Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

toonkee

Let's Talk Big Picture

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, FresnoFacts said:

The internet has enhanced a behavior that has long existed. In the real old days many cities had at least 2 newspapers, one conservative and one liberal. Many of the newspapers proudly stated on their masthead "Democrat" or "Republican", either in the newspaper name or as a statement of political leaning.

Cable TV led to a larger split. Instead of relying on news from 3 broadcast networks there were many choices. Instead of simply being a Cronkite or Huntley/Brinkley follower there were many more viewpoints.

I have been telling people for years there are 3 items that have led to the internet increasing the societal splits:

  1. Internet Filter Bubbles - The algorithms in search engines and social media display results based on your previous interests. They repeat back to you similar information to what you have previously clicked or read.
  2. Internet Echo Chambers - People tend to join discussions forums with those of similar interests or look for same-thinking people on forums. That confirms existing beliefs instead of pondering a different viewpoint.
  3. Search Confirmation Bias -  People use search terms that confirm there current belief so the results reflect that. Searching for "vaccines are dangerous" will return mainly results that confirm that statement. "Vaccines are safe" will also mostly confirm that statement. People have to search for different viewpoints to see both sides of an issue. Information search literacy (looking for all viewpoints) should be taught in schools.

 

I agree, on top of that I think it's just created a larger voice for the fringes of politics. As critical as I am of Fox News, it isn't Info Wars. But fringe right wingers are no longer stuck with that as the least bad option, now they can go all in with the looney. On the left you'll see this with a Youtube network like TYT who will sit there an tell you how MSNBC is right wing corporate media.

 

It's tough because I don't want to go back to the days of only having your local paper and a 30 minute nightly news show on 3 channels as your only news sources. I also don't want to go to the early 2000's where you have Fox News or MSNBC arguing 2 sides of an issue, and ignoring that there can often be far more ways to look at something. This is the tradeoff of the internet though, it gives everyone a credible voice when some people probably shouldn't have one. The internet is a greatest source of information ever created, it's also the greatest source of misinformation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, sebasour said:

 

I agree, on top of that I think it's just created a larger voice for the fringes of politics. As critical as I am of Fox News, it isn't Info Wars. But fringe right wingers are no longer stuck with that as the least bad option, now they can go all in with the looney. On the left you'll see this with a Youtube network like TYT who will sit there an tell you how MSNBC is right wing corporate media.

 

It's tough because I don't want to go back to the days of only having your local paper and a 30 minute nightly news show on 3 channels as your only news sources. I also don't want to go to the early 2000's where you have Fox News or MSNBC arguing 2 sides of an issue, and ignoring that there can often be far more ways to look at something. This is the tradeoff of the internet though, it gives everyone a credible voice when some people probably shouldn't have one. The internet is a greatest source of information ever created, it's also the greatest source of misinformation.

 

I do, but add books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

Most people don’t read books, so you’re safe there in keeping information transfer from happening. 

Well, yes, in a way. Information is extremely cheap these days and it affects us accordingly. You used to have to invest in the information you obtained and it took a greater investment to publish information to you. Now of course there are myriad good things that come with cheap info as well but you gotta take the bitter with the sweet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, sebasour said:

I think the internet has made it easier than ever to have news or facts tailored to exactly how you want to see the world. You'll begin to live in a bubble and when you are constantly reassured that your side is right and the other is insane, you'll start moving further and further from the center

I still wonder how new this is. 100 years ago every city of every size had at least a dozen newspapers, all of which reported news according to the ideology of the publishers. I think the post-war era of news monoculture may have been the exception, not the rule. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NorthWestCowboy said:

Many Americans are scared.  We see America slipping as China rises.  Technology is taking jobs from the marketplace.  Hell, in my lifetime truck drivers will largely cease to be necessary.  Job security, housing, healthcare among other things are adding stress to our daily lives.  Social media delivers negative news to our phones every second of the day.  The stress of seeing almost exclusively negative news stories adds up over time.  When people feel threatened they act differently and often tribally.  Circle the wagons.  It us against them.  Whomever the us or them is.

Yup. Whether you're fishing for subscriptions or simply clicks, yellow journalism sells and that's pretty much all social media has ever been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SalinasSpartan said:

I know people that run the gamut as far as politics go, but I have never met a single person in the wild that actually wants communism. So I’ll believe that’s a real thing when I see it somewhere other then on the internet.

Meet BLM co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullores "We are trained Marxist"

 

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, modestobulldog said:

Meet BLM co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullores "We are trained Marxist"

 

Yea I don’t know them. My point was that in my personal life I know people with a wide range of political views; Trumpists, woke dems, libertarians, standard republicans, centrist dems, progressives. I don’t know anybody that honestly wants communism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, modestobulldog said:

Meet BLM co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullores "We are trained Marxist"

 

Being a "Marxist" can mean a bunch of different things that isnt being an advocate for Communism. Nick Gillespie, who ran Reason magazine for a long time and is a big name in libertarianism, often calls himself a 'crude marxist." And hes literally the opposite of a communist. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

Being a "Marxist" can mean a bunch of different things that isnt being an advocate for Communism. Nick Gillespie, who ran Reason magazine for a long time and is a big name in libertarianism, often calls himself a 'crude marxist." And hes literally the opposite of a communist. 

If you want everyone to be equal like Akkula communism is the way. Unfortunately or fortunately depending on how you look at it, human nature doesn’t work that way. Most that want communism want those gulaged that don’t agree with them. 

IMO the ideal system is capitalism that meets the basic needs of all citizens. Meeting everyone’s basic needs is where we fail. We come pretty close for most people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, soupslam1 said:

If you want everyone to be equal like Akkula communism is the way.

The problem with communism isn't that people are equal. The problem is that equality must be imposed, and the system that assumes equality can exist is the system where inequality can be most obscured. Its not a problem with human nature. It's a problem with systems.

But that doesn't change the fact that being 'marxist' doesn't make you a communist anymore. Hasn't been that way for decades.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/22/2020 at 8:28 AM, RogueStout said:

I've seen the champaign commies, but I have never seen anyone actually say they support fascism. Their actions might say that, but who is "embracing" fascism? 

I've seen t-shirts that say I would rather be Russian than a Dem. And others publicly claim on Social Media they would rather live under an Authoritarian State run by Trump then by elected Dems. The Rights man crush on Vlad.

Sounds like the right loves Facism and Totalitarianism.

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, sean327 said:

To expand on your great comment, I would also add that what we see on tv for the most part isn’t news. It’s opinion. Cable news has gone all in on the opinion front. They don’t do real news anymore. They haven’t done it for years. The nightly news broadcasts on the old big 3 networks are as close as you’re going to get to real news, but even there opinion is creeping in. The internet is a cesspool pool of opinion that many people don’t want to navigate anymore to pursue real news. 
 

Opinion masked as news is poison to our Republic. If we don’t get a handle on it, it will ultimately destroy us.

You forgot the PBS News hour which is a far superior news reporting program then what the Big 3 offer.

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, SalinasSpartan said:

Ok Thanos, what do you propose then? Head in to Africa and South Asia and just start slaughtering people to slow down the population growth? 

I would start with the anti Birth control crowd.

In a weird way, anti vaxxers and anti maskers are helping with the issue of over population.

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

One of my oldest friends, known him since second grade, has a profile pic of a red eyed Karl Marx and the quotes "hippty hoppity abolish private property".  He is convinced the only reason communism was not more successful is because the West sabotaged it due to their greed.  

I would agree with that assessment. Fear of Communism has sparked more RW authoritarian guvs since ww1 then any other movement. It's also caused America to become far less Socialized then we were post WW2. Starting with the Reagan era we started privatizing and deregulating everything.

I'm waiting for Corp America to start charging us for wet dreams.

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, soupslam1 said:

If you want everyone to be equal like Akkula communism is the way. Unfortunately or fortunately depending on how you look at it, human nature doesn’t work that way. Most that want communism want those gulaged that don’t agree with them. 

IMO the ideal system is capitalism that meets the basic needs of all citizens. Meeting everyone’s basic needs is where we fail. We come pretty close for most people. 

Unchecked, unbridled, and unrestrained Capitalism is what got us here. Like in the early era of the Industrial Rev, when 5% of the pop controls 95% of the wealth, you're going to have the problems we have.

The internet magnifies those issues and causes a greater divide amongst the have nots.

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Spaztecs said:

Unchecked, unbridled, and unrestrained Capitalism is what got us here. Like in the early era of the Industrial Rev, when 5% of the pop controls 95% of the wealth, you're going to have the problems we have.

The internet magnifies those issues and causes a greater divide amongst the have nots.

Gates, Bezos, the Kochs and others donate millions to charity and make certain that others know it so as to mitigate criticism of the ungodly amounts of money they earn. None of them have clean hands and their empires need to be reduced. However, Bill Gates essentially proved that he has more money than the government and he isn't the only one. Accordingly, for at least the super rich, the Sherman Act is now defunct.

Criticism of "socialism" is rampant among billionaires like Trump who care only about themselves and would stand to be among the biggest losers if the income tax system was substantially changed. So if the Sherman Act can no longer be used to curtail out of control capitalism, I fully support "socialism."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 818SUDSFan said:

Gates, Bezos, the Kochs and others donate millions to charity and make certain that others know it so as to mitigate criticism of the ungodly amounts of money they earn. None of them have clean hands and their empires need to be reduced. However, Bill Gates essentially proved that he has more money than the government and he isn't the only one. Accordingly, for at least the super rich, the Sherman Act is now defunct.

Criticism of "socialism" is rampant among billionaires like Trump who care only about themselves and would stand to be among the biggest losers if the income tax system was substantially changed. So if the Sherman Act can no longer be used to curtail out of control capitalism, I fully support "socialism."

All of the above had the foresight and took financial risks to provide products and services that people wanted and felt they needed. Why blame them because you had to have their product or service and willingly gave them your money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

All of the above had the foresight and took financial risks to provide products and services that people wanted and felt they needed. Why blame them because you had to have their product or service and willingly gave them your money. 

I want monopolies broken up because they undermine democracy, I don’t give a shit about who is blamed or not blamed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...