The Next President is...

[DosXX]

I don't even know anyone who still watches cable TV. Qanon, misinformation, and other conspiracies run rampant on the internet (and especially FB), where algorithms exacerbate echo chambers even more than mainstream media ever did and where adversaries can much more easily influence discourse (compare RT to an army of thousands of hidden bots spreading misinformation and using deep fakes). My own family was a victim to conspiracies wrt COVID. Efforts to combat misinformation will lead to biased censorship, and anti big tech sentiment will exceed current anti MSM sentiment, leading to even more radicalization. I hate to be pessimistic but I'm not so sure the internet is our saving grace here, I fear this will only prove to make things worse.

Edited January 8, 2021 by DosXX

[Prozac]

17 minutes ago, DosXX said:

I don't even know anyone who still watches cable TV. Qanon, misinformation, and other conspiracies run rampant on the internet (and especially FB), where algorithms exacerbate echo chambers even more than mainstream media ever did and where adversaries can much more easily influence discourse (compare RT to an army of thousands of hidden bots spreading misinformation and using deep fakes). My own family was a victim to conspiracies wrt COVID. Efforts to combat misinformation will lead to biased censorship, and anti big tech sentiment will exceed current anti MSM sentiment, leading to even more radicalization. I hate to be pessimistic but I'm not so sure the internet is our saving grace here, I fear this will only prove to make things worse.

Internet is certainly no saving grace. Quite the opposite. People growing up with an innate ability to sniff out the bullshit is what we need. 

[N730]

To [mention=81255]Swamp Yankee[/mention]’s point, yes Fox has a big viewer base. But they’re small fish in terms of sheer numbers. If you add up all of the major print and video media publications and then add together the WSJ and Fox, it’s not even a contest. 

I wouldn't call Fox a small fish at all. And they're only losing viewership because news networks that make Fox look centrist are becoming more popular.

I didn't see 2020 numbers in my quick search, but in 2019 Fox averaged 2.5 million viewers. MSNBC and CNN (the only other two news channels in the top 40 listed) combined to total 2.8 million viewers.

I'll say, this was a quick search, but it shows that Fox has a larger presence than I think a lot of people realize.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/deadline.com/2019/12/cable-ratings-2019-list-fox-news-total-viewers-espn-18-49-demo-1202817561/amp/

Edit: Not sure exactly how to find numbers on print since it includes Internet readership. But I would say if we include print since it skews to the liberal side, we need to include radio since it skews conservative.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

[jazzdude]

Internet is certainly no saving grace. Quite the opposite. People growing up with an innate ability to sniff out the bullshit is what we need. 

That has to be taught, it's not an innate ability. So who does the teaching? Who develops and approves the curriculum?

We are surrounded by our biases, whether we acknowledge them or not, and they influence our decisions/opinions/emotions.

So in practice its hard to sniff out BS all the time without running into personal blindspots. And delegating that authority means censorship has to happen. Censorship isn't necessarily a bad thing- it filters out the BS. The problem is it can also be used to filter out other stuff as well

[slackline]

31 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

That has to be taught, it's not an innate ability. So who does the teaching? Who develops and approves the curriculum?

We are surrounded by our biases, whether we acknowledge them or not, and they influence our decisions/opinions/emotions.

So in practice its hard to sniff out BS all the time without running into personal blindspots. And delegating that authority means censorship has to happen. Censorship isn't necessarily a bad thing- it filters out the BS. The problem is it can also be used to filter out other stuff as well

It's called critical thinking.  It needs to be taught by parents and teachers.  We need to realize it's impossible to mask our biases, but do our best to try.  Even when I agree with a point my 18 year old is making I try to get him to examine it from all sides. Try to understand what makes the other side tick, why they think the way they do, and encourage him not to shut out the people he disagrees with when they can't find common ground.  Teachers need to do a better job of this starting in high school and solidify those principles in college.  It should be part of any good teacher certification program to encourage thought from all sides, and keep your own thoughts out of the discussion unless specifically required by the subject matter being taught.  Good luck...

[Homestar]

2 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:

I can’t tell if you’re trying to provoke an answer or if this is a “Gotcha” attempt.

No gotcha attempt here. But there is such a massive presence of conservative media outlets that you can’t just lump everything together to be “the media.”  It’s a lazy, tired take. Not saying you’re doing this. Just thinking out loud. 

[Swamp Yankee]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

This is a fair point. I think it’s a huge problem that most media outlets these days feel they must represent one side or the other. To Homestar’s point, the fact that Fox and conservative talk radio have stepped in to fill the perceived void of conservative editorial voices has only made things worse. Of course, we get the media we deserve and who can blame Time Warner or Rupert Murdock when ratings ($$$) are so good? On a more optimistic note, it seems like the 50 plus crowd, who were conditioned to trust news anchors, seem to be the most susceptible to wholly swallowing (sts) overtly biased information. The younger crowd seems to be a bit more savvy in how they consume information, which is good, because that’s about the only thing that will break the cycle of echo chamber media. 

'A free press is an essential ingredient in a democracy and provides a vital role in informing citizens about public affairs and monitoring the actions of government at all levels.' (that's a combined plagiarism of the Brookings Institution and Koch institute - how's that for balance?) 

I agree with the comments by several here that the press is a profit-driven enterprise.  However, that's the only way to be free of government interference and avoid devolving to propaganda.   So its a conundrum.  Hopefully there's enough integrity so that at least some news outlets try not to let their partisanship go non-linear. Interestingly the BBC might be one of the best sources of US news.  

My cynical side believes that the political parties and press have a vested interest in fitting us into a "R" or "D" box.  Once they do, we are owned, either by Fox/talk radio/Blaze or MSNBC/current CNN/NPR.   Then they have a nice stable support base and captive audiences for advertising.  They do not want independents. 

[Lord Ratner]

On 1/7/2021 at 9:29 AM, disgruntledemployee said:

Anyone that thinks the elections were stolen, full of fraud, etc. has been gaslighted.  Trump, his family, his apostles, his subjugates, and his followers, are all brainwashed.  I used to be surprised by stuff, but not much these days.  This one has me surprised again, that so many in our nation are convinced that the election was stolen.  The actions of those fucktards yesterday has brought great shame upon our nation.

Out

Just like anyone who thinks America is a racist country where innocent black people are being massacred by the cops is being gaslighted. That's the whole point, and the real tragedy. The Republicans now have their own false reality (election fraud) to live in. So both sides no longer know what's real.

 

Great.

 

 

[Homestar]

Oh hi, I’m just a peaceful protesting patriot here at the Capitol walking around with flex cuffs and paramilitary body armor. No big deal. 

[slackline]

22 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Just like anyone who thinks America is a racist country where innocent black people are being massacred by the cops is being gaslighted. That's the whole point, and the real tragedy. The Republicans now have their own false reality (election fraud) to live in. So both sides no longer know what's real.

 

Great.

 

 

Except for the volumes of fact based data and evidence proving that there are significant problems with the way policing is handled for one color vs another.  Latest example is the largely white people mob that violently stormed the Capitol (one cop even died from the blue lives matter crowd) and then were allowed to leave vs the way many of the protests from this summer were handled.  But I guess that's also just the media spinning it.

 Where were the volumes of facts and data evidencing the election fraud?   So cool, keep believing that...

People in the know aren't saying America is racist or that innocent black people are always targeted.  They're talking about systems that have problems needing fixes and the disparity in the way black suspects are handled vs white suspects. Extremists and ignorant people claim otherwise because of ignorance pushed by the media at times, but those driving the movement aren't claiming what you're saying.  

On the other hand, the President and all of his elected enablers were pushing his falsehoods and conspiracy theories.  This is not an apples to apples comparison.

Edited January 8, 2021 by slackline

[Lord Ratner]

9 minutes ago, slackline said:

Except for the volumes of fact based data and evidence proving that there are significant problems with the way policing is handled for one color vs another.  Latest example is the largely white people mob that violently stormed the Capitol (one cop even died from the blue lives matter crowd) and then we're allowed to leave vs the way many of the protests from this summer were handled.  But I guess that's also just the media spinning it.

 Where were the volumes of facts and data evidencing the election fraud?   So cool, keep believing that...

I was specific in what I said. Election fraud and the systemic persecution of black people in the new millennium were both false narratives. 

 

19 unarmed black people were shot by police in 2019. Are you going to pretend like that was the narrative this summer? I can spend the time quoting the many public leftists who fanned the flames with a false premise, but maybe we're just misunderstanding each other's point?

 

If you think the protests over the summer were based on reality, spend the time and read the opposing side, you don't need me to Google it for you. Heather MacDonald has five great work on the subject. If you've done that and still buy the vision of a racist america in 2020, we'll just be stuck in different realities.

Edited January 8, 2021 by Lord Ratner

[slackline]

1 minute ago, Lord Ratner said:

I was specific in what I said. Quote your data. 

 

19 unarmed black people were shot by police in 2019. Are you going to pretend like that was the narrative this summer? I can spend the time quoting the many public leftists who fanned the flames with a false premise, but maybe we're just misunderstanding each other's point?

 

If you think the protests over the summer were based on reality, spend the time and read the opposing side, you don't need me to Google it for you. Heather MacDonald has five great work on the subject. If you've done that and still buy the vision of a racist america in 2020, we'll just be stuck in different realities.

You were involved in many of the discussions involving this topic, so I know you've seen the data that has been posted on this forum ad nauseum, so I'm not going to waste my time reposting it all.  

You must not have read my post if you're still saying I'm buying a vision of a racist America. I don't.  I do, however, think there are problems that need to be addressed.  Very credible sources from both sides of the aisle have been posted and disregarded by people in here.  

I've read the opposing side. There's a few black people siding with you claiming, "I overcame, so can anyone." That's not wrong, anyone can, but it ignores the unique challenges POC face.  The rest of the evidence posted by the other side is a bunch of white people refusing to admit their could possibly be a problem.  

I'm not claiming America is racist.  It's more progressive and forward thinking than most countries. We're called out for stuff by countries that are way worse than us.  I lived on the French economy for 3 years.  Waaaaay more racist!  This is the best country in the world, hands down!  I'm just saying we could be better.

[Lord Ratner]

1 minute ago, slackline said:

You were involved in many of the discussions involving this topic, so I know you've seen the data that has been posted on this forum ad nauseum, so I'm not going to waste my time reposting it all.  

You must not have read my post if you're still saying I'm buying a vision of a racist America. I don't.  I do, however, think there are problems that need to be addressed.  Very credible sources from both sides of the aisle have been posted and disregarded by people in here.  

I've read the opposing side. There's a few black people siding with you claiming, "I overcame, so can anyone." That's not wrong, anyone can, but it ignores the unique challenges POC face.  The rest of the evidence posted by the other side is a bunch of white people refusing to admit their could possibly be a problem.  

I'm not claiming America is racist.  It's more progressive and forward thinking than most countries. We're called out for stuff by countries that are way worse than us.  I lived on the French economy for 3 years.  Waaaaay more racist!  This is the best country in the world, hands down!  I'm just saying we could be better.

Exactly dude, that's a realistic view. Do you really think that's the narrative espoused by the left (political class, not voters)? You think your view led to riots?

[slackline]

13 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Exactly dude, that's a realistic view. Do you really think that's the narrative espoused by the left (political class, not voters)? You think your view led to riots?

I think my view led to protests, riots no.  The extremists and opportunists took advantage.  It is deplorable they did it.  I'll even agree with you that some leaders on the left were pushing that narrative, but most weren't.  On the right, most were pushing Trump's narrative.  That's a problem.

[jazzdude]

It's called critical thinking.  It needs to be taught by parents and teachers.  We need to realize it's impossible to mask our biases, but do our best to try.  

I agree with your intent, but actually putting it in practice is what's difficult, if not impossible.

One challenge is you can have two critical thinkers arrive to vastly different conclusions based on the same information, both with sound logical arguments that bring them to their conclusion. So who is right, or who has arrived at the "truth"?

Another challenge is how much of our lives and decisions are actually reasoned, conscious, deliberate decisions?

For example, if I see a stranger that looks different than me, talks different, behaves different than what I'm used to or have been exposed to in a positive manner, I may get uncomfortable, fearful, aggressive (flight or fight response), or just curious. That can lead to knee-jerk actions or judgements. Maybe it's right and justified, maybe it's not. But that initial response happens without conscious thought. Sometimes you can override the initial instinct with a conscious decision. And sure, you could train/condition out that response, but at the risk of turning into an easily clubbed baby seal due to a lack of a fear or flight/fight response to a real threat you don't recognize as dangerous. Or you can argue that my realist views on the world are incorrect. Or you could take time to understand the stranger and their differences, but that takes time and energy to do, and we only have so much time and energy in a day.

There's also a motion that a lot of what we consider a conscious actions really aren't: it's our body making an reflexive reaction to the world, and our brain rationalizing the action afterwards to explain the reflex.

But there are people who know how to exploit people's fears to motivate them to take action. The most successful ones also know how to take that fear and build a convincing or appealing story to explain the fear and actions that should be taken to address the fear. That story doesn't even need to be true or reasonable, just convincing and/or appealing. That story builds a narrative for the action, and can become ingrained so that it's not critically analyzed by it's believers.

For example, Flat Earthers. Generally, it seems they are just distrustful of "the man," and have latched onto the narrative that the earth is flat based on what they can observe, and there's a conspiracy behind the shape of the earth. This is despite the scientific and observable facts that show the Earth is not flat. I'm sure everyone in this board (except the herk guys, sorry) have seen at least some curvature of the Earth up at cruise. But if you've ever had the displeasure of interacting with a flat Earther trying to convince you the world is flat, they think you're in on the conspiracy. They double down on their belief despite the vast information out there contrary to their belief, that had existed in some form since ancient Greece. But arguably, they are thinking critically based on what they can observe themselves, since they don't trust the observations of others. Though I find it funny when they derive an experiment to prove the Earth is flat, only to find that the earth has curvature. So why do they stay? A sense of belonging, or not wanting to admit they were duped (pride) might be a few reasons.

[slackline]

7 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

 

 

I agree with your intent, but actually putting it in practice is what's difficult, if not impossible.

One challenge is you can have two critical thinkers arrive to vastly different conclusions based on the same information, both with sound logical arguments that bring them to their conclusion. So who is right, or who has arrived at the "truth"?

Another challenge is how much of our lives and decisions are actually reasoned, conscious, deliberate decisions?

For example, if I see a stranger that looks different than me, talks different, behaves different than what I'm used to or have been exposed to in a positive manner, I may get uncomfortable, fearful, aggressive (flight or fight response), or just curious. That can lead to knee-jerk actions or judgements. Maybe it's right and justified, maybe it's not. But that initial response happens without conscious thought. Sometimes you can override the initial instinct with a conscious decision. And sure, you could train/condition out that response, but at the risk of turning into an easily clubbed baby seal due to a lack of a fear or flight/fight response to a real threat you don't recognize as dangerous. Or you can argue that my realist views on the world are incorrect. Or you could take time to understand the stranger and their differences, but that takes time and energy to do, and we only have so much time and energy in a day.

There's also a motion that a lot of what we consider a conscious actions really aren't: it's our body making an reflexive reaction to the world, and our brain rationalizing the action afterwards to explain the reflex.

But there are people who know how to exploit people's fears to motivate them to take action. The most successful ones also know how to take that fear and build a convincing or appealing story to explain the fear and actions that should be taken to address the fear. That story doesn't even need to be true or reasonable, just convincing and/or appealing. That story builds a narrative for the action, and can become ingrained so that it's not critically analyzed by it's believers.

For example, Flat Earthers. Generally, it seems they are just distrustful of "the man," and have latched onto the narrative that the earth is flat based on what they can observe, and there's a conspiracy behind the shape of the earth. This is despite the scientific and observable facts that show the Earth is not flat. I'm sure everyone in this board (except the herk guys, sorry) have seen at least some curvature of the Earth up at cruise. But if you've ever had the displeasure of interacting with a flat Earther trying to convince you the world is flat, they think you're in on the conspiracy. They double down on their belief despite the vast information out there contrary to their belief, that had existed in some form since ancient Greece. But arguably, they are thinking critically based on what they can observe themselves, since they don't trust the observations of others. Though I find it funny when they derive an experiment to prove the Earth is flat, only to find that the earth has curvature. So why do they stay? A sense of belonging, or not wanting to admit they were duped (pride) might be a few reasons.

 

I guess that's all true or possible, but I'd rather disagree with someone, like Lord Ratner for example, who's come to their conclusion based on reason and logic vs someone buying every talking point on Fox News or MSNBC simply because it's being said.

We have to try, can't just say it's too difficult and not try.

[ViperMan]

6 hours ago, Swamp Yankee said:

I generally agree with the above.  The 5 points above would equally apply to Trump at the start of his term.  In 2016, Trump won by the same electoral margin as Biden (and lost the popular vote, although officially that's not applicable)  Thus, Trump should have followed the same principles.  He didn't. Far from it. 

Totally agree.

I wish Trump had been more mature during his tenure. I wish the media realized what/who they were dealing with and hadn't stooped to his level, but they did, and honestly, they do bear some of the responsibility for the current state of affairs.

In terms of the election being close, sorry, I was specifically referring to Georgia's Senate run-off, and the fact that it's now a 50/50 split. Trump wasn't really close in the presidential election. I give as much credence to voter fraud this time around as I did last time, which is to say, not much. I guess I should clarify: it happens, but not to a level that affects the outcome of elections (IMO, at least). Trump running with the trope that there was massive fraud that prevented his re-election is unironically pretty funny.

[ViperMan]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

I was specific in what I said. Election fraud and the systemic persecution of black people in the new millennium were both false narratives. 

19 unarmed black people were shot by police in 2019. Are you going to pretend like that was the narrative this summer? I can spend the time quoting the many public leftists who fanned the flames with a false premise, but maybe we're just misunderstanding each other's point?

If you think the protests over the summer were based on reality, spend the time and read the opposing side, you don't need me to Google it for you. Heather MacDonald has five great work on the subject. If you've done that and still buy the vision of a racist america in 2020, we'll just be stuck in different realities.

☝️ Reality.

Expect the more the left embraces, develops, and pushes a false reality, the further the polarization will become in our country.

What should happen is a frank, cultural discussion about what are, and are not the US's remaining racial challenges that need to be rectified. Systemic police violence against group 'X' is not on that list.

Unfortunately, what is on the table is demonstrably BS. Half of what's out there is information shaped to fit a narrative designed to drive policy decisions and law-making to serve a few of the chosen. The other half is desperately trying to maintain a grasp of reality.

[FLEA]

When discussing liberal media bias, most people are getting at this: 

 

The following data is sourced from OpenSecrets which gathers data based on political donations made by employees of said industries. Anytime a political donation of more than $100 is made the person must include their employer along with other information on the donation. OpenSecrets is a non-partisan group that gathers and evaluates data based on where people come from who donate. The most concerning thing about the above chart is that the quad on the far left, deals business in information. It includes Hollywood, social media, search engines, educational institutions, etc... You are never going to convince conservatives that these people present unbiased information because they are the same people that are donating billions of dollars each year to the democratic caucuses. 

 

Edited January 8, 2021 by FLEA

[jazzdude]

I guess that's all true or possible, but I'd rather disagree with someone, like Lord Ratner for example, who's come to their conclusion based on reason and logic vs someone buying every talking point on Fox News or MSNBC simply because it's being said.
We have to try, can't just say it's too difficult and not try.

I agree with you on 100% here (so please don't take my reply as chucking spears in disagreement, more meant in the spirit of debate). Even if it's not perfect or fully realizable, it's still worth striving towards. But it's a very challenging problem, especially since humans aren't always rational, even if they want to be.

There's one big assumption though to make it work: all of this is built on mutual respect for each other, and that's something that we unfortunately seem to have lost in our society in favor of defending whatever tribe we have decided to affiliate with. And unfortunately, it's hard to make laws that define mutual respect without some jerk finding a loophole and requiring more laws.

[Pooter]

Twitter just permanently suspended trumps account. 
 

Good move in my opinion. He's been using the platform irresponsibly for years and now has strayed into blatant violations of the terms of service.

[17D_guy]

41 minutes ago, Pooter said:

Twitter just permanently suspended trumps account. 
 

Good move in my opinion. He's been using the platform irresponsibly for years and now has strayed into blatant violations of the terms of service.

Flynn and Sid Powell as well. Imagine Linn is up soon as well.

 

Apple also I told Parler to start getting rid of the calls to violence or they're out the app store.

[Prosuper]

I believe we will see mass voter non participation in future elections. I'm 58 and finally understand that both political parties are clubs for the sole purpose of getting the made guys elected. It was never about public service, since the Biden's are now in power the big money donors will call all the shots to include military contractors. Those of you still in Afghanistan or on the hook for it, we will be probably be staying now.  Back to the status quo , business as usual.

[Homestar]

8 minutes ago, Prosuper said:

we will be probably be staying now. 

We’re staying either way. What are you talking about?

Edited January 9, 2021 by Homestar

[JQuintana]

1 hour ago, Prosuper said:

I believe we will see mass voter non participation in future elections. I'm 58 and finally understand that both political parties are clubs for the sole purpose of getting the made guys elected. It was never about public service, since the Biden's are now in power the big money donors will call all the shots to include military contractors. Those of you still in Afghanistan or on the hook for it, we will be probably be staying now.  Back to the status quo , business as usual.

I suppose the Koch brothers don't count as big money donors.  Cool.