The book Sapiens, by Yuval Noah Harari, provides an exposition about what made homo sapiens different from other animals. While that does not answer the question of what make humans different from machines, it is in that direction. Homo sapiens were once just like other animals until they developed the ability to believe in things that were made up, presumably due to genetic mutations. Now, things that are made up are extremely important like laws, money, borders, and national identity. Fictions are what can unite people at a large scale to take collective action. Animals cannot do that.
The word “sapiens” reminds me of a passage written by Kurt Vonnegut’s fictional writer Kilgore Trout. It goes something like this: There is a planet in the Solar System where the people are so stupid they didn't catch on for a million years that there was another half to their planet. These people call themselves “homo sapiens” which means “wise man.”
There is also the ability to imagine and create things that have no previous existence in mind or in nature. This is non-trivial creativity, which is nothing like imitating a picture or writings. These objects and ideas, are invented, tested, and modified or replaced with improvements/alternatives. These benefit from recognition of both immediate, near term, and long-term problems. Theory of mind and recognition of differing values also allows for deal making.
The belief that HUMAN life with a "soul" is created at the instance of fertilization is just that--a religious belief. I hold the old-fashioned view that the religious beliefs of some should not be embodied in the laws that apply to all. Further, I am no moral philosopher, but it beats me what is moral about imposing your beliefs on others who do not share those beliefs, especially when that imposition is used as a weapon to the detriment of countless women.
I don't see any way to avoid having laws influenced by the beliefs of people. Sometimes those beliefs will be rooted in a religion. That there should be freedom of religion is a belief. So is freedom of speech, and not everyone agrees with that in the broadest sense. Also, religion has played a significant role in laying out rules for how societies should live for thousands of years -- the book of Leviticus for example. While we now of secular governments making laws, our current laws to some extent are a fork of old laws which came from the Church.
What a ridiculous question. Of course I do! While it is an unpleasant thing to do, if our people do not worship the Lord then he will deliver us into bondage. This cycle of sin and eventual redemption occurs several times in the old testament.
I know your answer is satirical. But take something else into consideration. There is a lot of hypocrisy involved. I have heard a lot of debate on the religious side over the years over the issue of self determination. Are we capable of determining things for ourselves? Or has everything already been determined by God and there is nothing we can do about it? If so, that's a depressing thought. It means there's no point in trying to fix bad people that do things like commit mass murders, deal in selling illegal drugs for profit, or other bad things. It means people cannot be fixed because their behavior is established and ordained by God. I would have a pretty low opinion of God if I believed it to be true.
Since I don't believe in a fantasy being in the sky, I think the true believers would be in for a shock when they die, except when you die, it's over, you're gone & that's it.
I have no problem with what you said. But you need to deal with the reality of the vast number of Americans believing in God. Moreover many of them believe in a book they they claim is the word of God, despite being written by humans. But not even all Christians can agree on anything. What's the need for dozens of different sects of Christinaity of they all supposedly believe in the same God and the teachings of a book? Oh, that's right- there are even different versions of the book despite the fact that the teachings all come from the same God. Oh well, I don't claim to understand all that nonsense any more than I'm supposed to understand the mind of God.
The most eloquent proponent of determinism and the impossibility of free will is the hard-core atheist Sam Harris. And, as he and many others have argued well, determinism does not mean that there is no point in fixing bad people, including ourselves. Quite the opposite. People, like all systems, they would say, respond deterministically to their inputs. We need to give them the right inputs to get them to respond less hostilely, more generously, etc.
There is a big difference between beliefs and religious beliefs when it comes to law. Everyone not a sociopath believes that killing humans is wrong (hence the universal legal prohibition on murder). Only a section of a religion (Christianity) believes an embryo is a human. It is casuistry to confuse the two types of belief. The fact that some widely held humanist beliefs are also held by religious groups is irrelevant.
While it’s true that many people’s beliefs are based on their religious dogma, the test of whether legislation or court decisions are promoting the authors’ religious beliefs is the argument that is being made. If the argument is based on references to God or the bible or any other religious teachings, it’s promoting religion as a basis of our laws. If it’s based solely on the Constitution or the precepts of natural law from which our rights emanate, then it is not promoting religion even if the ethical precepts are the same.
Hey Michael - I just want to piggyback onto the very valid point that Skeptic has already made - that many if not the great majority of our laws arise out of people's moral views, and for many people, these come directly from their religious beliefs.
There are laws that seem to flow very naturally from a Creator such as, Thou shalt not kill, resulting in a law against killing other people. (Thomas Aquinas expounded on Natural Law in his Treatise on Law, stating "The light of reason is placed by nature, and thus by God, in every man to guide him in his acts."
Further, the belief that one person cannot be the property of another person is a relatively recently developed moral belief, as the institution of slavery has existed in virtually every society in history until just the past couple hundred years. Opposition to slavery in the US and England rose predominantly out of people's religious beliefs and morals.
So lawmaking does arise out of a consensus of moral beliefs, with many people's moral beliefs being informed by their religious beliefs.
The fact that moralities may or may not have a faith based origin is, to me, not evidence of anything other than that there are generally understood natural laws (probably arising from evolution) against murder, theft, rape, etc., that some ascribe to the diktats of a Supreme extra-natural being. The idea that morality stems only from religion is (a) pernicious and (b) on its face absurd since there are many religions, splinters and sects within religions, etc. My devoutly Catholic mother thought that going to the cinema on Sundays was immoral. OK. I doubt she would have supported legislation that proscribed it. Cannot we leave it at a Venn diagram in which natural law and religious proscriptions overlap?
Hi Michael - Just for clarification, I did not espouse or believe that morality stems only from religion, but simply that a lot of it is rooted in people's religious beliefs. And I like your construct of a Venn diagram in which natural and religious beliefs overlap - good one!
There is a circular quality to citing consensus moral beliefs rooted in religious beliefs, suggesting that religious "truths" are not eternal but simply common held views/wishes of people. Which I believe, by the way. It's certanly striking how God or the gods throughout history have favored and validated the views of the people in that culture who believe in them. The bland acceptance of slavery in the Bible is VERY telling. The fact that the commandments don't prohibit owning human beings while coming down hard on graven imagery tells me all I need know about the morality of those who give such credit to that book.
"The bland acceptance of slavery in the Bible is VERY telling."
Indeed. When people go on about how God said marriage is between one man and one woman, I wonder if they've noticed how many of the patriarchs engaged in polygamy and concubinage, not to mention adultery and incest.
I’m having trouble fathoming the moral (vs practical) basis for the law that says we should stop at a red light. Or not kill people, in the hope that we and ours won’t get killed. I don’t believe most of our laws have or should have a moral or (especially) religious basis. They should help society to function as smoothly as possible.
I agree that it's a very bad idea for legal systems to legislate morality. There are plenty of immoral things that would be terrible to outlaw.
I can't agree that the basis for laws is to help society function as smoothly as possible. That gets you "The Republic" where people are slotted into classes, careers, and even families in the name of the smooth-functioning Republic.
Hey Rick - If we think about it, people probably stop at a red light for two reasons. One is instrumental compliance arising out of a fear of consequences for doing so, both legally and pragmatically.
But I believe for many, if not most people there is another dimension, in that they believe that stopping at a red light is the right thing to do, out of consideration for others in the form of pedestrians and motorists. And for many people who have faith beliefs, the "right thing to do" arises out of those beliefs. I strive to always do the right thing regardless of any legal obligation to do so, although I confess I all too often fall short.
Rick and David - have you driven in Baltimore? You will see a new interpretation of red lights. I’m seeing this more now on the west side of Chicago, too.
Hey Pete - My years driving the roads in Chicagoland left me struck by the incredibly high number of people who drive recklessly fast and with an apparent total lack of consideration for others. Upon first arriving a couple decades ago, I was mystified how few people seem to understand how to use the turn signal lever on their steering column when changing lanes. I quickly learned the reason for this - that if you do signal your intention to change lanes, the trailing car in that lane would quite often accelerate to close the gap to prevent you from doing so. Same thing with coming to a complete stop at a stop sign or on a turn on red, it's most always a rolling stop. And when two lanes merge into one, there is an endless parade of drivers accelerating past the merging area in an attempt to bypass as many drivers as possible in the merged lane to simply jump in front of someone at the very last moment.
My wife out of her Masters degrees developed a theory that this is frustration behavior arising out of congestion along with the anonymity of being in a car. She likened it to a maze where the more rats that were dropped into the same enclosed area, the more aggressive they get with each other. Not a flattering analogy, but perhaps an accurate one.
There is a diametrically opposite vibe on the roadways where we presently live. We smile at people always waving for each other to go first, generally slowing when you signal a lane change and very considerate in every other way! It is much less congested here than in most of Chicagoland and I'm not certain if that is the total reason for this stark difference in driving behavior, but we thoroughly enjoy it for whatever reason!
I filled in your survey and confirmed that I am old and have very liberal views, supportng the darkest suspicions of your "conservative" reader(s). It is obscure to me what the point is. Mr Zorn is not about to use the data to make money (like the Big Tech sharks). I doubt he will change his views to pander to the majority of his readers. Also, if the reader(s) derive no pleasure from reading the comments, perhaps they should not read them and/or subscribe to Kass's newsletter, if the Indiana Troll issues one.
Comment DO have an edit feature. See those three dots off to the lower right of your comment? Click on them and you'll get a drop-down menu that allows you to edit or delete your comment.
Your comment, Michael, made me think about the fact that the results of the survey will just show how each of us categorizes our political views, rather than how some objective third party would categorize them. I rated myself as “moderately liberal,” rather than “very liberal,” based on the fact that I think our current President is doing a really good job, and I don’t blame him for what is happening in Gaza or refer to him as “Genocide Joe” as some folks do, who, I guess, would be categorized as more “liberal” or “left” than I. I do suppose that the person who requested the survey would tend to categorize me as “very liberal” or “insanely liberal” or “crazily woke” since I don’t hate immigrants, transgender people, women who wish to control their own bodies, or people of color, and I don’t want to go back to the American culture of the 1950s.
I put very liberal, but I also support President Biden, think he is a decent, humane man, and think that it is unrealistic and frankly stupid not to vote for such a person (even if his opponent were a sane Republican) because I differ from him on a few important points. As it is, his opponent is an unhinged monster who is a danger to US and world-wide democracy, who is a danger to world peace, and who will make the looming climate catastrophe even harder to avoid.
I would classify Joe Biden as "moderately liberal" - the hard right has so propagandized him (and the entire "Democrat" party) as being wild-eyed communists and socialists who are out to "destroy 'Murica". The Left-Right political "spectrum" has been so far shifted rightward over the past 20 -30 years, that many of today's Dems would have been labeled as "centrist-right" 30 to 40 years ago.
gotta take issue with your assessment/classification of Joe Biden as 'moderately liberal'. Joe B is the most liberal Prez since FDR - maybe more liberal then FDR. i would definitely classify Joe B as 'very liberal'.
wow, Michael, you are one edgy 'very liberal'. i am old, and i am libertarian. i enjoy reading the comments to the PS, even tho i don't enjoy reading all the comments. i disagree with many of them.
cheap shot to tell your disagreeing subscriber counterparts to go read/support kass if they disagree with or dislike some of the comments to the PS. despite what is likely the overwhelming liberal/very liberal composition of the PS readership, i consider it good and enjoyable mental exercise to read a variety of opinions - incl'g yours - and avoid living in an echo chamber.
Your link to your reader survey is, after two responses below of 15 minutes or so ago, now “page not found.” Glitch on my side or some grand conspiracy?
I did the survey, but could not answer the question "What brought you to the Picayune Sentinel? " There was no "It's been so long I don't remember" option!
My recollection is that I got an email from Eric Zorn announcing the launch of the PS. I chose "it showed up in my inbox" since that is the closest fit.
Can't go back for a do over once submitted. I live elsewhere in IL but born and raised up there til college so interested in my hometown. Am not always feeling like my mind is not as fine as many more learned here, or, maybe my tolerance for "argle bargle" is low, I sometimes scroll comments. It's been such a ride with Tommy Skillings last week, now day! I had the extreme honor of meeting him at a "Song's of Good Cheer" years ago. I patiently waited out the crowd of adoring fans. Finally asking him if he would say something for me. He had a brief pause but then sure, "Crespuscular rays". "Oh my!! he repeated it and said, "it's like the parting of the Red Sea!!!. The world is his oyster now (hmmmm oysters!) As it was once famously said, and now in my vernacular, "Let it rip!"
As I’ve said many times: Back in the early days of chicagotribune.com—when some of the biggest stars at the Tribune, WGN-TV and WGN Radio (Eric Zorn excepted!) couldn’t give the web team the time of day—Tom Skilling was always game to play. Thank you, Tom!
"God is what you might call the ultimate pro-choicer. He is, after all, the One Who thought it would be a good idea to give us choice in the first place. He literally created human choice by giving us free will."
that was written in the comments of Change of Subject back in the day, I forgot to track who said it.
Any reader of the Bible will find that God has no problem bumping off large numbers of fully grown humans. The "every sperm is sacred" dogma is pretty much a creation of late antiquity Christianity.
I believe the survey was requested by a reader who just wanted to confirm he is surrounded by senior left wing wing nuts. Since my neighbor flies a Trump flag, I like being surrounded by left wing wing nuts.
Many years ago, I am sitting on a gun mount watching our ship test a sparrow missile. Boom, off it went and then IT TURNED AROUND and headed back at the ship! Was this missile made by Acme and I am the Coyote?
Well, we destroyed the missile before it hit the ship.
The missile system was frankly run by a baby AI system. Now we have bigger and better AI weapons systems where decisions are made in nano seconds.
I am concerned about AI in the creative world, but I am petrified as AI takes on near complete control over powerful weapons systems throughout the world.
Caitlin Collins is a fantastic basketball player and I enjoy watching her play. Forget the NBA. She would have a tough time playing for some men’s college teams.
Even ignoring gender, anyone at only 6-0, 150 lbs who isn't 99th percentile in running, jumping or dribbling is gonna have an extremely difficult time playing against high level basketball players.
I agree. Our gender based bodies differ and worry about her getting an injury effecting her the rest of her career or ending it! Hey kiddo-ya got another year of college and plenty of dough along the way. Enjoy the ride!
Why does David L. need to know how the patronage of this forum skews? What difference does it make? I've never seen anyone banned or discouraged depending on their poltical identity. Is he spying for someone. Is there some point? I am not going to answer any poll on this. It's irrelevant. If it seems to skew left and older to him, he's entitled to his view. But what difference does it make? Who has either been banned or censored for being on either side? The forum itself is neither left nor right. The forum is not a human person. Each individual member is whatever they think they are.
Hey Wendy - to the contrary, I have always found a diversity of views as intellectually stimulating and enjoyable. When others challenge my views, that forces me to think things through outside any thought bubble or silo to see if there is new information I need to consider. And I also enjoy respectfully presenting alternative views to others for their consideration. No martyrdom involved here, simply enjoying exchanges with others.
congratulations, David - you've stirred up a couple of the liberals [moderately? very?]. and congrats on your martydom.
like you i enjoy i enjoy reading a variety of opinions - keeps my mind limber, and arm's-length from the echo chamber of some of the podcasts i listen too.
what's wrong with asking for a survey? EZ could have ignored the suggestion; or responded with something like: no, no point.
as to 'why have this poll?' i would reply: why have a poll on whether caitlan collins could play in the NBA? why have a poll on what age we consider senior citizenship begins? why have polls on on the tweets of the week?
The book Sapiens, by Yuval Noah Harari, provides an exposition about what made homo sapiens different from other animals. While that does not answer the question of what make humans different from machines, it is in that direction. Homo sapiens were once just like other animals until they developed the ability to believe in things that were made up, presumably due to genetic mutations. Now, things that are made up are extremely important like laws, money, borders, and national identity. Fictions are what can unite people at a large scale to take collective action. Animals cannot do that.
The word “sapiens” reminds me of a passage written by Kurt Vonnegut’s fictional writer Kilgore Trout. It goes something like this: There is a planet in the Solar System where the people are so stupid they didn't catch on for a million years that there was another half to their planet. These people call themselves “homo sapiens” which means “wise man.”
There is also the ability to imagine and create things that have no previous existence in mind or in nature. This is non-trivial creativity, which is nothing like imitating a picture or writings. These objects and ideas, are invented, tested, and modified or replaced with improvements/alternatives. These benefit from recognition of both immediate, near term, and long-term problems. Theory of mind and recognition of differing values also allows for deal making.
The belief that HUMAN life with a "soul" is created at the instance of fertilization is just that--a religious belief. I hold the old-fashioned view that the religious beliefs of some should not be embodied in the laws that apply to all. Further, I am no moral philosopher, but it beats me what is moral about imposing your beliefs on others who do not share those beliefs, especially when that imposition is used as a weapon to the detriment of countless women.
I don't see any way to avoid having laws influenced by the beliefs of people. Sometimes those beliefs will be rooted in a religion. That there should be freedom of religion is a belief. So is freedom of speech, and not everyone agrees with that in the broadest sense. Also, religion has played a significant role in laying out rules for how societies should live for thousands of years -- the book of Leviticus for example. While we now of secular governments making laws, our current laws to some extent are a fork of old laws which came from the Church.
Leviticus says to kill your neighbor if he works on the Sabbath. Do you actually want that obscenity enforced?
What a ridiculous question. Of course I do! While it is an unpleasant thing to do, if our people do not worship the Lord then he will deliver us into bondage. This cycle of sin and eventual redemption occurs several times in the old testament.
I know your answer is satirical. But take something else into consideration. There is a lot of hypocrisy involved. I have heard a lot of debate on the religious side over the years over the issue of self determination. Are we capable of determining things for ourselves? Or has everything already been determined by God and there is nothing we can do about it? If so, that's a depressing thought. It means there's no point in trying to fix bad people that do things like commit mass murders, deal in selling illegal drugs for profit, or other bad things. It means people cannot be fixed because their behavior is established and ordained by God. I would have a pretty low opinion of God if I believed it to be true.
Since I don't believe in a fantasy being in the sky, I think the true believers would be in for a shock when they die, except when you die, it's over, you're gone & that's it.
I have no problem with what you said. But you need to deal with the reality of the vast number of Americans believing in God. Moreover many of them believe in a book they they claim is the word of God, despite being written by humans. But not even all Christians can agree on anything. What's the need for dozens of different sects of Christinaity of they all supposedly believe in the same God and the teachings of a book? Oh, that's right- there are even different versions of the book despite the fact that the teachings all come from the same God. Oh well, I don't claim to understand all that nonsense any more than I'm supposed to understand the mind of God.
The most eloquent proponent of determinism and the impossibility of free will is the hard-core atheist Sam Harris. And, as he and many others have argued well, determinism does not mean that there is no point in fixing bad people, including ourselves. Quite the opposite. People, like all systems, they would say, respond deterministically to their inputs. We need to give them the right inputs to get them to respond less hostilely, more generously, etc.
There is a big difference between beliefs and religious beliefs when it comes to law. Everyone not a sociopath believes that killing humans is wrong (hence the universal legal prohibition on murder). Only a section of a religion (Christianity) believes an embryo is a human. It is casuistry to confuse the two types of belief. The fact that some widely held humanist beliefs are also held by religious groups is irrelevant.
While it’s true that many people’s beliefs are based on their religious dogma, the test of whether legislation or court decisions are promoting the authors’ religious beliefs is the argument that is being made. If the argument is based on references to God or the bible or any other religious teachings, it’s promoting religion as a basis of our laws. If it’s based solely on the Constitution or the precepts of natural law from which our rights emanate, then it is not promoting religion even if the ethical precepts are the same.
Hey Michael - I just want to piggyback onto the very valid point that Skeptic has already made - that many if not the great majority of our laws arise out of people's moral views, and for many people, these come directly from their religious beliefs.
There are laws that seem to flow very naturally from a Creator such as, Thou shalt not kill, resulting in a law against killing other people. (Thomas Aquinas expounded on Natural Law in his Treatise on Law, stating "The light of reason is placed by nature, and thus by God, in every man to guide him in his acts."
Further, the belief that one person cannot be the property of another person is a relatively recently developed moral belief, as the institution of slavery has existed in virtually every society in history until just the past couple hundred years. Opposition to slavery in the US and England rose predominantly out of people's religious beliefs and morals.
So lawmaking does arise out of a consensus of moral beliefs, with many people's moral beliefs being informed by their religious beliefs.
The fact that moralities may or may not have a faith based origin is, to me, not evidence of anything other than that there are generally understood natural laws (probably arising from evolution) against murder, theft, rape, etc., that some ascribe to the diktats of a Supreme extra-natural being. The idea that morality stems only from religion is (a) pernicious and (b) on its face absurd since there are many religions, splinters and sects within religions, etc. My devoutly Catholic mother thought that going to the cinema on Sundays was immoral. OK. I doubt she would have supported legislation that proscribed it. Cannot we leave it at a Venn diagram in which natural law and religious proscriptions overlap?
Hi Michael - Just for clarification, I did not espouse or believe that morality stems only from religion, but simply that a lot of it is rooted in people's religious beliefs. And I like your construct of a Venn diagram in which natural and religious beliefs overlap - good one!
The original Hebrew is "Thou shall not murder", which is different than killing.
There is a circular quality to citing consensus moral beliefs rooted in religious beliefs, suggesting that religious "truths" are not eternal but simply common held views/wishes of people. Which I believe, by the way. It's certanly striking how God or the gods throughout history have favored and validated the views of the people in that culture who believe in them. The bland acceptance of slavery in the Bible is VERY telling. The fact that the commandments don't prohibit owning human beings while coming down hard on graven imagery tells me all I need know about the morality of those who give such credit to that book.
"The bland acceptance of slavery in the Bible is VERY telling."
Indeed. When people go on about how God said marriage is between one man and one woman, I wonder if they've noticed how many of the patriarchs engaged in polygamy and concubinage, not to mention adultery and incest.
I’m having trouble fathoming the moral (vs practical) basis for the law that says we should stop at a red light. Or not kill people, in the hope that we and ours won’t get killed. I don’t believe most of our laws have or should have a moral or (especially) religious basis. They should help society to function as smoothly as possible.
I agree that it's a very bad idea for legal systems to legislate morality. There are plenty of immoral things that would be terrible to outlaw.
I can't agree that the basis for laws is to help society function as smoothly as possible. That gets you "The Republic" where people are slotted into classes, careers, and even families in the name of the smooth-functioning Republic.
How about "smoothly" rather than "smoothly as possible". I didn't mean mathematical optimization, just doing the best we can.
And while I think about it, wondering about the moral basis of tax laws.
Hey Rick - If we think about it, people probably stop at a red light for two reasons. One is instrumental compliance arising out of a fear of consequences for doing so, both legally and pragmatically.
But I believe for many, if not most people there is another dimension, in that they believe that stopping at a red light is the right thing to do, out of consideration for others in the form of pedestrians and motorists. And for many people who have faith beliefs, the "right thing to do" arises out of those beliefs. I strive to always do the right thing regardless of any legal obligation to do so, although I confess I all too often fall short.
Rick and David - have you driven in Baltimore? You will see a new interpretation of red lights. I’m seeing this more now on the west side of Chicago, too.
Hey Pete - My years driving the roads in Chicagoland left me struck by the incredibly high number of people who drive recklessly fast and with an apparent total lack of consideration for others. Upon first arriving a couple decades ago, I was mystified how few people seem to understand how to use the turn signal lever on their steering column when changing lanes. I quickly learned the reason for this - that if you do signal your intention to change lanes, the trailing car in that lane would quite often accelerate to close the gap to prevent you from doing so. Same thing with coming to a complete stop at a stop sign or on a turn on red, it's most always a rolling stop. And when two lanes merge into one, there is an endless parade of drivers accelerating past the merging area in an attempt to bypass as many drivers as possible in the merged lane to simply jump in front of someone at the very last moment.
My wife out of her Masters degrees developed a theory that this is frustration behavior arising out of congestion along with the anonymity of being in a car. She likened it to a maze where the more rats that were dropped into the same enclosed area, the more aggressive they get with each other. Not a flattering analogy, but perhaps an accurate one.
There is a diametrically opposite vibe on the roadways where we presently live. We smile at people always waving for each other to go first, generally slowing when you signal a lane change and very considerate in every other way! It is much less congested here than in most of Chicagoland and I'm not certain if that is the total reason for this stark difference in driving behavior, but we thoroughly enjoy it for whatever reason!
I filled in your survey and confirmed that I am old and have very liberal views, supportng the darkest suspicions of your "conservative" reader(s). It is obscure to me what the point is. Mr Zorn is not about to use the data to make money (like the Big Tech sharks). I doubt he will change his views to pander to the majority of his readers. Also, if the reader(s) derive no pleasure from reading the comments, perhaps they should not read them and/or subscribe to Kass's newsletter, if the Indiana Troll issues one.
Comment now edited
Comment DO have an edit feature. See those three dots off to the lower right of your comment? Click on them and you'll get a drop-down menu that allows you to edit or delete your comment.
When I touch the three dots, it allows me to delete my comment, but not to edit it.
available only on the browser interface, not iPhone.
I saw no dots even in browser
Your comment, Michael, made me think about the fact that the results of the survey will just show how each of us categorizes our political views, rather than how some objective third party would categorize them. I rated myself as “moderately liberal,” rather than “very liberal,” based on the fact that I think our current President is doing a really good job, and I don’t blame him for what is happening in Gaza or refer to him as “Genocide Joe” as some folks do, who, I guess, would be categorized as more “liberal” or “left” than I. I do suppose that the person who requested the survey would tend to categorize me as “very liberal” or “insanely liberal” or “crazily woke” since I don’t hate immigrants, transgender people, women who wish to control their own bodies, or people of color, and I don’t want to go back to the American culture of the 1950s.
I put very liberal, but I also support President Biden, think he is a decent, humane man, and think that it is unrealistic and frankly stupid not to vote for such a person (even if his opponent were a sane Republican) because I differ from him on a few important points. As it is, his opponent is an unhinged monster who is a danger to US and world-wide democracy, who is a danger to world peace, and who will make the looming climate catastrophe even harder to avoid.
I would classify Joe Biden as "moderately liberal" - the hard right has so propagandized him (and the entire "Democrat" party) as being wild-eyed communists and socialists who are out to "destroy 'Murica". The Left-Right political "spectrum" has been so far shifted rightward over the past 20 -30 years, that many of today's Dems would have been labeled as "centrist-right" 30 to 40 years ago.
gotta take issue with your assessment/classification of Joe Biden as 'moderately liberal'. Joe B is the most liberal Prez since FDR - maybe more liberal then FDR. i would definitely classify Joe B as 'very liberal'.
one source to support my contention: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/why-is-joe-tP8eB4exQjui.U39rnQ5cg
wow, Michael, you are one edgy 'very liberal'. i am old, and i am libertarian. i enjoy reading the comments to the PS, even tho i don't enjoy reading all the comments. i disagree with many of them.
cheap shot to tell your disagreeing subscriber counterparts to go read/support kass if they disagree with or dislike some of the comments to the PS. despite what is likely the overwhelming liberal/very liberal composition of the PS readership, i consider it good and enjoyable mental exercise to read a variety of opinions - incl'g yours - and avoid living in an echo chamber.
Your link to your reader survey is, after two responses below of 15 minutes or so ago, now “page not found.” Glitch on my side or some grand conspiracy?
The link in the email didn't work, but the link here on the Substack page did work.
https://chicagotribune.survey.fm/picayune-sentinel-readership-survey. will work and I had to update one of the links.
I laughed out loud upon seeing those two words senior citizen. Did we ever agree upon what age deems you one? Either way, well played David L.
I did the survey, but could not answer the question "What brought you to the Picayune Sentinel? " There was no "It's been so long I don't remember" option!
I had the same problem, so I guessed it was social media but I really have no idea.
My recollection is that I got an email from Eric Zorn announcing the launch of the PS. I chose "it showed up in my inbox" since that is the closest fit.
indeed
Your subscriber survey link does not work
https://chicagotribune.survey.fm/picayune-sentinel-readership-survey. Sorry. Late night editing glitch
Can't go back for a do over once submitted. I live elsewhere in IL but born and raised up there til college so interested in my hometown. Am not always feeling like my mind is not as fine as many more learned here, or, maybe my tolerance for "argle bargle" is low, I sometimes scroll comments. It's been such a ride with Tommy Skillings last week, now day! I had the extreme honor of meeting him at a "Song's of Good Cheer" years ago. I patiently waited out the crowd of adoring fans. Finally asking him if he would say something for me. He had a brief pause but then sure, "Crespuscular rays". "Oh my!! he repeated it and said, "it's like the parting of the Red Sea!!!. The world is his oyster now (hmmmm oysters!) As it was once famously said, and now in my vernacular, "Let it rip!"
As I’ve said many times: Back in the early days of chicagotribune.com—when some of the biggest stars at the Tribune, WGN-TV and WGN Radio (Eric Zorn excepted!) couldn’t give the web team the time of day—Tom Skilling was always game to play. Thank you, Tom!
I tried your link on demographics and it popped an error message. Page cannot be found
https://chicagotribune.survey.fm/picayune-sentinel-readership-survey. Sorry. Late night editing glitch
"God is what you might call the ultimate pro-choicer. He is, after all, the One Who thought it would be a good idea to give us choice in the first place. He literally created human choice by giving us free will."
that was written in the comments of Change of Subject back in the day, I forgot to track who said it.
Any reader of the Bible will find that God has no problem bumping off large numbers of fully grown humans. The "every sperm is sacred" dogma is pretty much a creation of late antiquity Christianity.
My office still uses interdepartmental mail
Yes! Those of us who have worked in the office environment had to laugh out loud at that because it is truly rooted square in reality!
Took the survey, very low key. Do we need a wacko question or two to help locate where we are as a group?
For example, the 2020 election was stolen by Joe Biden, yes or no?
We need to leave NATO yes or no?
The issue at the border is a humanitarian crisis not an invasion, agree or disagree?
What do you think?
I believe the survey was requested by a reader who just wanted to confirm he is surrounded by senior left wing wing nuts. Since my neighbor flies a Trump flag, I like being surrounded by left wing wing nuts.
Many years ago, I am sitting on a gun mount watching our ship test a sparrow missile. Boom, off it went and then IT TURNED AROUND and headed back at the ship! Was this missile made by Acme and I am the Coyote?
Well, we destroyed the missile before it hit the ship.
The missile system was frankly run by a baby AI system. Now we have bigger and better AI weapons systems where decisions are made in nano seconds.
I am concerned about AI in the creative world, but I am petrified as AI takes on near complete control over powerful weapons systems throughout the world.
Caitlin Collins is a fantastic basketball player and I enjoy watching her play. Forget the NBA. She would have a tough time playing for some men’s college teams.
Even ignoring gender, anyone at only 6-0, 150 lbs who isn't 99th percentile in running, jumping or dribbling is gonna have an extremely difficult time playing against high level basketball players.
I agree. Our gender based bodies differ and worry about her getting an injury effecting her the rest of her career or ending it! Hey kiddo-ya got another year of college and plenty of dough along the way. Enjoy the ride!
Who is Caitlin Collins?
Why does David L. need to know how the patronage of this forum skews? What difference does it make? I've never seen anyone banned or discouraged depending on their poltical identity. Is he spying for someone. Is there some point? I am not going to answer any poll on this. It's irrelevant. If it seems to skew left and older to him, he's entitled to his view. But what difference does it make? Who has either been banned or censored for being on either side? The forum itself is neither left nor right. The forum is not a human person. Each individual member is whatever they think they are.
I believe David L. needs this survey to justify his martyrdom from the exposure to multiple liberals.
Hey Wendy - to the contrary, I have always found a diversity of views as intellectually stimulating and enjoyable. When others challenge my views, that forces me to think things through outside any thought bubble or silo to see if there is new information I need to consider. And I also enjoy respectfully presenting alternative views to others for their consideration. No martyrdom involved here, simply enjoying exchanges with others.
(But Laurence fears I am "spying for someone"???)
congratulations, David - you've stirred up a couple of the liberals [moderately? very?]. and congrats on your martydom.
like you i enjoy i enjoy reading a variety of opinions - keeps my mind limber, and arm's-length from the echo chamber of some of the podcasts i listen too.
what's wrong with asking for a survey? EZ could have ignored the suggestion; or responded with something like: no, no point.
as to 'why have this poll?' i would reply: why have a poll on whether caitlan collins could play in the NBA? why have a poll on what age we consider senior citizenship begins? why have polls on on the tweets of the week?
cuz they're interesting - and often fun.
Who is Caitlan Collins?
Is passionated a word? I understand what you are trying to convey, but I think using made up words detracts from your point.