Talk:Rationalization

Long quote of Obama
Can someone explain to me how the long quote of Obama at the beginning of Rationalization is related to or, as it is explained on RW, to "making excuses, or post hoc explanations, for some action or for holding onto some cherished belief regardless of evidence" ?

Can't we find a shorter and better example? -Lankaster (talk) 10:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Most people understand, or should understand. James Earl Cash (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The whole article is badly written. Plausible arguments, or assertions that might be true, allowed in legal argumentation are also rationalizations. The false statements about Obama are just lies. These belong in neither of the two categories. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally I think that the long quote of Obama has nothing to do with rationalization because it's missing the part about "making excuses or post hoc explanations". I don't see any reason why such a long quote mentioning Hillary Clinton, birtherism, climate change denialism, FEMA, Donald Trump... and making generalizations about Republicans should be the first thing one encounters reading the page Rationalization. I added the short story of "The Fox and the grapes" which is a classic example of rationalization (the fox wanted the grapes, she can't get it, she rationalize saying that the grapes are not half ripes enough).


 * If enough consensus is reach, I would remove the quote of Obama. Do you agree on that Ariel31459? -Lankaster (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You two fellas reaching a circle jerk isn't what I call "consensus." Find other people, because you two clowns are not smart or talented enough to decide where an article should lead. James Earl Cash (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The quote is giving an example of how rationalization works. Rationalization happens when someone tries to make an excuse for doing something they know is wrong, the quote talks about how the GOP justifies making up lies for their base. It's clearly relevant, and I'm shocked that this is in question. Personally, I'd keep the quote, but I'd trim off the stuff at the end about Trump, since that's not the part of the quote that's important in this instance. 20:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "the quote talks about how the GOP justifies making up lies for their base" Where, exactly, does the quote tell a justification given by the GOP? The quote says three things about Republicans and far-right media outlets: they pumped up crazy stuff, they did that to help rile up the base, they're all walking away. This is not rationalization.
 * "I'm shocked that this is in question." Actually, also doesn't see what the quote have to do with rationalization. -Lankaster (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This part of the quote (some parts cut for brevity/clarity): "There are a lot of politicians who knew better. ... But they went along with these stories because they figured, you know what, ... it will give us a political advantage." In other words, what they're doing is wrong, they know it's wrong, and they came up with an excuse to justify doing it anyway. Rationalization, muthafucka. 03:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "they came up with an excuse to justify doing it" The quote does not say that they come up with an excuse. If the quote contained an elaborate and seemingly logical excuse given by Republicans and others to justify their support for crazy stuff, then I would agree that it would be an example of rationalization. But the quote just says that Republicans and others lied to get political power, and that's not rationalization, that's just lying. -Lankaster (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems to be conflating lies and propaganda with rationaliztion. Republicans may rationalize to themselves that telling lies about Obama is OK. But if they are liars themselves the pretense of rationalization vanishes. If they believe the lies, then it is also not so much a rationalization as a mistake. Yes, it could be an example of rationalization, it is just not a really good example because of its complexity.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "If they believe the lies themselves?" The first part of the quote is about how the GOP's leaders know better! They know that they are telling lies to their base and they are justifying doing it anyways. The only way a quote would be clearer is if I copy-pasted Webster's definition. I am past shocked and am now somewhat concerned that you two aren't getting this. 17:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't be alarmed, but you must be using an old edition..."to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable," --Merriam-Webster, 2018. This is clearly distinguishable from telling lies about a subject. This is a discussion about the suitability of a quote as an example. In my view, the things the republicans said about Obama did not seem reasonable. That's all. I don't actually care all that much. A better question is why does it bother you?Ariel31459 (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a textbook definition of rationalization. The GOP tried to make their idiotic nonsense about Obama seem reasonable, when anyone from the outside can see that is hardly the case. You two who are naysaying a quote that has relevance which is clear as day are the worst. James Earl Cash (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you tell what you think is the difference between "rationalization" and "telling lies"? Because it seems that you think that they are equal. -Lankaster (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Uh, mang, people only need to look at your fox and sour grapes example to see where the lying to oneself part comes in. Come on. I know you're chronically dishonest, but this is a new low. James Earl Cash (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * People who disagree with James are dishonest? How about using the above comment for an example of a rationalization? Sounds good and he really means it.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Stick to the discussion at hand please. I'm not interested in your games. James Earl Cash (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks are irrelevant and yet you seem incapable of avoiding them. If you are wondering, I have a very high opinion of Obama. This should be a straightforward technical discussion. Under the definitions of this article almost any argument can be construed as a rationalization.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You like Obama? Cool. Stop fucking around and stick to the discussion at hand. James Earl Cash (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You are so commanding James. Are you a sock of ikanreed? Certainly if you regard the R's claims about O as an effort to make their opposition seem reasonable, then it is clearly a rationalization. My problem is it is a poor quality example of rationalization in the sense that their arguments were somewhat effective tools of politics, and not pure rationalizations meant to explain their behavior. They were not explaining anything, they were using lies to get a political result. Now the voters may have rationalized about it. So, the example needs a fair amount of explanation. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, see DuceMooselini's explanation above. James Earl Cash (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, reread my explanation above as you clearly did not get it, ikanreed?Ariel31459 (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "They were not explaining anything..." and even if they were, this is not said in the quote. So the quote is not an example of rationalization. -Lankaster (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You know that accusations of sockpuppetry are frowned upon here. I should know. REALLY hate to do this (again), but, Ariel's being both stubborn and since he can't back up his arguments, is now showing his true colors as is his wont to do so. I don't like whinging to the brass, but if it's the only way to get you to behave with some sense of decorum for at least once on this site, then so be it.
 * And uh, yeah, sure's it's an explanation of rationalization. It's about as evident as your fox and sour grapes example. James Earl Cash (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What is this "true colors" thing you keep on about? My comments have been oriented around the notion of explicating the Obama quote, not removing it. Why is that a problem? The less said the better? That seems quite un-wiki-like! I can't just make large changes to the article without discussing it. You want me to stop discussing it? Fuck's wrong with you? Also, I didn't accuse you of being ikanreed, I asked you if you were ikanreed, twice. Both times you did not answer. Be assured, I don't need to know the answer.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If anyone sees fit to give this guy anything resembling slap on the wrist after this episode, then...wow. Just wow. James Earl Cash (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you two dunderheads stop getting hung up on the lies part? Let's go to fucking Oxford Dictionary: "The action of attempting to explain or justify behaviour or an attitude with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate." It's not about the fucking GOP lies. It's about the fact that the people who knew better justified telling the lies by saying it'll help them get the edge over the Democrats. That is the rationalization. Please tell me you see it now? Please? 00:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw it immediately, hence why I've been silent and looked upon this whole thread with something resembling annoyance. This is a non-issue, next topic please. 00:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Would you two dunderheads" Would you avoid insults? And it's not only about me and Ariel, also doesn't see what the quote have to do with rationalization.
 * "It's about the fact that the people who knew better justified telling the lies by saying it'll help them get the edge over the Democrats. That is the rationalization." The quote does not say that Republicans and others justified telling lies, it says that they "stood by and said nothing", which is not rationalization. If you think I'm wrong, then give me the exact sentence of the quote where it is said that Republicans and others "justified" (or some synonymous) something. -Lankaster (talk) 08:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You have got to be fucking with me. Look at this: "But they went along with these stories because they figured, you know what, this will help rile up the base, it will give us an excuse to obstruct what [they're] trying to do, we won't be able to appoint judges, we'll gum up the works, we'll create gridlock, it will give us a political advantage." You did read that part, yes? That's where the GOP politicians who know better go along with the lies because it'll help them get an edge up. I have no clue how to make that clearer. 17:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

"You have got to be fucking with me." Sorry, but I'm the one who should say so:

1) You said: "It's about the fact that the people who knew better justified telling the lies"

2) I replied "give me the exact sentence of the quote where it is said that Republicans and others "justified" (or some synonymous) something."

3) You provided me the sentence: "But they went along with these stories because they figured, you know what, this will help rile up the base, it will give us an excuse to obstruct what [they're] trying to do, we won't be able to appoint judges, we'll gum up the works, we'll create gridlock, it will give us a political advantage." and in that sentence there is nothing which means "to justify". -Lankaster (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Let's not go fucking crazy here. This is not supposed to be a competition. We are not on two teams. This much is clear to anyone who cares to study the quote: President Obama is rationalizing about the Republican's rationalizations about him. It is a compound example. As such it could use some explanation. Why is that a problem for anyone? Ariel31459 (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "This is not supposed to be a competition." I agree, it's suppose to be a constructive dialogue. But apparently someone leaves when he isn't able to answer a very clear and precise question, so what to do? A terrible non-example of rationalization has to stay on the page, and nobody wants to improve the article. -Lankaster (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not the most illustrative quote
I mean, there are clearer examples of rationalization that would communicate better. A sample size of 2 annoying abject asshats is not great, but it's apparent that the context of the quote isn't clear enough to convey how rationalization works. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The quotes are too many and too long. I also do not think the Obama one conveys rationalization. I don't know, maybe the justifications for the Iraq War are a better example.  00:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What to say, I'm glad that at the end the quote of Obama was removed. The fact that also "The Fox and the grape" was removed as "not explaining rationalization" shows that either you wants to delete everything that I write, or you are just extremely ignorant on the subject, since it is almost a textbook example of rationalization:
 * "the sour-grapes fable contains the essence of the notion of reduction of cognitive dissonance, and more generally, the notion of rationalization" from Surfaces and essences, Douglas Hofstadter and Emmanuel Sander
 * "If outcomes are motivationally insignificant, then it follows that people would have no need to rationalize them. If the fox truly did not care whether she reached the grapes, then she would have no psychological need to derogate them." from Sour Grapes, Sweet Lemons, and the Anticipatory Rationalization of the Status Quo, Kay, Jimenez, Jost Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28 (2002)
 * -Lankaster (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I do believe the fable is an example of rationalization but quoting an entire fable is imo too much and edit summaries can't be changed back. Can't have a quote to contest if there's no quote. This issue has dragged on far too long. Edit: I readers a reference to the fable but rather in prose format so that's something.  19:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * moving the fable to the psychology subsection is acceptable. Changed my mind. 20:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)