Thread by @AndersonBooz

1/ The "Open Mind" Fallacy.

Recently a tweep expressed the opinion that I did not have an open mind about a political party. This pronouncement was based on a tweet where I made it clear I could no longer trust a particular politician who had been caught lying. A politician I

2/ had originally defended - and then I was given corroborated evidence that he had lied.

So I no longer trust anything he says. That's not a closed mind - it's recognizing the need for discernment when dealing with someone proven to be dishonest.

Here's an analogy.

#abpoli

3/ I live in an inner city zone that was ravaged by crystal meth. For a period, meth addicts were seen nightly in the alleys doing drugs and exhibiting subsequent behaviours: flailing around, yelling, harming themselves and others.

One addict had been employing the services of a

4/ sex worker in a tent near my house. He smashed my window and attacked me with a knife. He was later prohibited by the courts from contacting me or coming near my property.

If someone asks me to have an "open mind" about him now, I can - but I won't pretend to trust him.

5/ So if I am faced with a politician who has proven to be dishonest, my distrust isn't about not having an open mind. It's about knowing this is someone who is not trustworthy in some situations. Sometimes politics is the drug.

But if someone tells me I should have an "open

6/ mind" about the politician's party - a party whose leader came to power through acts of corruption - they're essentially asking me not to have an open mind about an individual's capacity for change and redemption. They're suggesting I need to have an open mind about the

7/ purveyors of the drug that made the person untrustworthy. They want me to have an open mind about the drug and the pushers.

Only a fool would ignore the longterm evidence of the destructiveness of crystal meth in my neighborhood and suggest opposition to it is close-minded.

8/ And it is knowledge of that harm that made me open to a variety of solutions, such as the safe consumption site in my neighbourhood.

So when faced with a situation of politicians made dishonest through the drug of ideology, I am open minded when it comes to solutions. I was

9/ quite intrigued by the early WRP, and positive about Danielle Smith but over time it became evident they had no answer for the rot that had set in to PCAA. I was positive about Schweitzer running for UCP leadership - until the corruption of that contest unfolded.

I continue

10/ to have cautious optimism about a few - very few - @UCPCaucus members who seem to be serving as government without being overly impaired by the drug of politicking - @Richard4Alberta's work on his ministry, for example.

But having a "open mind" doesn't mean embracing denial

11/ of things that have been proven over time. @Alberta_UCP lost credibility at the outset with the corrupt leadership race. The behaviour of @UCPCaucus has, for the most part, done nothing to invite any change in that impression. The list of abuses in their short rule is long.

12/ So I have an open mind. I listen to Travis Toews. I listen to Rick Wilson.

But those who damage Alberta because their out of control actions are the result of an ideological drug?

Let's not make the mistake of thinking open mindedness means tolerating incompetence and.

13/ corruption.

Not trusting a frequent liar is not close-minded. It's wise.

And we desperately need more wisdom to counteract the "drug" problem making our politics unsafe.

/likely end of rant...

#abpoli #ableg #UCPcorruption

14/ I forgot: there is someone working for the @UCPCaucus who I would equate with the addict who smashed my windows. Personal history. So to complete the analogy I want to point out the perpetrator was caught by a police dog.

Dogs have an innate sense of fairness.