*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[OngBonga]

Why the defending of one, but the condemnation of the other?

banana isn't a journalist. I'm not here for news, I'm here to talk bollocks. Bias is fine here.

[OngBonga]

banana isn't a journalist. I'm not here for news, I'm here to talk bollocks. Bias is fine here.

This isn't a cop out either. If you guys are seriously holding journalists to the same standard as a random talking shit on the net, then we really have lost our way.

Journalism is not the job for someone to press their opinion on others, it's a job that is supposed to inform, not influence.

You should NOT be happy with being manipulated in such a manner, regardless of whether you agree with the premise or not.

[BananaStand]

I got your point 100%, I just don't agree with it.

Yes it does because if it's factual how can you call it bias? If the reporter gives an accurate description of what AJ is about and it's bad, that's AJ's fault, not the reporter's.

No, you completely missed the point. Like, not even close.

The bias is in invoking Alex Jones' name in the first place. This is by far not the first time someone has used "But the Nazi's did that..." as an argument against gun control. That's an unbiased, totally reasonable, factual, cogent, coherent and legitimate argument. Rather than respond to it with unbiased reason, facts, cogency, coherence, and legitimate arguments, the WP has waited until the Nazi parallel was put forth by someone they can portray as a nutjob.

This is one of the more subtle tactics of identity politics. Identity politics tries to homogenize groups of people, particularly if it makes those groups into villains. So, here's how it works...first, they identify a group of people. In this case, the group is made up of people who fear nazi-like fascism as a consequence of gun control. Then they find a member of that group who is detestable. Then they project that detestable-ness on to the entire group.

Now, they don't have to debate the "but Nazis did that..." issue anymore. They can marginalize and ignore it. It's invalidated by association with something invalid, even though the two aren't related.

That is a textbook example of propaganda.

[BananaStand]

Here's another example of someone clueless about the issues getting media attention because he's shitting on Trump. Just because he has a "hip" opinion, he's magically given credibility.

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2018/0...fter-loss.html

Here's where the cluelessness comes in.

[Trump] would have had the decency to meet with a group, to see what's going on, and how important it is, and how important our children should be to us.

What the fuck man?? This was barely a month ago....

[OngBonga]

Yes it does because if it's factual how can you call it bias?

Because its sole intent is to influence, not inform, the reader.

With what little exposure I've had to AJ, I'd say 'baseless' is pretty apt.

"I'd say"

Like I say, subjective as fuck.

Or do you think he has concrete evidence that Hillary is literally a demon and Obama is the head of Al Queda?

I don't give a fuck if he does or does not have evidence, or does or does not believe these theories. It doesn't matter what I think.

If I'm writing a piece about Tony Blair's recent comments about Brexit, and I point out that he took the UK to war based on lies, I would be being both factual and biased. It's irrelevant to the topic, so the point of publishing that fact would only be to ensure the reader knows I hold him in contempt.

Modern politics at its finest. You're ok with this media bias because you agree with it, it reflects your bias.

You can't know what their motivation is.

Of course I can. He said "baseless". Even you can't dodge the subjective nature of that, you said "I'd say", as in it reflects your opinion, not a fact.

His motivation is bias. That is abundantly clear. Just because you're unobservant (I chose a nice word), don't assume everyone else is.

Again you're assuming motive with incomplete information. That's a good example of the bias you're arguing against.

Sure. I'd actually really appreciate this comment if I were a journalist writing an artcile on this subject. As it is, I'm not a journalist, so my bias is irrelevant.

If it was a big fat lie then I'd be more sympathetic to your view

You, like most other who will read this, are too lazy to find out if it's factual or not. You just assume so because lol Alex Jones.

It doesn't matter if it's a lie or not. If it's irrelevant, then it shouldn't be there.

Let's give an example...

Recently, Jeremy Corbyn, who has met with senior IRA figures in the past, critisised the government's response to the Russia spy scandal.

THAT is bias, even though it's factual. What has the IRA aspect got to do with the story? Nothing, but don't forget the cunt met the IRA back in the 80's.

Modern politics, and you lap it up.

[Poopadoop]

Because its sole intent is to influence, not inform, the reader.

That's what you say.

"I'd say"

Like I say, subjective as fuck.

Unlike you, I don't claim to know the objective truth of the matter.

I don't give a fuck if he does or does not have evidence, or does or does not believe these theories. It doesn't matter what I think.

If I'm writing a piece about Tony Blair's recent comments about Brexit, and I point out that he took the UK to war based on lies, I would be being both factual and biased. It's irrelevant to the topic, so the point of publishing that fact would only be to ensure the reader knows I hold him in contempt.

It wouldn't typically be done because that's not what he's primarily known for. If he were introduced as 'former prime minister Tony Blair' would you consider him more or less likely to be a cunt if you'd never heard of him before? And if the answer is 'more' does that make that description of him biased?

Modern politics at its finest. You're ok with this media bias because you agree with it, it reflects your bias.

That wasn't my argument. My argument was it was a means of helping the audience identify the person the reporter was talking about, and a more-or-less consensus view on who he is and what he is about. Sure, there's people out there who think AJ speaks the gospel truth, but seems to me those people are in the minority, and most see him as 'the baseless conspiracy guy'.

Of course I can. He said "baseless". Even you can't dodge the subjective nature of that, you said "I'd say", as in it reflects your opinion, not a fact.

Having the humility to state your opinion as an opinion is not a bad thing imo. Stating your opinion as a fact as you're doing is biased and shows a lack of self-insight into your own epiphenomology.

His motivation is bias. That is abundantly clear. Just because you're unobservant (I chose a nice word), don't assume everyone else is.

I don't have the kind of insight into others' motives that you have I guess. Need to get me one of those crystal ball thingies.

Sure. I'd actually really appreciate this comment if I were a journalist writing an artcile on this subject. As it is, I'm not a journalist, so my bias is irrelevant.

It's entirely relevant if one wants to point out the flaw in your argument.

You, like most other who will read this, are too lazy to find out if it's factual or not. You just assume so because lol Alex Jones.

You're approaching banana levels of irrationality here. I said the guy who argues that Hillary is literally a demon and Obama is head of Al Queda is probably a conspiracy nut. Your response is something like 'why do you accept that idea?' And my answer is 'because i have common sense.'

It doesn't matter if it's a lie or not. If it's irrelevant, then it shouldn't be there.

You nicely ignored my argument that the info could be included just for i.d. purposes, like you would say "Trudeau, the PM of Canada" or "Dahmer the serial cannibal" It helps the reader (or at least some of them) be certain of who they are talking about. It's not the reporters' fault that AJ is best known as being a conspiracy nut.

Mordern politics, and you lap it up.

What am I lapping up exactly? Hearing AJ referred to as a conspiracy nut doesn't change my opinion of him one iota.

[OngBonga]

I bet you've already replied negatively to that post...

Assuming you're not building a post as I type... well done for not doing so yet.

[Poopadoop]

Assuming you're not building a post as I type... well done for not doing so yet.

What's it to you?

[OngBonga]

What's it to you?

He's right.

[OngBonga]

I'm fairly convinced you can't provide the slightest evidence for this claim, never mind guarantee it.

Good job nobody is paying me to report the fucking news then, isn't it?

[Poopadoop]

Good job nobody is paying me to report the fucking news then, isn't it?

No, you're on social media making specious claims and someone is pointing them out to you.

[BananaStand]

Assuming you're not building a post as I type... well done for not doing so yet.

LOL, I find his silence validating

[OngBonga]

That's what you say.

The author said "baseless". I can guarantee that the author didn't do the required research to even know what theories he promotes, let alone what evidence he claims to have.

Unlike you, I don't claim to know the objective truth of the matter.

I don't claim to know if Jones' theories are "baseless", I'm simply observing bias. Is that subjective or objective? I don't think it's a matter of opinion that the author is biased. It's either a fact, or I am wrong. We can't both be right. Something that is subjective, such as morals... I think there is absolutely nothing immoral in smoking weed, but others disagree. Neither of us are "wrong". If I say this guy is biased, and you say he isn't, one of us is right and one of us is wrong. So the question of the author's bias is very much objective.

It wouldn't typically be done because that's not what he's primarily known for.

Right, and Alex Jones is known for being the guy who fronts Infowars. That's enough to identify him to anyone who was thinking "who?".

My argument was it was a means of helping the audience identify the person the reporter was talking about...

I think this is somewhat disingenuous. Do you really think this is the likely motivation of the author, when he uses words like "baseless"?

Having the humility to state your opinion as an opinion is not a bad thing imo. Stating your opinion as a fact as you're doing is biased and shows a lack of self-insight into your own epiphenomology.

A journalist giving his opinion in an article painted as news is certainly not "humility". And what I'm doing is irrelevant, because, as I've said twice at least, I am not a journalist. Stop holding me to the same standard as you do people whose job it is to present ubiased news.

I don't have the kind of insight into others' motives that you have I guess. Need to get me one of those crystal ball thingies.

It's not a crystal ball, it's grey matter.

It's entirely relevant if one wants to point out the flaw in your argument.

If you think that me saying "he shouldn't be biased, it doesn't matter if I am" is a flaw, then you are completely missing the point.

I'm talking about ethical journalism here.

You're approaching banana levels of irrationality here. I said the guy who argues that Hillary is literally a demon and Obama is head of Al Queda is probably a conspiracy nut. Your response is something like 'why do you accept that idea?' And my answer is 'because i have common sense.'

I'll bite. Prove he supports these theories. I was about to google it, but I assume you have already done so.

You nicely ignored my argument that the info could be included just for i.d. purposes

Disingenuous.

What am I lapping up exactly? Hearing AJ referred to as a conspiracy nut doesn't change my opinion of him one iota.

Try reading banana's post about identity polticics without your hate hat on.

I bet you've already replied negatively to that post...

[Poopadoop]

The author said "baseless". I can guarantee that the author didn't do the required research to even know what theories he promotes, let alone what evidence he claims to have.

I'm fairly convinced you can't provide the slightest evidence for this claim, never mind guarantee it.

Right, and Alex Jones is known for being the guy who fronts Infowars. That's enough to identify him to anyone who was thinking "who?".

I actually forgot he fronted Infowars until today. So that would have helped me a bit I guess, but not as much as 'baseless conspiracy guy'.

[OngBonga]

Stop holding me to the same standard as you do people whose job it is to present ubiased news.

In fact you're holding me to a higher standard. It's like you expect me to present my arguments in an unbiased and well researched way in order for me to be credible, yet journalists can spew their ill informed opinions and earn their wage in doing so, and that's just fine.

Whatever you think I should be doing... that's what journalists should be doing. And what you're accepting as credible journalism... that's the stuff for quiet little subforums.

[Poopadoop]

In fact you're holding me to a higher standard. It's like you expect me to present my arguments in an unbiased and well researched way in order for me to be credible, yet journalists can spew their ill informed opinions and earn their wage in doing so, and that's just fine.

Whatever you think I should be doing... that's what journalists should be doing. And what you're accepting as credible journalism... that's the stuff for quiet little subforums.

I'm disputing your argument. I don't really care if you're biased or not. I just think assuming you are biased against the media goes some way to explaining where you get the opinion that that particular characterization of AJ is any more biased than a characterization of Dahmer as a 'serial cannibal' or May as 'current PM' . And I say so because I don't share your opinion that it's necessarily reflecting the reporter's attempt to influence the audience unduly.

[BananaStand]

lots of irony and hypocrisy in here today.

You can't re-brand your own cognitive dissonance as "abuse". Poop got duped by David Pakman and then spent a week exhausting every fallacious option in his arsenal. When they all failed and it was discovered that his "zomg Jarvanka!!" hissy fit was not supported by any actual knowledge of facts....then the solution apparently was to just ignore the person making him face his own wrong-ness.

If you think that's good for you, you're fucking bonkers.

Either man-up, and defend your position, or admit you were wrong and learn something.

Explain to us what Jarvanka are doing that bothers you so much. Explain to us why it's ok to debunk a cogent historical argument by connecting it, dubiously, to a conspiracy theorist. And then tell us why repealing the 2nd amendment in the US would be different than other times that firearms were confiscated by fascist governments.

or...

Admit that Jarvanka aren't doing anything dangerous. And admit that disarming citizens is bad for freedom.

Your insistence on doing neither, based on a hypocritical and untrue claim of abuse, demonstrates how informed your opinions are, and how much conviction you have in your desire to remain ignorant.

[OngBonga]

Half a dozen people keeping this place going. Well, you're down to four people to talk to now.

Abusive? I really don't know what to say to that. It's either a bad attempt to justify your decision, or you're too sensetive.

Stuff like "you're fucking bonkers", if that's abuse to you, get off the internet, fast.

[Poopadoop]

Stuff like "you're fucking bonkers", if that's abuse to you, get off the internet, fast.

It's the high frequency of that relative to the low frequency of thoughtful arguments I find excessive, to the point where it's not worth reading his posts imo.

And you're right, when people on the internet aren't worth talking to, I get off the internet.

[BananaStand]

It's the high frequency of that relative to the low frequency of thoughtful arguments I find excessive, to the point where it's not worth reading his posts imo.

If you're asserting that I don't explain and defend my positions with extreme voluminousness and verbosity...you're fucking bonkers.

[OngBonga]

It's the high frequency of that relative to the low frequency of thoughtful arguments I find excessive, to the point where it's not worth reading his posts imo.

And you're right, when people on the internet aren't worth talking to, I get off the internet.

Fair enough. But from my pov at least, it reflects badly on you. He has a tone of mockery about him. Your tone is contempt.

I'm not going to continue to crisitise your decision, I've got no right to tell you what to do. But it makes me sad, because I do feel like he brought some life to this forum.

[Poopadoop]

Fair enough. But from my pov at least, it reflects badly on you. He has a tone of mockery about him. Your tone is contempt.

Well ok, but from my pov I don't understand your sympathy for him.

I'm not going to continue to crisitise your decision, I've got no right to tell you what to do. But it makes me sad, because I do feel like he brought some life to this forum.

If looking at a forum and seeing pages of poo flinging is your idea of a lively discussion then we have different ideas.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If looking at a forum and seeing pages of poo flinging is your idea of a lively discussion then we have different ideas.

The poo flinging is a red herring and if what upsets you about nanners is the poo flinging, then frankly, I'm on ong's side of this one.

[CoccoBill]

Spoiler alert, I haven't had him on ignore for a while, but it's been awfully nice when a smaller percentage of discussions have immediately turned into shit-slinging contests. I don't really have an issue with his delivery, it's that he doesn't want to discuss, he wants to argue.

[OngBonga]

Spoiler alert, I haven't had him on ignore for a while, but it's been awfully nice when a smaller percentage of discussions have immediately turned into shit-slinging contests. I don't really have an issue with his delivery, it's that he doesn't want to discuss, he wants to argue.

I tried to not give a fuck about you doing it (or claiming to), but it did annoy me, and I hoped it didn't catch on.

[CoccoBill]

Not all life is equal.

[OngBonga]

Not all life is equal.

Some life is more equal than others.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Some life is more equal than others.

Is that a Bill Murray quote from Stripes?

It seems familiarly cute, but I can't exactly place it.
It's not on the IMDB quotes page for the movie.

I thought, maybe it was from PCU?
... but no, not on that quotes page, either.


Anyone?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Everyone is biased, BTW. There's never been any such thing as an unbiased human.

It doesn't matter who's a reporter and who's not. Knowledge is knowledge, and bias is bias.

E.g.: physics is awesome, fun, exciting, and rewarding. That is my bias. The fact that I'm biased doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Knowledge is independent of bias. A person can be biased toward a truthful position.

So, unless you're prepared to argue with those above points, what matters isn't whether or not someone is biased, it's whether or not you can see through the bias to discern knowledge.


You may be happy to have someone constantly change the subject and assert you said things you have never said, and that's fine. However, it's not about the abuse nanners brings to FTR. I can talk to spoony all day and he nearly constantly insults me. The reason is because he is still listening to my points and responding with his consistent world-view. You love to placate the nanner as though we're being babies about being internet bullied, but that is certainly not the reasons I've stated, and at length in the moderator's forum.
Your bias is showing.

You said, he's not a reporter, so his bias is irrelevant. Sure, as far as reporting goes, I can stand by that ideal, but it is an ideal, and not a realizable one.
However, that is a separate topic from whether or not you can divine deeper truth to the statements.

So I'm still curious why the disconnect, ong. Why are you willing to engage your intelligence with nanners, but not when seeking out actual news of world events?
Is it because a poster on FTR is easier to humanize? or because nanners speaks to the biases you bring to the table?
Is it because you want to paint "the media" as a single entity with a coordinated goal, rather than disparate entities vying for your attention?
Something else?

I'm curious.

[CoccoBill]

You might be thinking Animal Farm.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You might be thinking Animal Farm.

Bingo!

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

[Poopadoop]

And generally, I really don't see why people keep trying to tell me what I should and shouldn't be willing to tolerate. I'll decide that for myself, thanks.

[OngBonga]

And generally, I really don't see why people keep trying to tell me what I should and shouldn't be willing to tolerate. I'll decide that for myself, thanks.

If only you were as tolerant as you are stubborn.

[Poopadoop]

If only you were as tolerant as you are stubborn.

Thanks.

There's very few people I find intolerable. Your FTR-based sample is very small in terms of the wider world, and small samples can lead you to the wrong conclusion if you try to extrapolate.

[MadMojoMonkey]

And generally, I really don't see why people keep trying to tell me what I should and shouldn't be willing to tolerate. I'll decide that for myself, thanks.

To be clear, I've never even hinted at any suggestion over whom you should tolerate.
(If anything I've asked openly that anyone who doesn't want to tolerate him simply ignore him, but that's a totally different beast.)

If any further clarity is needed, my red herring comment was meant to convey that nanners insults are directed toward such flimsy caricatures of any FTR personality that I can not even truly take it seriously that anyone here has been insulted by his asshattery. If anyone has taken offense, then they've painted themselves into that caricature, which says more about them than nanners.

As such, I don't believe you'd stay if nanners had actually insulted you. I believe that nanners comments are so blatantly puerile that you don't take them as any reflection of yourself.

Is that about right?

[Poopadoop]

To be clear, I've never even hinted at any suggestion over whom you should tolerate.
(If anything I've asked openly that anyone who doesn't want to tolerate him simply ignore him, but that's a totally different beast.)

If any further clarity is needed, my red herring comment was meant to convey that nanners insults are directed toward such flimsy caricatures of any FTR personality that I can not even truly take it seriously that anyone here has been insulted by his asshattery. If anyone has taken offense, then they've painted themselves into that caricature, which says more about them than nanners.

As such, I don't believe you'd stay if nanners had actually insulted you. I believe that nanners comments are so blatantly puerile that you don't take them as any reflection of yourself.

Is that about right?

My skin is plenty thick. I object to the asshattery because it lowers the tone of the discussion while adding nothing. And yes, it can get on my nerves when it's directed at me personally and repeatedly. I don't think that makes me different from anyone else, as reticent as many people seem to be to admit that.

And given a choice, I'd rather be somewhere where I don't get exposed to that behaviour either directed at me or at someone else. Either way it's below the standards of discourse I'm interested in.

[OngBonga]

However, that is a separate topic from whether or not you can divine deeper truth to the statements.

What is this deeper truth you speak of? I told you, I got this "deeper truth" in the form of further evidence of my suspicion that the media is riddled with cancer of the bias. Or do you mean "deeper truth" to banana's comments?

Why are you willing to engage your intelligence with nanners, but not when seeking out actual news of world events?

I really don't know why you've jumped to this conclusion. Are you suggesting that observing bias is a lack of intelligence? Or the inability to accept bias as though it's simply human nature? I like wanking, that's human nature too, but I can't do it in public. A journo ramming his opinion down my throat in a news article is for all intents and purposes wanking in public.

Is it because a poster on FTR is easier to humanize? or because nanners speaks to the biases you bring to the table?

Possibly the latter.

Is it because you want to paint "the media" as a single entity with a coordinated goal, rather than disparate entities vying for your attention?

Aha. The media isn't a single entity. The mainstream media is, it's a state tool. That it isn't obvious to intelligent people saddens me more than people ingoring banana.

[MadMojoMonkey]

What is this deeper truth you speak of? I told you, I got this "deeper truth" in the form of further evidence of my suspicion that the media is riddled with cancer of the bias. Or do you mean "deeper truth" to banana's comments?

I'm talking about the deeper truth reflected in the journalists "baseless" comment, which poopy has addressed, though perhaps not to your liking.
You're already a champion of the deeper meaning in nanner's posts.

I really don't know why you've jumped to this conclusion. Are you suggesting that observing bias is a lack of intelligence? Or the inability to accept bias as though it's simply human nature? I like wanking, that's human nature too, but I can't do it in public. A journo ramming his opinion down my throat in a news article is for all intents and purposes wanking in public.

I'm not jumping to a conclusion. You have repeatedly defended nanners as making good points, but that you have to read between the lines to see them. That's you engaging your intelligence with nanners. When you see an expressed bias that is much softer than anything nanners brings to FTR, you object that it's unethical, without engaging your intelligence to read between the lines.

I'm not suggesting that observing bias is a lack of intelligence. Perhaps the opposite. I'm suggesting that bias is a part of everything we are told, and it is unintelligent to ignore that fact.
I'm not suggesting that an inability to accept bias is human nature. I'm saying bias is a part of human nature and ignoring that will lead you to misunderstand the context of things you are told.

"Ramming his opinion down my throat in a news article" Now there's a mixed metaphor if ever I saw one.
Your participation in the consuming of that news article was purely voluntary. If you've asked to have something rammed down your throat, and asked a stranger to take care of that for you, then you're bound to have some unpleasant perspectives rammed in there from time to time.

Possibly the latter.

Does that mean it's not really about the expression of bias, but the fact that the expressed bias was antithetical to your own biases?

Aha. The media isn't a single entity. The mainstream media is, it's a state tool. That it isn't obvious to intelligent people saddens me more than people ingoring banana.

So the liberal media outlets and the conservative media outlets are the same entity? and both of those contrary entities are a state tool?
Maybe.... if you go full-on conspiracy and propaganda theory. However, it just doesn't make any sense under scrutiny.

A much simpler explanation is that neither gives a wet slap about presenting unbiased news, but both care a great deal about ratings and the value of melodrama to rake in viewership.


Stop with the whole, "I'm so sad that you guys are not me." talk. If ever there was a victim tactic, that's it.
If you're feeling depressed, then that sucks, man, but pointing your finger away from yourself is not going to help you climb out of that kind of hole. Seriously. If you're really feeling emotional about FTR conversations, then hit me up in a PM. I've kicked depressions ass dozens of times and I have tactics and shit to deal with the early warning signs as well as strategies to get out of the funk when it takes hold.

[OngBonga]

I'm talking about the deeper truth reflected in the journalists "baseless" comment, which poopy has addressed, though perhaps not to your liking.

I addressed this. It's irrelevant what I think about the topic of whether Alex Jones has grounds for his theories. I'm talking about bias in the media, I have no interest in discussing the career of Alex Jones. I really can't be bothered to research him to find out what he actually claims. It's not the topic in question.

When you see an expressed bias that is much softer than anything nanners brings to FTR, you object that it's unethical,

I really don't want to have to say this again. banana is not a journalist. I do not expect ethical journalism from the bananas of this world.

Media bias is not "soft", it is far too influencial.

I'm saying bias is a part of human nature and ignoring that will lead you to misunderstand the context of things you are told.

I'm not disputing that bias is human nature. So is urinating, but there's an appropriate place for that. Journalists should not show bias, you guys of all people should appreciate this. Free press. You think a journo spouting his opinion is freedom of press? Depends who's paying him. If he's on the government's payroll, well that opinion will likely be in line with state policy. The opposite of freedom of press... state media.

Your participation in the consuming of that news article was purely voluntary.

So is the journalist's decision whether to be impartial.

When I click a link that takes me to a news article, I am consenting to news, and I expect the journalist in question to subscribe to journalism ethics and standards. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journa..._and_standards

If you take a link and you computer gets infected, did you consent to it? Of course not. Same principle applies here. It's reasonable for me to expect impartial news, especially from mainstream media. Well, it's not because I know it's hard to find these days, but it should be a reasonable expectation.

Does that mean it's not really about the expression of bias, but the fact that the expressed bias was antithetical to your own biases?

Ok no, if I agreed with the bias I would still be outraged at the lack of ethical journalism.

So the liberal media outlets and the conservative media outlets are the same entity? and both of those contrary entities are a state tool?

Ultimately, yes. Of course it's a state tool... welcome to identity politics. Divide and conquer.

A much simpler explanation is that neither gives a wet slap about presenting unbiased news, but both care a great deal about ratings and the value of melodrama to rake in viewership.

Rating isn't just money... it's influence.

Stop with the whole, "I'm so sad that you guys are not me." talk. If ever there was a victim tactic, that's it.
If you're feeling depressed, then that sucks, man,

It's like the final days of a favourite pub, the last few alcoholics propping up the bar discussing where they're going to go next, bickering about the pros and cons of each candidate pub. Yeah it's sad. Not depressing sad, but sad. Sorry if that smacks of victimhood, I was hopinh it would strike a chord with some people, seeing as we're all stubbornly refusing to let this place die. This "ignore" thing, it could be the final nail. I felt it needed saying.

[CoccoBill]

It's like the final days of a favourite pub, the last few alcoholics propping up the bar discussing where they're going to go next, bickering about the pros and cons of each candidate pub. Yeah it's sad. Not depressing sad, but sad. Sorry if that smacks of victimhood, I was hopinh it would strike a chord with some people, seeing as we're all stubbornly refusing to let this place die. This "ignore" thing, it could be the final nail. I felt it needed saying.

Ok now you're just being ridiculous. As if one person putting another on ignore has anything to do with this place dying. You don't need to like it, but my other option would have been to do what the other used-to-be-regulars did, leave. Sure, banana has been active and kept the conversations more active than they were a while ago, but it isn't about the quantity, it's about the quality. I'm sure you, spoon and wuf don't mind him, since you seem to be sharing a lot of the same views, which I guess is why he hasn't directed his toxicity towards you. You like him, I get it. It just seems that most other people don't. The only thing still keeping me here is I guess some nostalgia about the great discussions that used to go on here some years ago. At best they've been eye-opening and have calibrated how I see the world, and if not that at least they've been fun and funny. I don't see a lot of that anymore, just stubborn arguing about some inane technicality or word definition, and zero attempt to understand the person you're talking to. That's sad.

[OngBonga]

OK, so now you know that news source is not for you. Seems like it was an easy enough lesson to learn.

Yeah if only it were this easy.

Literally every news source is biased

No it isn't.

I don't get the "nanners isn't a journalist" argument. I don't see why it matters at all, other than your desire to find a trustworthy source of world information.

The point is that I don't care if banana is biased or not, or if I'm biased for that matter. We're having a conversation, not telling the world what's happening. It's not about a "trsutworthy" source, it's about "ethical" journalism. That is actually a thing you know.

People have bias. You will never find a news source which you can simply absorb without critical thinking.

So you agree the media is not to be trusted?

People can control when they urinate (most of the time, at least), but people cannot control whether or not they're biased. People are biased.

People can choose whether or not to report an event with impartiality.

I don't think the news media have as much control over public sentiment as they are a sounding board for public sentiments...

I wish I agreed with you, but I don't.

In fact, I'm glad I don't agree, because then there's hope. If it's a reflection of public sentiment, and not the manipulation, we really are fucked.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Yeah if only it were this easy.

It is that easy. Don't make it harder than it needs to be. You have identified a bias from that news agency. Now let that bias sink in and let it color everything you read from that news agency. Just like you do with everything I say and with everything everyone else you talk to says.

Everyone comes from a perspective, and everything we say and do is colored by that perspective.

No it isn't.

Ball's in your court to serve me some unbiased news, then.

The point is that I don't care if banana is biased or not, or if I'm biased for that matter. We're having a conversation, not telling the world what's happening. It's not about a "trsutworthy" source, it's about "ethical" journalism. That is actually a thing you know.

Yes, I know. It's a thing that is noble to strive for, despite it being an impossible goal.

I just can't get on board with the "not telling the world what's happening" statement. I don't see any value in suspending critical thinking in any conversation.

So you agree the media is not to be trusted?

Yes, of course. No single source is to be trusted for anything. Duh.
It's called research because any single search is inconclusive. (I mean, probably not, but it makes a good point.)

It's actually pretty fun to check Al Jazeera's main page from time to time. They release negative stories about the USA about a day or 2 in advance of those same stories being released in the states. Vice versa for negative stories. That's an expression of bias on both sides.

... actually, I don't see how you can make these 2 quotes back to back without irony.

People can choose whether or not to report an event with impartiality.

No, they can only choose to highlight or suppress their bias; they cannot eliminate their bias under any circumstances.
They cannot eliminate that the choice to report expresses a bias, the choice on what tone to use expresses a bias, the choice of whom will present the story expresses a bias, the choice of what to include given a time frame expresses a bias, the choice of which sources to search and which to present expresses bias.

Hunter S. Thompson exploded this wide open.

I wish I agreed with you, but I don't.

In fact, I'm glad I don't agree, because then there's hope. If it's a reflection of public sentiment, and not the manipulation, we really are fucked.

You might be letting the public shouting match paint you a future that is at odds with history. The shouting match is ever-present, and societies will rise and fall around it. Keep in mind that people love to shout and put up a stink in public, but are usually more responsible behind closed doors.

[MadMojoMonkey]

OK, so now you know that news source is not for you. Seems like it was an easy enough lesson to learn.

The thing I don't see is that your complaint is about bias. Literally every news source is biased, and you just found a bias that you can clearly identify. To me, that's a net plus. Watching a news program where I am not keenly aware of their bias means that they're simply speaking to my bias and telling me what I want to hear (except that what I really want to hear is as little bias as possible, which, I think is your actual desire, too.) So maybe I can better state that as them telling me what I already believe, rather than inform me with new information.

I don't get the "nanners isn't a journalist" argument. I don't see why it matters at all, other than your desire to find a trustworthy source of world information. I just don't believe that exists, so while I get your discomfort with that, I don't see it as a justification to assert any bias is unethical. People have bias. You will never find a news source which you can simply absorb without critical thinking.

People can control when they urinate (most of the time, at least), but people cannot control whether or not they're biased. People are biased.

I never mentioned money, and I agree that it's about power, for which money is only one avenue. I don't think the news media have as much control over public sentiment as they are a sounding board for public sentiments, though. The news can't tell us how to feel, it can only amplify what we already want to feel.

***
The pub analogy is pretty good. I'd argue that letting nanners post in the tone and style he uses is worse for FTR than people ignoring him. If we don't ignore him, every conversation is a race to the bottom of the barrel.

[OngBonga]

You like him

Incorrect. You have made this assumption simply because I tolerate him. I do find him amusing, but that's not the same as like.

I don't see a lot of that anymore, just stubborn arguing about some inane technicality or word definition, and zero attempt to understand the person you're talking to. That's sad.

Yep, and everyone of us is guilty of this.

I don't think I am being ridiculous. If the place was still thriving, I wouldn't give a fuck about one person ignoring another. And I tried not to when it was just you, it was when poop hinted he had done so I spoke out.

[CoccoBill]

Sure. I do agree with MMM here though. At the failing pub if there's a customer that's making trouble, you throw out the troublemaker, not tell everyone else to just chill since he's buying drinks. And no, I'm definitely not saying he should be kicked out.

[BananaStand]

Well it seems that this collective tantrum has chilled somewhat, it's my turn.

Monkey - I won't go into extensive details here because you probably won't listen. But Poop laid out a very astute explanation of your M.O. around here. Short version, it's not very useful. That, coupled with your own statements about having little to no interest in politics and world affairs makes a person wonder why you are even here? What do you get out of it?

Another point, if you want an example of your pollyanna tendencies, look no further than your most recent conversation with Ong. You have asserted that Ong should simply avoid what he has identified as a bias news source. C'mon man. It doesn't work like that. If everyone just boycotted any news source they found biased, all you would be left with is a polarized group of people either hooked on Fox News, or MSNBC. That's not a world you want to live in. You can't be an informed person if you aren't digesting different perspectives of every issue. So trying to avoid bias is counter productive, and ignorant.

So some bias is inevitable, and it's probably is a good thing. But there is a huge difference between bias, and propaganda. The article in question today is clearly propaganda. I've explained why already. scroll up and learn something.

Ong - You seem like an ok guy, even though I loathe your chosen lifestyle of barely-usefulness. Though you seem to have become slightly less useless now that you have a job. So that's good. You seem to be the most open minded around here, and most willing to have your mind changed. While I enjoy having someone around to agree with me, my friendly advice would be to try and be less agreeable. Don't change your mind until your previous position has been sufficiently broken.

Wuf - Wuf and I don't clash all that much. An intellectually lazy interpretation of that would be to say "you're both conservative Trump acolytes". But I don't believe that's the case. I don't even think that's an accurate statement. Wuf expresses his arguments with facts, credible economic theories, and informed citations. He makes his arguments in a way that makes me think "hmm, maybe he knows something I don't". If anyone here is frustrated at their inability to change my mind, ask wuf for help.

Poopadoop - Demagogue. That word pretty much sums it up. His week-long squak-session about Jarvanka should demonstrate that to anyone not yet convinced. If you want more examples, how about his posting of the link to the Cambridge Analytics non-story. Or before that, there was another idiotic Pakman video about Trump having 5 different positions on minimum wage. He hasn't put forth any sensible support for his belief in the Trump/Russia garbage. And he's claimed to have better knowledge of Trump's health than Trump's doctor.

None of these positions are defensible with facts, logic, or anything credible. Everything he's said on these things has been nothing but hollow, incendiary, deceitful demagoguery. He has been challenged on all of these positions, and rather than concede any points of fact, his chosen response has been to move the goal post and pretend like he was participating in some other, completely different argument. Then he puts that new argument forward with a flourish of demagoguery and the cycle repeats itself.

Cocco - Recently you put forward the idea that the world should be ruled by one or a handful of super-governments. If we learn nothing else from the 20th century it should be the idea that the Utopia is an unattainable fantasy. The 9-figure body count should be enough to convince you but apparently you think that Stalin, Hitler, and Mao just fucked up the implementation. You've asserted that if things were done YOUR way, then the Utopia would arrive. If you were in Stalin's place, maybe communism would have worked out, hmm?

let me be abundantly clear to everyone here. If someone claims that they would have brought the Utopia if they had been given the opportunity to implement their chosen government policies, you should disassociate yourself with that person immediately. There are only two explanations for such a radical point of view. 1) Hopeless irreparable incompetence 2) Pure malevolence.

Oskar, boost, spoon, gorilla....I'm mostly indifferent on you guys. Post more.

As for me....I don't see much of a problem with my tone. I talk EXACTLY the same way in real life, and I have friends. I presume that much of the vitriol you all seem to be reading in my posts is the result of your own personal bias.

And I can see why you might be biased against me. I am difficult to debate with. An intellectually lazy assessment of that might conclude that I'm just stubborn. There might be a few cases of that. But more often than not, my firmness is the result of a thoroughly informed and well thought out position. I consume news, analysis, and commentary from as many sources as possible as often as possible. I've developed my opinions only after open-minded research into the issues. then I challenge those opinions. I seek out data that both proves and disproves that opinions. I refine my opinion as necessary. and THEN I post.

At that point you're gonna need more than pussy-ass pollyanna bullshit, demagoguery, and leftist propaganda if you want to convince me to adjust my opinion. Hint: I find data compelling.

I certainly don't feel that I owe anyone here an apology. However, in the interest of maintaining the life of this forum, I will commit to making an effort to being less disgusted at some of the insanity I see posted here. I'll use less capital letters. And I'll try to cut down on the well-intention-ed ribbing/banter that seems to be interpreted as poo-flinging. I'd like to invite everyone to un-ignore each other and collectively hit the reset button.

[OngBonga]

I presume that much of the vitriol you all seem to be reading in my posts is the result of your own personal bias.

haha wp

I think this is a fair statement.

[OngBonga]

It is that easy.

No, it's not. You said I now know that news source isn't for me. If we were talking about one rogue news agency, then sure it's easy to cry bias and move on to another source. But when the entire mainstream media is cancer ridden, then it's not so easy. Now I have to go digging around for news sources, I can't just click the top article on google news.

Everyone comes from a perspective, and everything we say and do is colored by that perspective.

Ok, this is natural bias. But that isn't what's going on. Perhaps my problem is when that bias is a consequence of conflict of interests... for example, when the author is a subordinate to someone else's agenda.

Ball's in your court to serve me some unbiased news, then.

AlterNet and Reuters spind to mind immediately. This taken from Reuters' website...

Reuters would not be Reuters without freedom from bias. We are a “stateless” news service that welcomes diversity into our newsrooms but asks all staff to park their nationality and politics at the door. This neutrality is a hallmark of our news brand and allows us to work on all sides of an issue, conflict or dispute without any agenda other than accurate, fair reporting. Our customers and our sources value Reuters for that quality and it is one we all must work to preserve.

We must always strive to be scrupulously fair and balanced. Allegations should not be portrayed as fact; charges should not be conveyed as a sign of guilt. We have a duty of fairness to give the subjects of such stories the opportunity to put their side.

That's a good starting point for a discussion on what I mean by an "unbiased news source". I understand journalists have opinions, of course they do. But their JOB is to report news, not share their opinion. It is their JOB to find neutral language to achieve this goal. If they cannot do this, then they suck at their job. Or, they have a conflict of interest.

Yes, I know. It's a thing that is noble to strive for, despite it being an impossible goal.

Ethical journalism is an impossible goal? Well I'll just give up wanting it then. I'll also give up on democracy and a free society while I'm at it.

Yes, of course. No single source is to be trusted for anything. Duh.

It should be trusted to be factual and accurate, that's the entire point of news.

No, they can only choose to highlight or suppress their bias; they cannot eliminate their bias under any circumstances.

You're making it too easy for them. Of course people can put their personal bias to one side. You cannot eliminate it completely, but you can be skilled with language to ensure a neutral tone. THAT is ethical journalism, and it's not an impossible dream.

[MadMojoMonkey]

No, it's not. You said I now know that news source isn't for me. If we were talking about one rogue news agency, then sure it's easy to cry bias and move on to another source. But when the entire mainstream media is cancer ridden, then it's not so easy. Now I have to go digging around for news sources, I can't just click the top article on google news.

I said let your knowledge of that news agency's bias sink in and color all the other news you get from them. (If I said the other thing, then fine, that's an option, if the news source is particularly terrible, e.g. mainstream sources.)

If you have identified that mainstream news gets to be mainstream because it is more about entertainment than news, then you're stating the problem in a manner which implies the experiment to solve the problem, which is excellence in thinking.

Your final point is always true. No single source can ever be taken as conveying knowledge. Realizing this as pertains to news means you're maturing in your ability to root out when someone is trying to manipulate you in subtle ways, and that's a good thing. Excellent towning.

Ok, this is natural bias. But that isn't what's going on. Perhaps my problem is when that bias is a consequence of conflict of interests... for example, when the author is a subordinate to someone else's agenda.

Well said.
There are terribly biased news sources and accidentally biased news sources. I'm introducing "accidentally biased" to address your next point, and to acknowledge that it's not appropriate for me to place intentional and unintentional bias under the same umbrella.

AlterNet and Reuters spind to mind immediately. This taken from Reuters' website...


That's a good starting point for a discussion on what I mean by an "unbiased news source". I understand journalists have opinions, of course they do. But their JOB is to report news, not share their opinion. It is their JOB to find neutral language to achieve this goal. If they cannot do this, then they suck at their job. Or, they have a conflict of interest.

OK, I'll look into them more seriously. Thanks.

I would say that actively trying to eliminate bias qualifies as ethical journalism. However, it doesn't change the biases I listed earlier, which cannot be eliminated. Let's call these "accidental biases," or perhaps "incidental biases," and put them on a lower, more acceptable tier of bias.

They cannot eliminate that the choice to report expresses a bias, the choice on what tone to use expresses a bias, the choice of whom will present the story expresses a bias, the choice of what to include given a time frame expresses a bias, the choice of which sources to search and which to present expresses bias.

Hunter S. Thompson exploded this wide open.

Ethical journalism is an impossible goal? Well I'll just give up wanting it then. I'll also give up on democracy and a free society while I'm at it.

Don't be petulant, ong. The world doesn't owe us an easy time of anything, but throwing our hands up because life is challenging isn't a favorable long-term plan.

Noble goals are the most worth striving for, whether or not their ultimate realization is possible. The act of reaching for the top, for constant improvement, is the awesome, practical goal.

It should be trusted to be factual and accurate, that's the entire point of news.

Yes, but that sentiment ignores that news is gathered and presented by fallible, biased humans.

You're making it too easy for them. Of course people can put their personal bias to one side. You cannot eliminate it completely, but you can be skilled with language to ensure a neutral tone. THAT is ethical journalism, and it's not an impossible dream.

I've expanded on some things and changed my position on how we categorize different levels of bias.
It takes intellectual effort on both sides to approach the "factual and accurate" standard. The news agency needs to actively attempt to eliminate all possible biases, but there are biases which cannot be eliminated. The consumer of news needs to be vigilant to find news sources which are doing the above, while not ignoring that there are always biases which spin the telling of every story.

[CoccoBill]

Cocco - Recently you put forward the idea that the world should be ruled by one or a handful of super-governments. If we learn nothing else from the 20th century it should be the idea that the Utopia is an unattainable fantasy. The 9-figure body count should be enough to convince you but apparently you think that Stalin, Hitler, and Mao just fucked up the implementation. You've asserted that if things were done YOUR way, then the Utopia would arrive. If you were in Stalin's place, maybe communism would have worked out, hmm?

This is actually a very good example of what I mean. Yes, I did say that there are probably unnecessarily many countries in the world, there would be several big positives about having less. I think I went even into some detail on why, especially economically, it would make a lot of sense. Your only response was and is to ridicule the idea by strawmen and red herrings. For example, I was not aware that Stalin, Hitler and Mao were ever the elected leaders of a world government. I have definitely not asserted anything about doing things my way, I just objectively looked at the pros of having a more uniform governance, less overhead and vastly larger economies of scale. If I had been in Stalin's place I doubt I would have been able to weed out all the corruption and diminish the power of the oligarchs without any governance education or experience, but on the other hand it's hard to imagine how things could have turned out worse. They might have, but I'm not exactly sure why and how. Your only criticism has been "fascist!" and other indirect ad hominems.

let me be abundantly clear to everyone here. If someone claims that they would have brought the Utopia if they had been given the opportunity to implement their chosen government policies, you should disassociate yourself with that person immediately. There are only two explanations for such a radical point of view. 1) Hopeless irreparable incompetence 2) Pure malevolence.

I'm sure I don't need to point out no one has claimed that. Dude, I don't find you frustrating and annoying because you're boastful and snide, I do it because you keep twisting words, misrepresenting other people's views and ignoring everything that doesn't fit your cemented worldview. Just look at this post. Half of it is telling you "no I did not say that". If your argument is that concentration of power leaves more avenues for abuse of power, you could have just said that and I might have agreed.

[BananaStand]

This is actually a very good example of what I mean. Yes, I did say that there are probably unnecessarily many countries in the world, there would be several big positives about having less. I think I went even into some detail on why, especially economically, it would make a lot of sense.

Even if I agreed that it makes economic sense (it doesn't), you still haven't explained how your preferred policy of a single homogenized super government wouldn't lead to starvation, oppression, and massive widespread death. That's what happened whenever someone else tried that. What's your plan?

On one hand, it's possible that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It's possible that you are absolutely clueless with regard to history and human behavior. And that this utopian fantasy you have is born out of uninformed ignorance and naivete. That's why I said in my post that one of the two explanations for this opinion is "hopeless irreparable ignorance"

The other explanation, "pure malevolence" stems from the possibility that you DO know what you're talking about. You're just deluded into believing that your particular playbook would not result in the hell-on-earth that everyone else's has. And that's a really really dangerous brand of evil.

Those are the ONLY two explanations for your opinion on this. So don't tell me that I'm twisting your words when you've cornered yourself into a finite number of interpretations.

Your only response was and is to ridicule the idea by strawmen and red herrings.

If you think a factual historical account of what happened every other time someone tried to implement your ideas is a "red herring", then you're the worst kind of evil.

Your only criticism has been "fascist!" and other indirect ad hominems.

Of course you'll never admit to being a fascist. No one has ever tried to run a campaign on 'fascism'. No one has ever gotten a positive response by saying "Hey, here's a great fascist idea...". But your proposal of a single government, consumed by egalitarianism, and governing all people by "the same laws", is literally a fascists wet dream. If you can't see that, it's because you're the kind of evil soul who thinks that his ideas would work, and that the atrocities committed by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were just symptoms of a poor implementation.

I'm sure I don't need to point out no one has claimed that.

It's precisely what you claimed.

Dude, I don't find you frustrating and annoying because you're boastful and snide, I do it because you keep twisting words, misrepresenting other people's views and ignoring everything that doesn't fit your cemented worldview. Just look at this post. Half of it is telling you "no I did not say that".

Fine, you didn't say it in those exact words. But that's the argument of a semantic prick. What you said was that a single planet-wide nationality would solve the world's economic problems and eliminate military conflict. The only question now is, why in the world do you think that?

Either A) you were just ignorant and misinformed about human beings and history. or B) You're a delusional megalomaniac who thinks he has the answers to all the world's problems.

So which is it? Ignorance or fascism?

[wufwugy]

If you think a factual historical account of what happened every other time someone tried to implement your ideas is a "red herring", then you're the worst kind of evil.

You're not going to get anywhere with this sort of language and finger pointing.

Believe me. There's a super duper smart economist I love to read, yet he thinks in these terms outside his domain. He says silly things like Trump is evil because he praised a dictator. The bitch of a position one puts himself in when he calls somebody evil is that he had better damn sure be right, because if he's not then he looks like a fool, just like that economist I described looks like a fool to people who don't have Trump Derangement Syndrome.

[BananaStand]

You're not going to get anywhere with this sort of language and finger pointing..

Where am I trying to get to?

when he calls somebody evil is that he had better damn sure be right, because if he's not then he looks like a fool,

I am damn damn damn dog diggity damn sure I'm right on this.

A single planet-wide government governing all people as a single homogenized group??? Can you imagine a worse kind of hell?? I mean seriously now. What Cocco is saying is literally dangerous. And I really don't care if he's offended by the language or the finger pointing, or if anyone else around here find the tone toxic. This point has to be made.

Now I don't expect Cocco to relent in any way. But it's just slightly possible he will think twice before making this proposal to anyone else in his life. It's just slightly possible he reflects silently on what he's proposed and says "Shit, they already tried this in Germany, Russia, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Venezuela, Cuba, and probably a dozen other places and all they have to show for it is widespread abject poverty and some 100+ million gravestones"

If not, then it's just slightly possible that someone who found themselves nodding along with Cocco's post has now been pulled back from the brink of insanity and realized "Oh yeah, that sounded good, but now I see that Cocco's idea ignores basic human nature in a way that is profoundly dangerous"

The worst thing that could happen is to treat that opinion with any respect, or dignity. It would be terrible if we sat around here discussing the pros and cons, and then refined the idea into something we think might actually be implementable. And then some of us go off and convince two friends that its a good idea. Then they go out and convince two friends. And suddenly these ideas seep into the public discourse. And that eventually seeps into policy. And then all it really takes is one hellbent ass hole to gain some influence and then boom....society goes down the fucking toilet.

I know the timing sucks because everyone here is on an "I hate Banana" kick and is flat out determined to force themselves to disagree with whatever I say. But that's not going to stop me because this point has to be made.

Cocco's ideas can NOT be allowed to propagate.

They're evil

[Jack Sawyer]

That video is from december

Your only response was and is to ridicule the idea by strawmen and red herrings.

LOL, some things truly don't change

[BananaStand]

So this philosophical tangent has been nice for forum-filling, but I don't see where you've addressed what was brought up originally as the issue.

Is it accidental, or intentional bias to ascribe the "gun control = nazism" meme to Alex Jones, and not one of the other dozens of pundits and historians who have made the same parallel?

Is it news reporting, or propaganda to cherry pick a baseless conspiracy theorist as your opponent

[BananaStand]

Democrats hate science

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/...n-science.html

discuss....

[Jack Sawyer]

[wufwugy]

Good riddance to a cuck called Ryan

[Poopadoop]

Rats leaving the sinking ship.

[wufwugy]

What's the sinking ship?

[Jack Sawyer]

What's the sinking ship?

The one that's about to get hit by a blue wave

I'm not sure to whether be happy or sad, because most of them blue commies appear not to have learned their lesson the last time

Sadly, it is now more apparent than ever that you guys are a one party system. Not even Coke and Pepsi; more like Coke and Diet Coke. No one will choose diet when you can have the full fat; both kill you anyways.

[wufwugy]

The one that's about to get hit by a blue wave

It's gonna be interesting for sure. I don't have a position yet, probably because most of what's out there is not very good analysis.

Essentially what makes midterm elections turn out the way they do is where on the spectrum we are between "anti-president enthusiasm" and "the goodness of the economy". The way things are now, it is really hard to tell which will be more powerful. There is a degree of anti-Trump enthusiasm in the Democratic base, but depending on how well perceived the economy is, that enthusiasm will grow or diminish enough to create a blue wave or nothing of the sort.

If I have to bet on it, I would say signs are that there will not be a blue wave. But I'm not certain enough about it to express a position.

[Jack Sawyer]

It also happens to be that your foreign and domestic policy is demonstrably dictated by a TV show, which is hilarious, ironic, tragic and terrible at the same time.

These are quite interesting times.

[BananaStand]

It also happens to be that your foreign and domestic policy is demonstrably dictated by a TV show, which is hilarious, ironic, tragic and terrible at the same time.

These are quite interesting times.

weak sauce demagoguery

First of all, if the President didn't consume any news, you'd be saying some pretty foul things about him. So let's start this by agreeing that it IS important for the President to consume news. Why? Because it's a connection to popular opinions and the will of the people.

As you know, various news sources lean in various directions. But Trump's voting base comes from one direction. So it's not really surprising that Trump would listen more intently to voices that are coming from the same direction as his voting base. That's what elected leaders do. It's called fucking Democracy man!

That doesn't mean that he only gets his news from one source. That's a wild and incendiary inference. In fact, in a different news cycle you might be bitching about Trump being 'thin-skinned' over something CNN said about him. Well how the fuck would he know about it if he's only watching FOX?

Now because you can point to a handful of times that Trump's tweets echoed an episode of Fox and Friends doesn't mean that it's compelling any substantial developments of policy that wouldn't have otherwise occurred. Tweeting isn't the same as lawmaking!!

Maybe Trump just has a favorite show. he's a human being just like you and me. And why wouldn't F&F be his favorite show? The curly haired guy and Trump have been friends for a long time. And Ainslee's legs.....mmm

[wufwugy]

weak sauce demagoguery

First of all, if the President didn't consume any news, you'd be saying some pretty foul things about him. So let's start this by agreeing that it IS important for the President to consume news. Why? Because it's a connection to popular opinions and the will of the people.

As you know, various news sources lean in various directions. But Trump's voting base comes from one direction. So it's not really surprising that Trump would listen more intently to voices that are coming from the same direction as his voting base. That's what elected leaders do. It's called fucking Democracy man!

That doesn't mean that he only gets his news from one source. That's a wild and incendiary inference. In fact, in a different news cycle you might be bitching about Trump being 'thin-skinned' over something CNN said about him. Well how the fuck would he know about it if he's only watching FOX?

Now because you can point to a handful of times that Trump's tweets echoed an episode of Fox and Friends doesn't mean that it's compelling any substantial developments of policy that wouldn't have otherwise occurred. Tweeting isn't the same as lawmaking!!

Maybe Trump just has a favorite show. he's a human being just like you and me. And why wouldn't F&F be his favorite show? The curly haired guy and Trump have been friends for a long time. And Ainslee's legs.....mmm

Often when confronted by a fork in the road, where the ego must either rationalize something ridiculous or admit a thing it believes is wrong, the ego rationalizes.

[Jack Sawyer]

It also happens to be that your foreign and domestic policy is demonstrably dictated by a TV show, which is hilarious, ironic, tragic and terrible at the same time.

These are quite interesting times.

weak sauce demagoguery

First of all, if the President didn't consume any news, you'd be saying some pretty foul things about him. So let's start this by agreeing that it IS important for the President to consume news. Why? Because it's a connection to popular opinions and the will of the people.

Consuming news is different than watching a show and executing their sole advice, time and time again

Plus, you are the president. You have all the news at your disposal at all times from your own private sources. You are supposed to know what is going on much better than any TV show* out there.

* Notice I said "TV Show" and not "News Show"

As you know, various news sources lean in various directions. But Trump's voting base comes from one direction. So it's not really surprising that Trump would listen more intently to voices that are coming from the same direction as his voting base. That's what elected leaders do. It's called fucking Democracy man!

That doesn't mean that he only gets his news from one source. That's a wild and incendiary inference. In fact, in a different news cycle you might be bitching about Trump being 'thin-skinned' over something CNN said about him. Well how the fuck would he know about it if he's only watching FOX?

Now because you can point to a handful of times that Trump's tweets echoed an episode of Fox and Friends doesn't mean that it's compelling any substantial developments of policy that wouldn't have otherwise occurred. Tweeting isn't the same as lawmaking!!

Maybe Trump just has a favorite show. he's a human being just like you and me. And why wouldn't F&F be his favorite show? The curly haired guy and Trump have been friends for a long time. And Ainslee's legs.....mmm

Totally coincidental, I'm sure

Apr 13, 2018, morning

Fox & Friends Is JUST WONDERING if Trump Bombing Syria Would Distract From James Comey

https://splinternews.com/fox-friends...ria-1825236104

Apr 13, 2018, nighttime

[BananaStand]

Consuming news is different than watching a show and executing their sole advice, time and time again

Agreed. And if someone in power was watching a single news source and "executing their sole advice" it would be a problem. However, if someone merely has their policy leanings influenced by public opinion, or has questions raised that are cogent to policy-making, then it's not a problem. You're conflating the two just so you can create a statement that sounds "true enough" and use it to attack the political opposition.

That's called demagoguery

Plus, you are the president. You have all the news at your disposal at all times from your own private sources.

False

You are supposed to know what is going on much better than any TV show* out there.

Even so, how do you propose the president find out what his constituents think about what's going on?

* Notice I said "TV Show" and not "News Show"

LOL, wake up dude. It's 2018. There is no longer a line between "news" and "analysis and commentary". That's not a problem isolated to Fox.

Totally coincidental, I'm sure

If you're suggesting that Trump took military action against a hostile nation just so he could distract from a public relations nuisance then you're playing a retarded correlation/causation game that you really should be ashamed of. If you're suggesting that he couldn't formulate that idea on his own, but instead did it because he saw someone say it on TV, then you should probably just withdraw from this discussion because it's clear you aren't willing to keep your opinions within the realm of sanity.

[boost]

It will be interesting to see a blue wave and the reaction of the newly sore losers who were just calling the previous losers sore losers.

To be fair, I think this short sighted vengeful-in-victory shit is awful and just foments a more partisan atmosphere.

[Poopadoop]

Sadly for everyone, Trump's best hope now is war.

[wufwugy]

Trump's best hope now is war.

Why is that?

[wufwugy]

To be fair, I think this short sighted vengeful-in-victory shit is awful and just foments a more partisan atmosphere.

It's a big deal.

[Jack Sawyer]

Agreed. And if someone in power was watching a single news source and "executing their sole advice" it would be a problem. However, if someone merely has their policy leanings influenced by public opinion, or has questions raised that are cogent to policy-making, then it's not a problem. You're conflating the two just so you can create a statement that sounds "true enough" and use it to attack the political opposition.

That's called demagoguery

If you're suggesting that Trump took military action against a hostile nation just so he could distract from a public relations nuisance then you're playing a retarded correlation/causation game that you really should be ashamed of. If you're suggesting that he couldn't formulate that idea on his own, but instead did it because he saw someone say it on TV, then you should probably just withdraw from this discussion because it's clear you aren't willing to keep your opinions within the realm of sanity.

First we need to establish he does watch it religously

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/...hile-president
https://www.axios.com/trump-tweets-f...810e6ff35.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.331849053a1f

I know you hate Vox, but here goes. Broken clocks tend to be right twice a day. At the 3:31, earnhard or whatever her name is says this

So what does the president need to do to change the narrative

Same thing she said in the other video I linked. Take a guess as to what Trump did next in every case she or some of the others on the panel say(s) this.



And I swear to god I did not know about this video until today. But there were countless examples of this exact phenomenon out there, in plain view except for those who literally refuse to see. It's not like it's the Zapruder film either

Here are just a few samples you can continue refusing that happened, as apparently they are not "reality" nor "within the realm of sanity"

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-p...htmlstory.html
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/1437...ox-and-friends
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...trumps-reality
https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ck-loop-216248

False

You've never heard of the Presidential Daily Briefing right?

I hope that is not news to you, but you act as if you have no clue as to WTF it is

LOL, wake up dude. It's 2018. There is no longer a line between "news" and "analysis and commentary". That's not a problem isolated to Fox.

I didn't claim Fox News is not news. They themselves know and admit this full well

The news part of the name is just some cruel irony on its audience

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...-Entertainment
https://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=27363

Even so, how do you propose the president find out what his constituents think about what's going on?

Is watching Fox and Friends the only way he can do this? Oh, here's a clue: it's a rhetorical question banana

[BananaStand]

First we need to establish he does watch it religously

Why? Was that in dispute? "religiously" is your word. You're using it to conjure up images of inescapable ritual and faith-based reverence. And you're doing that because you feel it makes Donald Trump look stupid, pliable, and brainwash-able. I'm willing to establish that he watches "often", or even "very often". But please leave all that other shit at the door.

I know you hate Vox,

Again you're using your own words to convey a chosen meaning designed to fit into your chosen echo chamber narrative. I don't believe I've said that I "hate" Vox. I find them to be a peddler of demagoguery lacking in journalistic integrity. That's different. The video you've posted is a clear example of this.

For example: Trump once tweeted a message of congratulations to F&F for winning some award or in some other way being recognized (by someone other than Trump) as being the "most influential show". Mr. Vox decided to play fast and loose with the facts there and say "Trump called F&F the most influential show". (0:48)

Take a guess as to what Trump did next in every case she or some of the others on the panel say(s) this.

Ok...I'll guess.

Did he draft, sign and implement an executive order?
Did he direct leaders in congress to change their legislative trajectory?
Did he authorize the use of military assets?
Did he appoint someone to a job who wasn't being considered otherwise?
Did he fire someone for reasons that were only reported on F&F?

I'm running out of guesses here.....

Let's see....I'll try one more.....did he maybe put out a tweet that said something along the lines of "here's something on TV that I liked"

And I swear to god I did not know about this video until today.

I've seen it before. After all, how could I judge Vox if I never actually pay attention to them? Similarly, I would ask you how much Fox News you watch. And if it's not much, on what basis are you criticizing them?

But there were countless examples of this exact phenomenon out there,

This "phenomenon" can be observed in virtually every single news-consuming citizen on earth. Pick a person. Any random person off the street. Then evaluate their facebook page and internet history. See what they've "liked", reblogged, retweeted, linked, DVR'd etc. Vox could make a "zomg he's brainwashed" video about almost anyone.

Here are just a few samples you can continue refusing that happened, as apparently they are not "reality" nor "within the realm of sanity"

Every single one of those examples references Trump's use of twitter. None of those examples show a correlation between a F&F story and a changing of Trump's policy agenda. All you've demonstrated is that Trump likes a show that presumes to speak for his constituents. By acknowledging their message, he's speaking to his voters and saying "I'm listening".

If you're going to leap from there to a position in which you believe that Trump wakes up every morning not knowing what the fuck he's gonna do until he gets his priorities from F&F, then you have left the realm of sanity.

You've never heard of the Presidential Daily Briefing right?

Movium el goalposticus

Your original statement says that Trump already has "all the news". As evidence you've cited an intelligence briefing. Not the same thing.

Is watching Fox and Friends the only way he can do this? Oh, here's a clue: it's a rhetorical question banana

I asked you a non-rhetorical question that you completely evaded with this bullshit, non-sensical answer.

[Jack Sawyer]

Why? Was that in dispute? "religiously" is your word. You're using it to conjure up images of inescapable ritual and faith-based reverence. And you're doing that because you feel it makes Donald Trump look stupid, pliable, and brainwash-able. I'm willing to establish that he watches "often", or even "very often". But please leave all that other shit at the door.

Note the second bullet point. Turns out it's possible for that particular word to mean something different than actually religion related.

Nice strawman attempt tho

Again you're using your own words to convey a chosen meaning designed to fit into your chosen echo chamber narrative. I don't believe I've said that I "hate" Vox.

Is this another Mandela effect on my part for not having been around in a long time? Cause I can quite vividly recall you claiming all sorts of shit about vox. I could search, but FTR's search function sucks and I'm too lazy to give a fuck, so I'll gladly take your word for it.

I find them to be a peddler of demagoguery lacking in journalistic integrity. That's different.

Ironic word used there. We'll address that later.

Quite the same as I think about Fox mostly. I even posted a thread on here uttering my dislike on Fox. Sure you can find it if you need any reference.

The video you've posted is a clear example of this.

The video I posted is an example of Trump's behaviour. How Fox & Friends is currently affecting legislation in your country.

For example: Trump once tweeted a message of congratulations to F&F for winning some award or in some other way being recognized (by someone other than Trump) as being the "most influential show". Mr. Vox decided to play fast and loose with the facts there and say "Trump called F&F the most influential show". (0:48)

Yeah about that. That's why it's called a feedback loop. You are kind of making vox' point.

This is the loop in action

President Donald Trump favorite Fox & Friends has been named 2017's most influential show in media by news and opinion blog Mediaite, probably because the president himself tweets, talks about, and cites the show so often on his Twitter account.

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-fox-fr...uential-755116

I don't think I have to explain this in any more detail as it should be overwhelmingly an obvious point, even to you

Ok...I'll guess.

Did he draft, sign and implement an executive order?
Did he direct leaders in congress to change their legislative trajectory?
Did he authorize the use of military assets?
Did he appoint someone to a job who wasn't being considered otherwise?
Did he fire someone for reasons that were only reported on F&F?

I'm running out of guesses here.....

Let's see....I'll try one more.....did he maybe put out a tweet that said something along the lines of "here's something on TV that I liked"

I'm sure if I analyze the minutiae I could come up with a million examples of when he did, rather than just last week's one(s).

I'm sure someone else is doing that at the moment though ...

Oh would you look at that! A nicely written article on this subject! And "old" too!

https://www.thenation.com/article/th...s-fox-friends/

Just for shits and giggles, here's another recent example
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/08/60061...ite-tv-channel

GARCIA-NAVARRO: And reports he watches on "Fox & Friends" actually influence policy.

(SOUNDBITE OF TV SHOW, "FOX & FRIENDS")

PETE HEGSETH: We talked about this group of migrants, 1,200 marching to America...

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Just last week, after a segment on a caravan of Central American migrants, President Trump called his defense secretary to the White House. And he's now deployed National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border. Fox News may be the most important news organization in America right now simply because it has a devoted audience inside the Oval Office of one. David Folkenflik is our media correspondent and our resident Fox expert. He told me what the president sees when he turns on the network.

I've seen it before. After all, how could I judge Vox if I never actually pay attention to them? Similarly, I would ask you how much Fox News you watch. And if it's not much, on what basis are you criticizing them?

I hate Fox News.

https://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerf...nt-154830.html

In the meantime, they have just dropped all pretense and just tripled down on their *actual* demagoguery. I already linked to the why they themselves do not consider themselves to be a news organization, not gonna do so again as there is no use

This "phenomenon" can be observed in virtually every single news-consuming citizen on earth. Pick a person. Any random person off the street. Then evaluate their facebook page and internet history. See what they've "liked", reblogged, retweeted, linked, DVR'd etc. Vox could make a "zomg he's brainwashed" video about almost anyone.

He's the goddamned president. The one who holds the nuke codes. He should know better.

Every single one of those examples references Trump's use of twitter.

I just gave another which wasn't. I can go on, but there is no need

None of those examples show a correlation between a F&F story and a changing of Trump's policy agenda

I just gave one that showed exact correlation between Fox and Friends saying and Trump doing.

All you've demonstrated is that Trump likes a show that presumes to speak for his constituents. By acknowledging their message, he's speaking to his voters and saying "I'm listening".

This is the tough part. I could wager that not all republicans favor Faux, but the overwhelming majority who watch Fox are republicans. Like 99:1.

If you're going to leap from there to a position in which you believe that Trump wakes up every morning not knowing what the fuck he's gonna do until he gets his priorities from F&F, then you have left the realm of sanity.

That is the only rational conclusion one can take, judging by how he behaves himself. One morning he has position A on a subject, by night it's B, by next morning it's C and by lunchtime that day it's position D, and yet his base will argue everytime he has any one of those positions that that was his exact position all along! It's simply amazing.

Movium el goalposticus

This is the president's job description:

The Constitution assigns the president two roles: chief executive of the federal government and Commander in Chief of the armed forces. As Commander in Chief, the president has the authority to send troops into combat, and is the only one who can decide whether to use nuclear weapons.

As chief executive, he enforces laws, treaties, and court rulings; develops federal policies; prepares the national budget; and appoints federal officials. He also approves or vetoes acts of Congress and grants pardons.

In those roles, he should be the one making the news. As such, he should not have any god damned time left to watch TV, let alone TV shows pretending to be news shows.

If he needs to know what is relevant to him, what is actually going on, you know, the stuff that news doesn't know, that 's why he has the President's Daily Brief. He does not need to be told, ever, WTF is going on NOR how to act on anything by Fox News/& Friends.

Your original statement says that Trump already has "all the news". As evidence you've cited an intelligence briefing. Not the same thing.

I wonder if you actually know the distinction between the two. Please enlighten us with your ever expanding wisdom. Do remember that time is precious and should be spent doing actually useful things, particularly when you are the president of any random country.

I asked you a non-rhetorical question that you completely evaded with this bullshit, non-sensical answer.

What question? Like, really, 'cause I missed it apparently

[BananaStand]

Nice strawman attempt tho

Nonsense. You know exactly what you were doing.

I can quite vividly recall you claiming all sorts of shit about vox.

Did I use the word "hate" or not? Why is this important to you? Isn't "peddlers of demagoguery without journalistic integrity" enough?

Ironic word used there. We'll address that later.

You kinda didn't. You just kinda said "But I think Fox is demagogues"

The video I posted is an example of Trump's behaviour. How Fox & Friends is currently affecting legislation in your country.

Which legislation exactly? I still haven't seen a shred of evidence that says Trump did something he wouldn't otherwise have done but for F&F. You just keep presenting instances of a F&F piece leading to a tweet or statement of some kind. I really can't state it more clearly than I already have. So, I'll just quote myself here:

Every single one of those examples references Trump's use of twitter. None of those examples show a correlation between a F&F story and a changing of Trump's policy agenda. All you've demonstrated is that Trump likes a show that presumes to speak for his constituents. By acknowledging their message, he's speaking to his voters and saying "I'm listening".

This is the loop in action

"action" is kind of a loaded term here. Trump likes a show. That makes the show influential. That's why Trump likes it. etc. etc. So what? What outcome has that led to that you object to?

I don't think I have to explain this in any more detail as it should be overwhelmingly an obvious point, even to you

It should be obvious to you that Vox was playing fast and loose with the facts. And regardless, you still have NOT demonstrated any obvious consequence to Trump liking a show. Why is this so much worse than if his favorite show was 60 Minutes, or HeeHaw?

I'm sure if I analyze the minutiae I could come up with a million examples of when he did, rather than just last week's one(s).

That's a cop out. What you're really saying here is "yeah Banana, you're right. Trump watching F&F hasn't led to anything more than tweeting. I can't think of or find a single example of when a F&F story compelled Trump to take an action he wouldn't have otherwise taken. There really is no evidence that Trump is a blank-minded idiot who needs to be spoon fed his priorities from a bimbo, a square, and a guy who looks like a cabbage patch doll"

A nicely written article on this subject! And "old" too!

I call FOUL on this! The article opens with a few paragraphs about how Bannon is a jerk. Then goes on to call F&F "news for dummies". Where in this article are you seeing a direct causal link between a F&F story and a change in policy?

this is the closest I could find:

These people have substantial influence over the president’s policy agenda and day-to-day priorities. That is not a conspiracy theory but a demonstrable fact.

It doesn't actually "demonstrate" any fact though. That sentence just contains a link to yet another story about a correlation between F&F and Trump's tweets.

Just for shits and giggles, here's another recent example

Are you really suggesting that if Trump had heard about the immigrant caravan from CNN, that he would have done something different? Or that he wouldn't have heard about the caravan had he not watched F&F that day? Is that what you're suggesting? Seriously?

You're not telling me anything other than "Trump watches TV". You haven't demonstrated, at all, how it's influencing his thinking. Again, Fox is speaking, ostensibly, for Trump voters. When he acknowledges them with a tweet, he's saying "I'm listening". To infer anything beyond that, without a shred of evidence, is outside the realm of sanity.

In the meantime, they have just dropped all pretense and just tripled down on their *actual* demagoguery.

I'm not going to play the "who's a bigger demagogue" game with you here. I'm just going to say that if what you're implying with you're use of, and emphasis on the word "actual", is that Vox is NOT demagogue-ing, then you've left the realm of sanity.

He's the goddamned president. The one who holds the nuke codes. He should know better.

Know better than to what? Retweet things? Than to watch TV? Then to acknowledge his constituents when they speak to him?

Explain to me why Trump tweeting something he saw on F&F is not simply an acknowledgement of "i'm listening". Explain to me why it just HAS to be caveman-Trump saying "Mmm, me like TV. Pretty girl say laws. Me go make what she say. Oooga booga"

I just gave another which wasn't. I can go on, but there is no need

No...you didn't.

I just gave one that showed exact correlation between Fox and Friends saying and Trump doing

.
No...you didn't

This is the tough part. I could wager that not all republicans favor Faux, but the overwhelming majority who watch Fox are republicans. Like 99:1

That's kinda my point. People who vote for Trump-- republicans-- watch Fox. They watch Fox because they like what Fox says. When Trump watches Fox, he hears what his voters like. Why do you have a problem with that?

That is the only rational conclusion one can take, judging by how he behaves himself.

You have yet to show any "rational" link between a F&F piece, and a change in Trump's "behavior". I'll say it again. You're playing a really juvenile correlation/causation game that you really should be ashamed of.

One morning he has position A on a subject, by night it's B, by next morning it's C and by lunchtime that day it's position D, and yet his base will argue everytime he has any one of those positions that that was his exact position all along! It's simply amazing.

^Demagoguery. Right there. You should go ask David Pakman if you can be on his show.

In those roles, he should be the one making the news.

I'm stunned right now. Are you saying Trump is not making the news? Are you really saying that?

As such, he should not have any god damned time left to watch TV, let alone TV shows pretending to be news shows.

I'm further stunned. If you're saying that you think it's best that the President not consume news media, you've left the realm of sanity. Even Washington read newspapers for fuck's sake!

If he needs to know what is relevant to him, what is actually going on, you know, the stuff that news doesn't know, that 's why he has the President's Daily Brief.

If you're saying that news media and the Presidential Daily Brief are redundant, please cite your source. Does the PDB tell Trump how his voting base *feels* about what's going on?

He does not need to be told, ever, WTF is going on NOR how to act on anything by Fox News/& Friends.

can you demonstrate, a single instance where Trump wouldn't have known something if he wasn't watching F&F? Furthermore, can you demonstrate a single instance where Trump acted differently than he otherwise would have had he not seen something on F&F? The only exception to that obviously being tweets. Even in the case of tweets though, that's not an act influencing policy. It's simply an acknowledgement of "I'm listening"

I wonder if you actually know the distinction between the two. Please enlighten us with your ever expanding wisdom. Do remember that time is precious and should be spent doing actually useful things, particularly when you are the president of any random country

Since time is precious, why don't you just cite me a source that says the PDB tells Trump how popular opinion is reacting to current events.

What question? Like, really, 'cause I missed it apparently

Really? You quoted it! Here it is again:

How do you propose the President remain in touch with popular opinion regarding current events and government policy?