] Thank you for a cool headed post.

Yeah, quite a topic.

I'm not sure about this as a forum for discussing really volatile issues. I don't think theres a problem with memestreams so much as with people's willingness to take a public stand, or abandon a public stand once taken. I probably don't understand how posting and replying really work here. But I do know that people, myself included, often abandon their rationality once they have put forth their opinion publicly. It's the same force in effect that makes people come up with rational explainations for their a-rational acts after the fact. So many times I've seen people, again myself included, defend statements they made way beyond the point where they would if they weren't involved personally. The issue and the person get intermingled too much, and what gets sacrificed is dispassionate debate.

I'm wrong a lot. I have many ideas and opinions and preferences in my head today that I'll disagree with tomorrow. Also many of my thoughts, maybe even most, are only half formed, fuzzy around the edges, hanging in space unsupported by logical argument, or have unexamined implications if extended. A lot are based on faulty or exaggerated data.

One of the reasons I enjoy talking with you so much is you bash me a bit on my ideas and make me reconsider them. That's great! But it's also really challenging.

I don't know if it's just the current conception or not, but most people confuse the ideas in ones head with the person, both in themselves and others. I think it's part of the reason we don't have very good debate on the really touchy issues like race. People are afraid to say what they think because they'll be labeled a Racist. So it's much easier and safer to just say nothing. But that's such a dead end! It seems rare that the ideas are examined separate from the person, without blaming the person for having those ideas and feelings. Have you ever heard a conversation about race begin with "Gee, I'm really afraid of Blacks, can we talk about that?" I haven't. Maybe they do happen, but I haven't been involved in one.

Anyway, one of the things I'm realizing more and more about myself is how unevenly I apply my scepticism filter. I have a bias, it's generally left leaning, and I examine data presented to me differently based on where I think it's coming from. I repeat rumors as fact too often, and exaggerate too often. I also tend to ignore or discount data that contradicts my general world view. I also think this is unfortunately the norm for most people.

But what I'm really interested in is debate that challenges my ideas, helps uncover their roots, and helps me form clearer ones. I'm also interested in more information to help me figure out the wold. I'm willing to get skewered a bit in the process because I value the goal: clearer thinking.

You commented one time on how the archival nature of the web preserves the things we say and do to a greater extent than before. That it's harder to hide or ignore our past. Do you think this makes it harder to move on or grow? Our society certainly has a fetish about unearthing dirt in peoples pasts. And it's often used against them. I feel the combination of these two things, combined with the idea/person intermingling, inhibit me from wanting to engage in a completely open discussion on-line.

One of the things folks love about chat rooms is the anonymity, and the feeling of freedom it gives. But the way we seem to be using this forum is the opposite of that isn't it? I suppose I could just have an alter identity here on memestreams and handle the issue that way, but so far I'm here as myself. Maybe that's the answer. Either that or just stop worrying about it. But if it's a factor for me, it's probably a factor for others and hence something to consider about this as a communication form.

As for SUVs, my reply was intentionally innocuous. Rollbars and bumper heights aren't the real issue in the confict over SUVs. We both know that. The real battle is over the world view SUVs are purported to represent, not the symbol itself. And this is both vague and contested, though broadly it outlines the differences between right and left. Specifically I think what's disagreed about are competing utilitarian views. The left generally thinks that individuals, corporations, and governments need to spend more energy focused on finding group solutions than the right does to achieve the greatest good. While the right generally professes that the greatest good will be brought about by everybody going after what they want. The fear the left have of the rights approach is that the strong will take undue advantage of the weak. And the fear the right have of the left is that they'll oppress individual rights in the name of the common good and enact overarching inefficient control bodies that generally supress our creativity.

Personally, I think both are absolutely correct. But I'm a moderate reactionary by inclination. I don't want to see either side fully implement their tendencies because I think both lead to ruin.

I think a more interesting discussion than the one about SUVs would be one about competing macro-economic models. What is the right way to try and manage the world and national economies? I have no idea! But this is at the heart of the right/left debate. What evidence do we have about fiscal policy effecting growth rates, poverty rates, and all the other key measures. Can we articulate a policy or derive guiding rules based on data and evidence that lead to reproduceable results and actually achieve a higher good? Can we even begin to agree on what that higher good looks like from an economic standpoint? How do we value the environment, and openspace, and species diversity into such a model? I think these are much harder and more interesting questions. If we could answer these maybe we could decide about SUVs, but without some sense of what things should look like and how to get us there the debate about SUVs is just emotional venting based on preference.

RE: WSJ.com - The Scarlet SUV