Jump to content
If you posted something on 21 Feb 21, it likely didn't stick during the server migration. -DFRESH ×

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Homestar said:

"The media." What is "the media"?

Whenever anyone resorts to blaming "the media" I have to just kind of tune out to whatever else they are saying because that's like blaming "white people" for slavery.  "The media" means nothing.  You have a problem with the editorial content of CNN, MSNBC, the NYT, or whatever that's fine.  But you're going to have to be more specific than "the media" because OANN and Fox News are part of "the media" too.

Slow burn over a decade, then a gallon of gas and a match over the past two months.  You tell me what caused the house to burn down.

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

Regardless, I’ll bite. The print/video media has a liberal bent. I feel like that’s obvious. To @Swamp Yankee’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. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Want to slash American carbon?  Build nuclear power plants.  

When MSNBC announced Trump's win in Iowa, there was an audible grunt from Rachel Madow. By the sound of it, she apparently sat on her sack wrong. Happens to the best of us.

Found this entertaining Because screw that bitch and her "it's my turn" mentality. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted Images

As easy as it to blame the media, I'm not sure they should take the full brunt of the hate.

(News) Media in the US is largely made up of businesses; we don't have a massive, state run media machine, though you can argue public affairs offices in various government agencies publishing things online or social media is a media outlet. But I'd argue the latter doesn't generally spread information to the general public directly, but it's usually picked up by another news outlet and repeated on that platform.

So since the news companies aren't fully supported by public funds, they need to make money. And the primarily model to make money on news is selling advertisements. The more viewers they can get, the more they can charge for ads, and the more money they make. However, this creates an incentive for them to pursue certain segments of the population. Fox doubled down on the right, while MSNBC doubled down on the left. So it's hard to blame them for doing what businesses do, it's their fiduciary duty to make money for their shareholders/owners.

All the media did was can the flames on existing discontent out in the public faster, in return for making money. Sure, they probably had guidance from their senior executives on the direction based on the politics of those senior executives, who likely also have strong political connections.

But our form of government requires an informed population, requiring some sort of mass news delivery. But we don't trust government sources of news, which leaves us to news companies who are pursuing their own interests, which may not align with the public's interests.

At the same time, we've eroded the trust in our government, and transparency is a double edge sword. It allows the public to see what is going on. But it also makes it harder for politicians to compromise, since if they do, they'll be scorned as not a true believer in the political cause of the day and potentially be replaced by someone else in the next election. So it creates a perverse incentive to never compromise and double down on your position to retain power. Then you gerrymander districts to get the votes you need to increase your party's power. This leads to legislative gridlock, and the only way to make progress is to take a majority so you don't have to compromise.

We did this to ourselves. But it's easier to place the blame on someone else- the media, the "other" political party, extremists within the party, foreigners, etc.

We're seeing now just how fragile our system is, and how much it relies on our leaders to be honorable and act in the public's interests, and to in general "not be a a-hole" when governing. So now we're going to have more laws/rules defining what it means to be an a-hole, and then someone's going to find a loophole. And we're all going to suffer because of it.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Kiloalpha said:

I think you’re right about some of why Trump got elected, but a key piece is that he let the media have it. Republicans sat by in 2012 and watched as the media railroaded Mitt Romney, a man that by any account is one of the nicest, most moral human beings to run for office. Just think of the lies like “Binders full of women” and all those little stories that filled the NYT, WPost, CNN and MSNBC. Hell, Harry Reid claimed Romney didn’t pay his taxes, and the media ran with that. It didn’t matter that Reid later said he didn’t have info, just responding after the election with, “Well he didn’t win, did he?” 

But the one thing I heard over and over again in 2016 was that they couldn’t believe it when Candy Crowley during the debate between Obama and Romney, openly interjected and called Romney a liar for calling out the Obama administration’s Benghazi debacle. Romney didn’t defend himself. He didn’t correct her or Obama. He just sat down dumbfounded. That pissed people off. Both at Romney, and at her.

The media didn’t make those people rush the Capital. But they’re a massive reason why Trump was elected.

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. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by DosXX
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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


Link to post
Share on other sites
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
Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by slackline
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Lord Ratner
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites


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.
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

professions_league_table crowdpac donor politics

 

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. 

newspaper_print_media

online_computer_services crowdpac donor politics

 

Edited by FLEA
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...