is a mistake to think just because an event is happening now that it is therefore more important. Harvard has a 300 year history; an event in one specific year needs to be a really big deal to make it into the primary article on its history.
Regarding your comparison, Oskar Schindler and Karl Plagge both come to mind. More substantially, politicians aren't in general lying that much more than other people, but rather one has more opportunity to notice it when they do. And given the earlier comment specifically referring to Hillary, the level of difference is precisely what matters here anyways.
These sort of comments might be funny but they aren't at all accurate. If one looks for example at Hillary's Politifact rating she has a larger fraction of true or mostly true statements than most major politicians (and way, way more than Donald Trump who has many more totally false or Pants on Fire statements than most politicians). See http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/. Politifact does have some issues; they decide what statements to rate, and there's some amount of subjectivity in the ratings, such as the difference between true and mostly true, or between false and mostly false, and some of their rulings are definitely arguable (such as their tendency to rate rumors as false simply if they are very unlikely and have zero evidence) but even if you move half of her statements from each category one category down, she still well within the normal range for politicians.
Not really: mod games as you put it are not a waste of time in that sense. Man readers only read the highly upvoted comments or scan for remarks about that. How things are moderated does influence what people see.
First of all, no one is in either of those articles arguing that concern over events with refugees of that sort isn't xenophobic. So your basic premise fails. Second it isn't at all relevant: even if people were terribly misusing the term, it wouldn't make Trump's policies and many of his followers less xenophobic. That someone is overusing or badly using a term doesn't make the essential issue go away.
Objecting to immigration over concerns about jobs is not intrinsically xenophobic: wanting to build massive walls, banning all Muslims and similar measures, is. That there are sympathetic arguments for specific low immigration policies doesn't change that large amounts of the anti-immigrant attitude are coming from xenophobia.
As for discrimination, you playing language games rather than ignoring the fundamental point: if you prefer, simply add the words "based on race or religion" after the word discriminate and you get the point.
You are completely correct. The rise of a right-wing group on Slashdot which downvotes pretty close to any information they don't like as trolling or flamebait is deeply worrisome.
All the terms we use "conservative" "liberal" "progressive" really stand more for complicated political alliances than anything that clear cut. For example, pot legalization is stronger on the left among "progressives" but legalization is essentially reactionary, going back to an earlier era. Similarly, many right-wing, conservative positions, are new or novel ideas. By and large anti-immigrant, xenophobic ideas are more often found as part of the "conservative" tribe (although there's a definite undercurrent of them in the left also, as seen in for example Bernie Sanders strong dislike of open immigration).
In general, almost everything involved in politics is more about allegiances than coherent philosophical approaches. There's no coherent philosophy that should connect attitude about tax policy to attitude about gay marriage. And in so far as there are attempts at coherent philosophical approaches, they often make very little sense: for example the pro-choice movement's language about freedom and autonomy is very similar to language used by people with strong attitudes about the second amendment or believing they have a right to discriminate, but they are from opposite ends of the political spectrum.
In the mid 1990s, China was not allowed to join the ISS over human rights concerns. Of course,that didn't stop us from welcoming Russia which also had a terrible history, and it isn't like he threat of not being in the ISS changed China's behavior at all. So the end result is that China instead has a very strong and fast growing space program of their own when instead we could be cooperating with them.
Outlawing poverty doesn't make it cease to exist. This is not the only example of this, but it is curious that San Fran has so many similar issues. A major reason that there are homeless people in San Fran to start with is the insane cost of living which is made by having the minimum mandatory apartment size be high. In general, in the US there has been in the last 100 years a trend for stricter and stricter zoning laws and related laws. And now cities are actively fighting attempts to come up with workable solutions within the legal codes such as microapartments where shared kitchens and other shared spaces http://www.sightline.org/2016/09/06/how-seattle-killed-micro-housing/. Do you want to actually make homeless people go away? Then you need to make cheap housing affordable. How do you do that? By getting rid of the unnecessary zoning rules about height, massive number of parking spaces, large yards, etc.
So, your reply a) doesn't address the fundamental facts of the case at all b) ignores the many associated aspects and c) ignores that, as discussed in the article, many forms of ID were not acceptable, and that those IDs were forms mainly possessed by minorities and poor people. In fact, variants of the last are very common: if one looks at a number of other state voter ID laws, they allowed gun permits to count as IDs, but not student IDs, apparently because college students are likely to vote Dem.
That's not what happened here, and it is pretty clear that's not what happened even if you just read this article, even before one goes through the effort of reading the original opinion. For example, they took away Sunday early voting, and the report in question explicitly said that that was a common thing used by African-Americans. Literally every single change they made was one which the report that they commissioned had identified as having a more negative impact on blacks than anyone else.
The panel seemed to say it found the equivalent of a smoking gun. “Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices,” Motz wrote. “Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.”
So, yes, please go explain how these laws are about protecting vote integrity. And then.explain why if they care so much about vote integrity they don't do anything about absentee ballot voter fraud which is a much more common and well-documented problem.
Kennedy's promise did go through but that was primarily due to his death. Subsequent Presidents and congresspeople felt too bad about changing things away from what he wanted. Somehow I don't think Obama wants to get assassinated just so we can go to Mars.
"Trump is less vulnerable simply because he's not as repugnant of a person as is Hillary, not even close."
I would have had trouble understanding how one would have thought this after his comments about Judge Curiel, his comments about the Khans, and his comments about McCain. After what leaked on Friday, which you are obviously aware, how can you possibly say this?
So, you are now conflating two wildly different things. We were discussing the emails. In fact, you explicitly brought up the emails. You are now bringing up issues with caucuses. So let's discuss that issue (which we should keep in mind has nothing to do with DNC emails). Caucuses are very complicated (and frankly terrible as a system) and multiple votes are a standard aspect. For example, in Maine (where I caucused) there were multiple stages between the first count and the actual vote. This is a standard thing, and people who leave early are a standard factor. The other issue that came up was Sanders people failing to go to state conventions even after the local conventions were done, and in fact, in at least some occasions similar issues took place in reverse where they benefited Sanders. See e.g. http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/apr/07/blog-posting/no-bernie-sanders-didnt-retroactively-win-nevada/. Caucus obnoxious rules is not voter fraud, and none of this is relevant to the emails being discussed.
Voter fraud has a specific meaning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_fraud. This is not it. Again, you can be unhappy about it, or even vocally object, but mislabeling this is about as unhelpful as when someone people use words like "assault" and "violence" to describe bullying speech. The problem is the same: if you keep using the more serious words to describe *everything* the end result is people won't take the more serious case as seriously and just won't listen to you. Precision is important not just because it is relevant for one's own thinking but because it is important to getting others to care.
Slashdot Mirror
There are two historical elements for why the electoral college was invented. One, discussed by Hamilton in Federalist 68 was to provide a final stopgap against demagogues like Trump http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp. The second was to give the slave states more power http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar and it should be clear why that shouldn't be ok. As for the argument involving counties: that's just silly. There's no reason that amount of total area won should mean anything at all. Moreover, there's no reason you can reasonably object to cities dominating simply because they happen to be dense areas. Disagreeing with a group doesn't mean you get to use essentially arbitrary criteria to decide you'd like to ignore their wishes.
There are good arguments against having the electoral college change in this case (especially given that we don't know if Hillary would have won the popular vote if both her campaign and Trump campaign had optimized voter turnout rather than focused on swing states) but trying to make an argument that relies on county number is just awful.
There are a lot of good arguments for the electoral college voting for Hillary. Lessig lays most of them out. There are also good arguments against (among other issues we don't know if Hillary would have won the popular vote if both she and Trump had been competing to optimize turnout). It is also utterly irrelevant: the electoral college members are primarily bog-standard Republicans, and we've seen in the last few months that most establishment Republicans hate Hillary more than they love their basic ideology and beliefs (whatever Trump stands for, it damn well isn't conservativism by any standard definition of the term). So pushing for this at this juncture is a waste of resources.
Actually, having thought about this slightly more, another possible motivation occurred to me: there is a fair bit of evidence of Russian meddling in this election and that some of the anti-Hillary propaganda came from Russian sources to try to push the election to the candidate they favored. By the same token, Musk is potentially a real danger to Russian interests, since Russia is heavily oil dependent and also has an advantage when the US is dependent on Russia for manned space launches. If they have the now existing resources and hooks into the US public, then using it to harm Musk is a natural thing.
I'm not sure what the motivation is for these attacks. Musk hasn't been particularly political and mainly stayed out of this election. As far as I can tell, the primary motivations are one of two things. Either one, the people behind this are simply hateful and without a major target like Hillary must choose another, or two, they hate Musk because much of his work (electric cars, solar cells, even wanting to use methane for rockets because methane is a potentially renewable resource) has been to deal with issues related to global warming. If the second is the motivator, then it says something really fascinating: that there are elements of the right which not only are convinced that global warming is some sort of evil hoax, but that they actively hate people who disagree with them and are trying to take steps to destroy someone who is trying to help. If that's the case, it is truly a frightening example of the depth that people can sink to, and the levels they'll go to not just ignore facts they don't like but to actively try to harm people who try to deal with those factual issues.
85% is still not at all a low chance. I agree that there were media sources which assigned him a low probability in general, but that's a distinct claim than anything about the polling numbers or the claim that the "who had Hillary winning by a land-slide up until the day of the election" since the NYT model predicted a 4-5% popular win for Hillary which is not generally considered at all a land-slide by most notions of the term.
That's not at all accurate. The polls going into the election had Hillary up 2-5% points, and she did ultimately win the popular vote by about 1-2% points, well within reasonable error given the noisiness of polls and the last minute issues with Comey's letter which may have depressed Hillary turnout or increased Trump turnout slightly. Fivethirtyeight for example kept saying that this was a close election.
But, if you want to discuss the electoral college and the popular vote we can. There's nothing wrong with people in cities having a lot of votes if there are people there. It is in only because those people don't vote the way you like that you have the opinion you do. Moreover, the actual cause for an electoral college was primarily two things: First, to prevent populist demagogues by having another layer between the population and the electorate. Hamilton discussed this in Federalist 68 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp. In that context, having an electoral college that just votes the way the state popular vote directs it to is exactly counter to that goal. Second, the electoral college preserved the power of the slave states http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar. It should be clear why the second reason is not acceptable.
And if you really want to look at the "popular vote" numbers, you have to take into account the number of votes the Dems should not have gotten due to fraud such as illegal immigrants voting. The D's cheated and STILL lost. Their policies are obviously so popular that they're now trying to implement them by force.
Thank you for giving an excellent further example of the complete disregard for facts that some on the right are demonstrating. There is essentially zero evidence of any substantial immigration voting. See for example here http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-noncitizen-voters-20161025-snap-story.html. Facts matter. And if you want to play that game then it is worth noting that massive numbers of legitimate votes in swing states were disenfranchised due to voter ID restrictions, and even federal judges agree that many of those restrictions were designed to deliberately target minorities. Look for example at North Carolina http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/north-carolina-voting-rights-law/493649/. Again, facts matter. There's a good argument for not using the popular vote in this *specific election* because we have a system right now, and we don't know if it would have ended up this way if Hillary and Trump had focused on turning out the maximum number of voters rather than voters in swing states, but that's a distinct issue that's completely removed from the basic facts.
Unfortunately, Trump has shown a complete unwillingness to care about facts when they don't fit his narrative. Many on the right have taken this as a cue to do the same. I've now had two separate arguments with Trump supporters who have claimed that a majority of voters voted for Trump in the election. One of them kept repeating the claim in other locations even after I had explained to him the myriad things incorrect about the claim. Most likely the same is happening here. At one point I had a very negative view of the whole "reality has a left-wing bias" meme, but it seems like we're moving closer and closer to that.
So? This is recentism in a nutshell. It is a mistake to think just because an event is happening now that it is therefore more important. Harvard has a 300 year history; an event in one specific year needs to be a really big deal to make it into the primary article on its history.
Regarding your comparison, Oskar Schindler and Karl Plagge both come to mind. More substantially, politicians aren't in general lying that much more than other people, but rather one has more opportunity to notice it when they do. And given the earlier comment specifically referring to Hillary, the level of difference is precisely what matters here anyways.
These sort of comments might be funny but they aren't at all accurate. If one looks for example at Hillary's Politifact rating she has a larger fraction of true or mostly true statements than most major politicians (and way, way more than Donald Trump who has many more totally false or Pants on Fire statements than most politicians). See http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/. Politifact does have some issues; they decide what statements to rate, and there's some amount of subjectivity in the ratings, such as the difference between true and mostly true, or between false and mostly false, and some of their rulings are definitely arguable (such as their tendency to rate rumors as false simply if they are very unlikely and have zero evidence) but even if you move half of her statements from each category one category down, she still well within the normal range for politicians.
Not really: mod games as you put it are not a waste of time in that sense. Man readers only read the highly upvoted comments or scan for remarks about that. How things are moderated does influence what people see.
First of all, no one is in either of those articles arguing that concern over events with refugees of that sort isn't xenophobic. So your basic premise fails. Second it isn't at all relevant: even if people were terribly misusing the term, it wouldn't make Trump's policies and many of his followers less xenophobic. That someone is overusing or badly using a term doesn't make the essential issue go away.
Objecting to immigration over concerns about jobs is not intrinsically xenophobic: wanting to build massive walls, banning all Muslims and similar measures, is. That there are sympathetic arguments for specific low immigration policies doesn't change that large amounts of the anti-immigrant attitude are coming from xenophobia.
As for discrimination, you playing language games rather than ignoring the fundamental point: if you prefer, simply add the words "based on race or religion" after the word discriminate and you get the point.
You are completely correct. The rise of a right-wing group on Slashdot which downvotes pretty close to any information they don't like as trolling or flamebait is deeply worrisome.
All the terms we use "conservative" "liberal" "progressive" really stand more for complicated political alliances than anything that clear cut. For example, pot legalization is stronger on the left among "progressives" but legalization is essentially reactionary, going back to an earlier era. Similarly, many right-wing, conservative positions, are new or novel ideas. By and large anti-immigrant, xenophobic ideas are more often found as part of the "conservative" tribe (although there's a definite undercurrent of them in the left also, as seen in for example Bernie Sanders strong dislike of open immigration).
In general, almost everything involved in politics is more about allegiances than coherent philosophical approaches. There's no coherent philosophy that should connect attitude about tax policy to attitude about gay marriage. And in so far as there are attempts at coherent philosophical approaches, they often make very little sense: for example the pro-choice movement's language about freedom and autonomy is very similar to language used by people with strong attitudes about the second amendment or believing they have a right to discriminate, but they are from opposite ends of the political spectrum.
In the mid 1990s, China was not allowed to join the ISS over human rights concerns. Of course,that didn't stop us from welcoming Russia which also had a terrible history, and it isn't like he threat of not being in the ISS changed China's behavior at all. So the end result is that China instead has a very strong and fast growing space program of their own when instead we could be cooperating with them.
Outlawing poverty doesn't make it cease to exist. This is not the only example of this, but it is curious that San Fran has so many similar issues. A major reason that there are homeless people in San Fran to start with is the insane cost of living which is made by having the minimum mandatory apartment size be high. In general, in the US there has been in the last 100 years a trend for stricter and stricter zoning laws and related laws. And now cities are actively fighting attempts to come up with workable solutions within the legal codes such as microapartments where shared kitchens and other shared spaces http://www.sightline.org/2016/09/06/how-seattle-killed-micro-housing/. Do you want to actually make homeless people go away? Then you need to make cheap housing affordable. How do you do that? By getting rid of the unnecessary zoning rules about height, massive number of parking spaces, large yards, etc.
So, your reply a) doesn't address the fundamental facts of the case at all b) ignores the many associated aspects and c) ignores that, as discussed in the article, many forms of ID were not acceptable, and that those IDs were forms mainly possessed by minorities and poor people. In fact, variants of the last are very common: if one looks at a number of other state voter ID laws, they allowed gun permits to count as IDs, but not student IDs, apparently because college students are likely to vote Dem.
That's not what happened here, and it is pretty clear that's not what happened even if you just read this article, even before one goes through the effort of reading the original opinion. For example, they took away Sunday early voting, and the report in question explicitly said that that was a common thing used by African-Americans. Literally every single change they made was one which the report that they commissioned had identified as having a more negative impact on blacks than anyone else.
The panel seemed to say it found the equivalent of a smoking gun. “Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices,” Motz wrote. “Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.”
So, yes, please go explain how these laws are about protecting vote integrity. And then.explain why if they care so much about vote integrity they don't do anything about absentee ballot voter fraud which is a much more common and well-documented problem.
Kennedy's promise did go through but that was primarily due to his death. Subsequent Presidents and congresspeople felt too bad about changing things away from what he wanted. Somehow I don't think Obama wants to get assassinated just so we can go to Mars.
"Trump is less vulnerable simply because he's not as repugnant of a person as is Hillary, not even close." I would have had trouble understanding how one would have thought this after his comments about Judge Curiel, his comments about the Khans, and his comments about McCain. After what leaked on Friday, which you are obviously aware, how can you possibly say this?
So, you are now conflating two wildly different things. We were discussing the emails. In fact, you explicitly brought up the emails. You are now bringing up issues with caucuses. So let's discuss that issue (which we should keep in mind has nothing to do with DNC emails). Caucuses are very complicated (and frankly terrible as a system) and multiple votes are a standard aspect. For example, in Maine (where I caucused) there were multiple stages between the first count and the actual vote. This is a standard thing, and people who leave early are a standard factor. The other issue that came up was Sanders people failing to go to state conventions even after the local conventions were done, and in fact, in at least some occasions similar issues took place in reverse where they benefited Sanders. See e.g. http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/apr/07/blog-posting/no-bernie-sanders-didnt-retroactively-win-nevada/. Caucus obnoxious rules is not voter fraud, and none of this is relevant to the emails being discussed.
Voter fraud has a specific meaning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_fraud. This is not it. Again, you can be unhappy about it, or even vocally object, but mislabeling this is about as unhelpful as when someone people use words like "assault" and "violence" to describe bullying speech. The problem is the same: if you keep using the more serious words to describe *everything* the end result is people won't take the more serious case as seriously and just won't listen to you. Precision is important not just because it is relevant for one's own thinking but because it is important to getting others to care.