menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events Topic
Topic: Housing-gate continues
Page: 10 of 15
mail
person
cc-cat
5/30/2018 11:22 AM
TheBobcatBandit wrote:expand_more
You’re right in a way it is there fault, but at the same time I don’t think it is helping them or our country to just ignore the problem. I think we have already ignored it far to long. We can’t keep them dumb. When people turn on the news they think they’re being educated, so the intent on their part is good. If we set up the news so that we had top people in their fields come on it and talk about at length(over an hour) what they do and what the issues are in their profession and really get to know the person from the bottom up, we would have a much more educated society. Then when we have these national debates people would be able to cut through all of the noise and realize that these canidates have no idea what they’re talking about and they would hold a much higher threshold for their canidates.

So yes I agree they’re dumb and in some sense is there fault but what’re we going to do about it? Are we just going to keep them dumb? How does that help our society?
A dumbed down electorate doesn’t benefit the society. But it often benefits the candidates and parties. Unfortunately, we live in a society that does not value an informed electorate. Shocking I know – but an uninformed voter plays to the political party system. Of course, we also live in a society that is not politically engaged (see voter turnout stats). So, what are we going to do about it? – meaning create a more informed electorate. Good question. A few suggestions.

The news caters to our short attention spans – they are in the business of making money, not informing their audience with fact. Perhaps if we had a well-funded public TV and radio system that catered to educating the audience? Such a broadcasting system could present more in-depth coverage of topics – as you suggest. But that takes funding. I wonder if either political party would champion such an effort? (sure hope a party would not take efforts to thwart such an endeavor)

For commercial networks, they coyly present opinion as news and fact. I know of a 9:00 personality who flat out states his show is there to present the real news and facts of the day. Maybe if we had an organization that would require broadcast networks to more clearly distinguish news from opinion, pontification, and blow-harding, our electorate could better appreciate what is real and what is propaganda.

In addition to the misleading practices of news organizations, we constantly have efforts to mislead citizens by politicians, political parties, and special interest groups. It has gotten so bad that some running for office don’t even think news organizations and debate moderators should even fact check. Compounding the issue is flow of soft money into the campaign process that allows groups to present political opinion as fact and support of a candidate without ever declaring their bias or self-interest. I wonder if either political party would champion an effort to eliminate this soft-money and demand all political ads declare their source of funds? (sure hope one does not take efforts to thwart such an endeavor)

Of course, the internet is becoming the new, big field. We run the risk of having groups (even, potentially, foreign groups and governments) improperly influence an election. Of course, if there is even an inkling of that being the case, I’m sure such a threat to our most sacred democratic institution would bring both political parties together to get to the bottom of the efforts – even if it meant having a dedicated, independent investigation. Of course, thankfully, we have the best intelligence agencies in the world in place to help identify if such an incursion took place – and we would certainly defer to their integrity. And since an educated electorate is what we both seek, I would hope neither party would question the need to assure there was no misinformation, or deception, taking place – or question the integrity of those that identified the malpractice, or are assigned to investigate.

And of course, given the impact of the internet, we need to make sure it is regulated, and not controlled by a few groups, or corporations (even though they are people too). It needs to be, let’s call it “neutral” - I certainly hope the FCC and our politicians would take steps to provide such assurances.

So again, just spit-balling some ideas. But perhaps pointing to the media as the evil empire, is simply a distraction and shell-game by the politicians, who, as I stated above, relish a misinformed electorate that can be manipulated.
Last Edited: 5/30/2018 12:10:59 PM by cc-cat
mail
TheBobcatBandit
5/30/2018 3:27 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((That’s not my argument, my argument is that the most important job interview in the world should have detail to them. Yet it doesn’t and nobody in the media acts like that is a big deal. All they do is criticize the candidate from the party across from them instead of trying to figure out how every year we end up with two terrible candidates. It’s because the debates are terrible and nobody gets called out for how full of shit they’re. I don’t understand how we can have two terrible people as our choices and have you act like the process that led to that isn’t flawed. It obviously is flawed or we wouldn’t have two terrible canidates. There are many flaws but a big one is the setup of the debates and the media’s coverage of the canidate. Again if you can’t get the canidate to sit down for three hours and have a serious discussion about policy they what kind of canidates are we picking from. )))))))))))))))))))
I'm aware of what your argument is, I just think it's stupid and at this point it's clear you can't provide substantiating evidence. To wit, you're accusing me of "strawmanning" your argument, when the entire premise of your argument rests on the idea that the media "doesn't act like it's a big deal" that candidates don't dig deeply enough into policy. That's an absurd proposition. The media pressed both candidates on policy over and over. You know who didn't give a shit that one candidate wasn't willing/able to provide policy specifics? Voters.

I mean, this is a guy who said he'd repeal the ACA on day one and replace it with "something terrific." And that was enough for his voters.

And the media was endlessly critical of him for his lack of policy specifics. So much so that it hurt your feelings because the coverage of Trump was so negative. You, the guy who thinks elections should be policy based, thinks the media was needlessly unfair to the candidate who didn't run on policy at all. And also thinks the media doesn't "act like it's a big deal" when candidates don't discuss policy. And also thinks voters shouldn't have to use the internet to find that info.

You keep strawmanning my argument. Yes I agree with Peter Schiff but I’m open to have a debate about it. The problem is there is no forum to debate it and you keep ignoring the possibility that could be a problem.
I'm actually not ignoring that possibility, at all. In fact, I'm the one arguing for the importance of a free and open media environment where different ideas and presented and debated. In case you've forgotten, I'm not the one that threw a fit about somebody at the Washington Post having an opinion that differs from mine and yelled about "fake news."

In fact, you've shown a complete unwillingness to have a debate about anything. You've insisted that opinions that differ from yours are "fake news" without any substantiating facts. You're the one who has become a foot soldier in the war against the first amendment, my man. Sort of hard to argue you're arguing in favor of a forum to debate ideas when you're screaming about other people' opinions being fake.

It’s not that the other opinions are fake it’s that the other opinions are presented as a fact when they’re an opinion.
I can't stress this enough: you just can't tell the difference. You've demonstrated that over and over.

I would like to see them debated instead of acting like it is a fact. Which the media constantly does.
You haven't presented a single example of this. In fact, you've done the opposite by presenting instances in which the same issue is discussed from varying viewpoints.

The fact that you hadn’t even heard an argument that the economy could be worse off and that you thought a was crazy for ever saying so is a testimate to this.
I still think you're crazy for saying so. It's a really stupid argument and what's more, is that you haven't actually made it yet.

What you've done is post a link to a podcast in which somebody is talking about structural issues in the economy which could have repercussions in the future. But that is not the same thing as saying that the economy of 2016 is worse that the economy of 2008.

There is no reasonable argument to be made that the economy of 2008 is better than the economy of 2016. That you think you've made that argument just illustrates how sloppy your thinking is.

People surround themselves with opinions they agree with and don’t want to hear the other side. The media needs to provide a forum to debate everything. everything should be up for debate. That is how democracy works and our lack of debate is why our democracy is failing.
This is exactly the role the media plays currently. You're not smart enough to understand it, but you're the one who is attempting to shut that down. You're the one shouting "fake news" at valid opinions. You're the problem.

You need to stop strawmanning my argument and accept some criticism of the media.
You're reading comprehension is terrible. There is no rational way to read what I've written and think I'm not critical of the media. I just don't accept your particular criticisms of the media, because I think they're stupid and you've yet to provide any evidence to support them.
Ok this isn’t going anywhere so I'm going try something else. I just want a yes/no answer from you. Were Hillary and Trump good canidates go choose from?
It's not going anywhere because you're making a non-sensical argument.

As I've said before, neither Clinton nor Trump were particularly inspiring.

Ok, why do you think we got two uninspiring canidates, vs two inspiring ones?
Literally thousands of reasons.
I would be interested to hear what they are.
mail
TheBobcatBandit
5/30/2018 4:17 PM
cc-cat wrote:expand_more
You’re right in a way it is there fault, but at the same time I don’t think it is helping them or our country to just ignore the problem. I think we have already ignored it far to long. We can’t keep them dumb. When people turn on the news they think they’re being educated, so the intent on their part is good. If we set up the news so that we had top people in their fields come on it and talk about at length(over an hour) what they do and what the issues are in their profession and really get to know the person from the bottom up, we would have a much more educated society. Then when we have these national debates people would be able to cut through all of the noise and realize that these canidates have no idea what they’re talking about and they would hold a much higher threshold for their canidates.

So yes I agree they’re dumb and in some sense is there fault but what’re we going to do about it? Are we just going to keep them dumb? How does that help our society?
A dumbed down electorate doesn’t benefit the society. But it often benefits the candidates and parties. Unfortunately, we live in a society that does not value an informed electorate. Shocking I know – but an uninformed voter plays to the political party system. Of course, we also live in a society that is not politically engaged (see voter turnout stats). So, what are we going to do about it? – meaning create a more informed electorate. Good question. A few suggestions.

The news caters to our short attention spans – they are in the business of making money, not informing their audience with fact. Perhaps if we had a well-funded public TV and radio system that catered to educating the audience? Such a broadcasting system could present more in-depth coverage of topics – as you suggest. But that takes funding. I wonder if either political party would champion such an effort? (sure hope a party would not take efforts to thwart such an endeavor)

For commercial networks, they coyly present opinion as news and fact. I know of a 9:00 personality who flat out states his show is there to present the real news and facts of the day. Maybe if we had an organization that would require broadcast networks to more clearly distinguish news from opinion, pontification, and blow-harding, our electorate could better appreciate what is real and what is propaganda.

In addition to the misleading practices of news organizations, we constantly have efforts to mislead citizens by politicians, political parties, and special interest groups. It has gotten so bad that some running for office don’t even think news organizations and debate moderators should even fact check. Compounding the issue is flow of soft money into the campaign process that allows groups to present political opinion as fact and support of a candidate without ever declaring their bias or self-interest. I wonder if either political party would champion an effort to eliminate this soft-money and demand all political ads declare their source of funds? (sure hope one does not take efforts to thwart such an endeavor)

Of course, the internet is becoming the new, big field. We run the risk of having groups (even, potentially, foreign groups and governments) improperly influence an election. Of course, if there is even an inkling of that being the case, I’m sure such a threat to our most sacred democratic institution would bring both political parties together to get to the bottom of the efforts – even if it meant having a dedicated, independent investigation. Of course, thankfully, we have the best intelligence agencies in the world in place to help identify if such an incursion took place – and we would certainly defer to their integrity. And since an educated electorate is what we both seek, I would hope neither party would question the need to assure there was no misinformation, or deception, taking place – or question the integrity of those that identified the malpractice, or are assigned to investigate.

And of course, given the impact of the internet, we need to make sure it is regulated, and not controlled by a few groups, or corporations (even though they are people too). It needs to be, let’s call it “neutral” - I certainly hope the FCC and our politicians would take steps to provide such assurances.

So again, just spit-balling some ideas. But perhaps pointing to the media as the evil empire, is simply a distraction and shell-game by the politicians, who, as I stated above, relish a misinformed electorate that can be manipulated.
You make some interesting points.


I like your idea about having a well funded public broadcasting system that informs people. In a sense there are already a good amount of media outlets that do this. I think in radio you could point to something like NPR and on TV you have PBS. As well as some others. I like NPR even though they’re a little bit more left leaning then I would agree with. They still do a good job going in depth on a lot of different issues and depending on the day you can find some pretty interesting stories. PBS I also like but don’t get around to watching it that much. I also don’t listen to NPR much anymore either because to much of the time it is all about Trump. I really like podcast and think right now that is the best source of information. I would love to see the podcast format on cable TV and be used to screen our canidates. I think the problem comes in is how do we get people from the misinformation to the information. The internet has giving everyone a voive and there are voices out there spreading good information but there are also more voices out there spreading bad information.

So I guess my next question is two parts. 1. How do we settle what information is good and what is bad? And 2. If we can decide that how do we get people to switch from the good information to the bad? I’m also just spitballing, am not sure how this could be done.

I agree that by making the public think the media is fake it could play right into an evil politicians hand but at the same time if a political or political faction controls the media or certain media networks they could also intentionally put out misinformation for their gain. Wasn’t that how weed was demonized. So there has to be a middle between those and right now I think our country is experiencing a bit of both.

I couldn’t agree more with what you said about soft money in politics. I think we have to get lobbyist out of Washington as well as limiting the amount someone can contribute to a campaign or if they should be allowed to contribute at all. Money has won elections for a too a long time. It has to go and think it is should be the #1 thing citizens should come together over.

I’m not sure how much I trust investigations from Washington. The political parties appoint who heads those organizations and I think it is pretty swampy. CIA is very corrupt, they have done good work as well but often have been found guilty of mischief as well. So ironically I think this is exactly where the media plays a crucial role like they did in watergate and the uncovering of other scandals.

I don’t know I would nessisarly be in favor of Internet regulations either but I do think we need to do a better job of enforcing libel and slander laws. The internet has made it to easy to put up false information about someone without facing consequences. I think if we can educate people on how to spot true information on the internet vs fake that would also be helpful.

+1 on your post you made some great points.
mail
TheBobcatBandit
5/30/2018 4:22 PM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
BobcatBandit,

Interestingly, and related to your claims about the media, there was a good piece on Vox this morning. Two business professors at University of Maryland take a look at why Elon Musk is going after the media. Maybe his concerns are not altruistic after all?

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/5/30/17405922/elon-...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-its-like-when-elon-mus...

Then there is this story where the journalist who wrote it was found to be extremely biased towards musk on Twitter for no reason. Maybe these are the types of fake news stories he and I are talking about.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
5/30/2018 5:25 PM
TheBobcatBandit wrote:expand_more
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((That’s not my argument, my argument is that the most important job interview in the world should have detail to them. Yet it doesn’t and nobody in the media acts like that is a big deal. All they do is criticize the candidate from the party across from them instead of trying to figure out how every year we end up with two terrible candidates. It’s because the debates are terrible and nobody gets called out for how full of shit they’re. I don’t understand how we can have two terrible people as our choices and have you act like the process that led to that isn’t flawed. It obviously is flawed or we wouldn’t have two terrible canidates. There are many flaws but a big one is the setup of the debates and the media’s coverage of the canidate. Again if you can’t get the canidate to sit down for three hours and have a serious discussion about policy they what kind of canidates are we picking from. )))))))))))))))))))
I'm aware of what your argument is, I just think it's stupid and at this point it's clear you can't provide substantiating evidence. To wit, you're accusing me of "strawmanning" your argument, when the entire premise of your argument rests on the idea that the media "doesn't act like it's a big deal" that candidates don't dig deeply enough into policy. That's an absurd proposition. The media pressed both candidates on policy over and over. You know who didn't give a shit that one candidate wasn't willing/able to provide policy specifics? Voters.

I mean, this is a guy who said he'd repeal the ACA on day one and replace it with "something terrific." And that was enough for his voters.

And the media was endlessly critical of him for his lack of policy specifics. So much so that it hurt your feelings because the coverage of Trump was so negative. You, the guy who thinks elections should be policy based, thinks the media was needlessly unfair to the candidate who didn't run on policy at all. And also thinks the media doesn't "act like it's a big deal" when candidates don't discuss policy. And also thinks voters shouldn't have to use the internet to find that info.

You keep strawmanning my argument. Yes I agree with Peter Schiff but I’m open to have a debate about it. The problem is there is no forum to debate it and you keep ignoring the possibility that could be a problem.
I'm actually not ignoring that possibility, at all. In fact, I'm the one arguing for the importance of a free and open media environment where different ideas and presented and debated. In case you've forgotten, I'm not the one that threw a fit about somebody at the Washington Post having an opinion that differs from mine and yelled about "fake news."

In fact, you've shown a complete unwillingness to have a debate about anything. You've insisted that opinions that differ from yours are "fake news" without any substantiating facts. You're the one who has become a foot soldier in the war against the first amendment, my man. Sort of hard to argue you're arguing in favor of a forum to debate ideas when you're screaming about other people' opinions being fake.

It’s not that the other opinions are fake it’s that the other opinions are presented as a fact when they’re an opinion.
I can't stress this enough: you just can't tell the difference. You've demonstrated that over and over.

I would like to see them debated instead of acting like it is a fact. Which the media constantly does.
You haven't presented a single example of this. In fact, you've done the opposite by presenting instances in which the same issue is discussed from varying viewpoints.

The fact that you hadn’t even heard an argument that the economy could be worse off and that you thought a was crazy for ever saying so is a testimate to this.
I still think you're crazy for saying so. It's a really stupid argument and what's more, is that you haven't actually made it yet.

What you've done is post a link to a podcast in which somebody is talking about structural issues in the economy which could have repercussions in the future. But that is not the same thing as saying that the economy of 2016 is worse that the economy of 2008.

There is no reasonable argument to be made that the economy of 2008 is better than the economy of 2016. That you think you've made that argument just illustrates how sloppy your thinking is.

People surround themselves with opinions they agree with and don’t want to hear the other side. The media needs to provide a forum to debate everything. everything should be up for debate. That is how democracy works and our lack of debate is why our democracy is failing.
This is exactly the role the media plays currently. You're not smart enough to understand it, but you're the one who is attempting to shut that down. You're the one shouting "fake news" at valid opinions. You're the problem.

You need to stop strawmanning my argument and accept some criticism of the media.
You're reading comprehension is terrible. There is no rational way to read what I've written and think I'm not critical of the media. I just don't accept your particular criticisms of the media, because I think they're stupid and you've yet to provide any evidence to support them.
Ok this isn’t going anywhere so I'm going try something else. I just want a yes/no answer from you. Were Hillary and Trump good canidates go choose from?
It's not going anywhere because you're making a non-sensical argument.

As I've said before, neither Clinton nor Trump were particularly inspiring.

Ok, why do you think we got two uninspiring canidates, vs two inspiring ones?
Literally thousands of reasons.
I would be interested to hear what they are.
I mean, like I said, there are endless reasons. I'm not going to be able to touch on even a small fraction of them here. That said, here are a few off the top of my head:

1. "Geographic sorting." People tend to live in places where people around them are like them culturally and politically. Very few House districts are even competitive anymore and even in the senate the percentage of consistently competitive seats has declined substantially over the past ~50 years. This creates little incentive for bi-partisanship when it comes to actual governance. Elected officials answer to their constituency, and when their constituency is monolithic their voting records follow suit. Partisanship just begets more partisanship until the government basically just stops functioning. We're pretty much there. Non-functional government leads to worse governors, which leads to shitty candidates.

2. Poor voter turnout and absurd voter registration restrictions. We should automate the voter registration process and encourage more people to vote rather than legislate away voting rights. Voting is a basic tenant of our democracy. It's crazy that anybody would argue otherwise. Voting should be easier.

As a result of low turnout, vocal minorities control American politics. For instance, given how few house/senate districts are actually competitive these days, primary elections become de facto elections. Yet only 14% of people participate in primary elections and they tend to be the most partisan people. Those, ultimately, are the voters politicians at the house/senate/state levels answer to. They have outsized power and are basically responsible for 90% of congressional seats. These are groups whose beliefs are unrepresentative of the nation as a whole, but they yield such power that politicians ultimately end up serving only them, because primaries and the voters who vote in them have become far too important. We're in serious need of primary reform. California, for instance, allows the top two primary vote getters to advance to the general election, even if they're members of the same party. That incentivizes candidates to appeal to voters on both sides of the aisle to win votes.

Instead, the existing incentive structure bends towards special interests and the will of a small minority. Ever wonder how it is that widely popular policy ideas never see the floor for a vote? This is a big part of why and how.

It's also a big part of how national candidates are selected. If you want party support, you better cater to that active 14% of voters.

3. Related to one and two: Americans don't hold their politicians accountable and basically just vote on party lines. Which reinforces the issues created by one and two. Americans should be smarter and demand better.

I could go on for another 5,000 words, but won't. For what it's worth, none of those 5,000 words would be about the structure of the Presidential debate.
Last Edited: 5/30/2018 6:17:56 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
DelBobcat
5/31/2018 8:38 AM
TheBobcatBandit wrote:expand_more
BobcatBandit,

Interestingly, and related to your claims about the media, there was a good piece on Vox this morning. Two business professors at University of Maryland take a look at why Elon Musk is going after the media. Maybe his concerns are not altruistic after all?

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/5/30/17405922/elon-...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-its-like-when-elon-mus...

Then there is this story where the journalist who wrote it was found to be extremely biased towards musk on Twitter for no reason. Maybe these are the types of fake news stories he and I are talking about.
Wait, a journalist criticized Musk on twitter and she experienced vile, misogynistic behavior from his fan club and that proves your point.... how? Are you saying she deserved to be raked through the coals and be called a c**t for questioning Elon Musk's behavior? When you say "extremely biased towards Musk" do you actually mean "extremely biased against" him? I'm very confused about what you're trying to say.
mail
TheBobcatBandit
5/31/2018 10:28 AM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
BobcatBandit,

Interestingly, and related to your claims about the media, there was a good piece on Vox this morning. Two business professors at University of Maryland take a look at why Elon Musk is going after the media. Maybe his concerns are not altruistic after all?

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/5/30/17405922/elon-...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-its-like-when-elon-mus...

Then there is this story where the journalist who wrote it was found to be extremely biased towards musk on Twitter for no reason. Maybe these are the types of fake news stories he and I are talking about.
Wait, a journalist criticized Musk on twitter and she experienced vile, misogynistic behavior from his fan club and that proves your point.... how? Are you saying she deserved to be raked through the coals and be called a c**t for questioning Elon Musk's behavior? When you say "extremely biased towards Musk" do you actually mean "extremely biased against" him? I'm very confused about what you're trying to say.

No, I didn’t say that at all.

I should have been more clear. Before she wrote this story she had been found months before making fun of Elon Musk and his genitalia on Twitter. Which would leave me to believe she is biased towards him. If you read the tweets she wrote about him before they were crazy and unprofessional. Then she writes this article slamming him for making valid criticism of the news. That’s a problem. So she can make fun of him in a unprofessionally way but then when he criticizes an article in a proffesional way he gets attacked. That’s absurd. This article itself is absurd because she is holding him accountable for other people’s actions.
Last Edited: 5/31/2018 10:30:58 AM by TheBobcatBandit
mail
TheBobcatBandit
5/31/2018 10:34 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((That’s not my argument, my argument is that the most important job interview in the world should have detail to them. Yet it doesn’t and nobody in the media acts like that is a big deal. All they do is criticize the candidate from the party across from them instead of trying to figure out how every year we end up with two terrible candidates. It’s because the debates are terrible and nobody gets called out for how full of shit they’re. I don’t understand how we can have two terrible people as our choices and have you act like the process that led to that isn’t flawed. It obviously is flawed or we wouldn’t have two terrible canidates. There are many flaws but a big one is the setup of the debates and the media’s coverage of the canidate. Again if you can’t get the canidate to sit down for three hours and have a serious discussion about policy they what kind of canidates are we picking from. )))))))))))))))))))
I'm aware of what your argument is, I just think it's stupid and at this point it's clear you can't provide substantiating evidence. To wit, you're accusing me of "strawmanning" your argument, when the entire premise of your argument rests on the idea that the media "doesn't act like it's a big deal" that candidates don't dig deeply enough into policy. That's an absurd proposition. The media pressed both candidates on policy over and over. You know who didn't give a shit that one candidate wasn't willing/able to provide policy specifics? Voters.

I mean, this is a guy who said he'd repeal the ACA on day one and replace it with "something terrific." And that was enough for his voters.

And the media was endlessly critical of him for his lack of policy specifics. So much so that it hurt your feelings because the coverage of Trump was so negative. You, the guy who thinks elections should be policy based, thinks the media was needlessly unfair to the candidate who didn't run on policy at all. And also thinks the media doesn't "act like it's a big deal" when candidates don't discuss policy. And also thinks voters shouldn't have to use the internet to find that info.

You keep strawmanning my argument. Yes I agree with Peter Schiff but I’m open to have a debate about it. The problem is there is no forum to debate it and you keep ignoring the possibility that could be a problem.
I'm actually not ignoring that possibility, at all. In fact, I'm the one arguing for the importance of a free and open media environment where different ideas and presented and debated. In case you've forgotten, I'm not the one that threw a fit about somebody at the Washington Post having an opinion that differs from mine and yelled about "fake news."

In fact, you've shown a complete unwillingness to have a debate about anything. You've insisted that opinions that differ from yours are "fake news" without any substantiating facts. You're the one who has become a foot soldier in the war against the first amendment, my man. Sort of hard to argue you're arguing in favor of a forum to debate ideas when you're screaming about other people' opinions being fake.

It’s not that the other opinions are fake it’s that the other opinions are presented as a fact when they’re an opinion.
I can't stress this enough: you just can't tell the difference. You've demonstrated that over and over.

I would like to see them debated instead of acting like it is a fact. Which the media constantly does.
You haven't presented a single example of this. In fact, you've done the opposite by presenting instances in which the same issue is discussed from varying viewpoints.

The fact that you hadn’t even heard an argument that the economy could be worse off and that you thought a was crazy for ever saying so is a testimate to this.
I still think you're crazy for saying so. It's a really stupid argument and what's more, is that you haven't actually made it yet.

What you've done is post a link to a podcast in which somebody is talking about structural issues in the economy which could have repercussions in the future. But that is not the same thing as saying that the economy of 2016 is worse that the economy of 2008.

There is no reasonable argument to be made that the economy of 2008 is better than the economy of 2016. That you think you've made that argument just illustrates how sloppy your thinking is.

People surround themselves with opinions they agree with and don’t want to hear the other side. The media needs to provide a forum to debate everything. everything should be up for debate. That is how democracy works and our lack of debate is why our democracy is failing.
This is exactly the role the media plays currently. You're not smart enough to understand it, but you're the one who is attempting to shut that down. You're the one shouting "fake news" at valid opinions. You're the problem.

You need to stop strawmanning my argument and accept some criticism of the media.
You're reading comprehension is terrible. There is no rational way to read what I've written and think I'm not critical of the media. I just don't accept your particular criticisms of the media, because I think they're stupid and you've yet to provide any evidence to support them.
Ok this isn’t going anywhere so I'm going try something else. I just want a yes/no answer from you. Were Hillary and Trump good canidates go choose from?
It's not going anywhere because you're making a non-sensical argument.

As I've said before, neither Clinton nor Trump were particularly inspiring.

Ok, why do you think we got two uninspiring canidates, vs two inspiring ones?
Literally thousands of reasons.
I would be interested to hear what they are.
I mean, like I said, there are endless reasons. I'm not going to be able to touch on even a small fraction of them here. That said, here are a few off the top of my head:

1. "Geographic sorting." People tend to live in places where people around them are like them culturally and politically. Very few House districts are even competitive anymore and even in the senate the percentage of consistently competitive seats has declined substantially over the past ~50 years. This creates little incentive for bi-partisanship when it comes to actual governance. Elected officials answer to their constituency, and when their constituency is monolithic their voting records follow suit. Partisanship just begets more partisanship until the government basically just stops functioning. We're pretty much there. Non-functional government leads to worse governors, which leads to shitty candidates.

2. Poor voter turnout and absurd voter registration restrictions. We should automate the voter registration process and encourage more people to vote rather than legislate away voting rights. Voting is a basic tenant of our democracy. It's crazy that anybody would argue otherwise. Voting should be easier.

As a result of low turnout, vocal minorities control American politics. For instance, given how few house/senate districts are actually competitive these days, primary elections become de facto elections. Yet only 14% of people participate in primary elections and they tend to be the most partisan people. Those, ultimately, are the voters politicians at the house/senate/state levels answer to. They have outsized power and are basically responsible for 90% of congressional seats. These are groups whose beliefs are unrepresentative of the nation as a whole, but they yield such power that politicians ultimately end up serving only them, because primaries and the voters who vote in them have become far too important. We're in serious need of primary reform. California, for instance, allows the top two primary vote getters to advance to the general election, even if they're members of the same party. That incentivizes candidates to appeal to voters on both sides of the aisle to win votes.

Instead, the existing incentive structure bends towards special interests and the will of a small minority. Ever wonder how it is that widely popular policy ideas never see the floor for a vote? This is a big part of why and how.

It's also a big part of how national candidates are selected. If you want party support, you better cater to that active 14% of voters.

3. Related to one and two: Americans don't hold their politicians accountable and basically just vote on party lines. Which reinforces the issues created by one and two. Americans should be smarter and demand better.

I could go on for another 5,000 words, but won't. For what it's worth, none of those 5,000 words would be about the structure of the Presidential debate.

You make some interesting points. I agree those are problems. Now were those problems brought up at all by the moderators in the debates? You would think our canidates should be asked about the problems facing our country right? In a perfect debate they would be correct? I don’t believe they were, so I really don’t get how you can be so happy with the debates.


Also semi-related why do you have to poll at 15% to be included in the debates. That seems ridiculously high and I think is done so intentionally to keep out opposing view points.
Last Edited: 5/31/2018 10:36:16 AM by TheBobcatBandit
mail
person
cc-cat
5/31/2018 10:59 AM
As we all know - the debate rules/parameters are often dictates from the candidates, "our way, or no show" - faults in the debates should be primarily directed towards the candidates and parties, who again, are thrilled with an il-informed electorate. Candidates simply want to get through the debates so they can again manipulate the voters. Some (imagine that) are even contentious regard the issue of fact-checking

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/09...

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=yfp-t&p=tr...
mail
DelBobcat
5/31/2018 11:29 AM
TheBobcatBandit wrote:expand_more
BobcatBandit,

Interestingly, and related to your claims about the media, there was a good piece on Vox this morning. Two business professors at University of Maryland take a look at why Elon Musk is going after the media. Maybe his concerns are not altruistic after all?

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/5/30/17405922/elon-...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-its-like-when-elon-mus...

Then there is this story where the journalist who wrote it was found to be extremely biased towards musk on Twitter for no reason. Maybe these are the types of fake news stories he and I are talking about.
Wait, a journalist criticized Musk on twitter and she experienced vile, misogynistic behavior from his fan club and that proves your point.... how? Are you saying she deserved to be raked through the coals and be called a c**t for questioning Elon Musk's behavior? When you say "extremely biased towards Musk" do you actually mean "extremely biased against" him? I'm very confused about what you're trying to say.

No, I didn’t say that at all.

I should have been more clear. Before she wrote this story she had been found months before making fun of Elon Musk and his genitalia on Twitter. Which would leave me to believe she is biased towards him. If you read the tweets she wrote about him before they were crazy and unprofessional. Then she writes this article slamming him for making valid criticism of the news. That’s a problem. So she can make fun of him in a unprofessionally way but then when he criticizes an article in a proffesional way he gets attacked. That’s absurd. This article itself is absurd because she is holding him accountable for other people’s actions.
Ok, first of all, you mean biased against him, not towards him. To be biased towards something is to be biased in its favor. But I guess the point you're making is that a journalist said some bad things about Elon Musk and that proves she's biased against him so she deserved what she got? I cannot fathom how you could possibly believe those things. I also can't fathom how you think the fact that Elon Musk gets into twitter flame wars with journalists proves that anything in the Vox piece I posted is wrong. What does it have to do with anything? You're deflecting. Just like our President.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
5/31/2018 11:37 AM
TheBobcatBandit wrote:expand_more
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((That’s not my argument, my argument is that the most important job interview in the world should have detail to them. Yet it doesn’t and nobody in the media acts like that is a big deal. All they do is criticize the candidate from the party across from them instead of trying to figure out how every year we end up with two terrible candidates. It’s because the debates are terrible and nobody gets called out for how full of shit they’re. I don’t understand how we can have two terrible people as our choices and have you act like the process that led to that isn’t flawed. It obviously is flawed or we wouldn’t have two terrible canidates. There are many flaws but a big one is the setup of the debates and the media’s coverage of the canidate. Again if you can’t get the canidate to sit down for three hours and have a serious discussion about policy they what kind of canidates are we picking from. )))))))))))))))))))
I'm aware of what your argument is, I just think it's stupid and at this point it's clear you can't provide substantiating evidence. To wit, you're accusing me of "strawmanning" your argument, when the entire premise of your argument rests on the idea that the media "doesn't act like it's a big deal" that candidates don't dig deeply enough into policy. That's an absurd proposition. The media pressed both candidates on policy over and over. You know who didn't give a shit that one candidate wasn't willing/able to provide policy specifics? Voters.

I mean, this is a guy who said he'd repeal the ACA on day one and replace it with "something terrific." And that was enough for his voters.

And the media was endlessly critical of him for his lack of policy specifics. So much so that it hurt your feelings because the coverage of Trump was so negative. You, the guy who thinks elections should be policy based, thinks the media was needlessly unfair to the candidate who didn't run on policy at all. And also thinks the media doesn't "act like it's a big deal" when candidates don't discuss policy. And also thinks voters shouldn't have to use the internet to find that info.

You keep strawmanning my argument. Yes I agree with Peter Schiff but I’m open to have a debate about it. The problem is there is no forum to debate it and you keep ignoring the possibility that could be a problem.
I'm actually not ignoring that possibility, at all. In fact, I'm the one arguing for the importance of a free and open media environment where different ideas and presented and debated. In case you've forgotten, I'm not the one that threw a fit about somebody at the Washington Post having an opinion that differs from mine and yelled about "fake news."

In fact, you've shown a complete unwillingness to have a debate about anything. You've insisted that opinions that differ from yours are "fake news" without any substantiating facts. You're the one who has become a foot soldier in the war against the first amendment, my man. Sort of hard to argue you're arguing in favor of a forum to debate ideas when you're screaming about other people' opinions being fake.

It’s not that the other opinions are fake it’s that the other opinions are presented as a fact when they’re an opinion.
I can't stress this enough: you just can't tell the difference. You've demonstrated that over and over.

I would like to see them debated instead of acting like it is a fact. Which the media constantly does.
You haven't presented a single example of this. In fact, you've done the opposite by presenting instances in which the same issue is discussed from varying viewpoints.

The fact that you hadn’t even heard an argument that the economy could be worse off and that you thought a was crazy for ever saying so is a testimate to this.
I still think you're crazy for saying so. It's a really stupid argument and what's more, is that you haven't actually made it yet.

What you've done is post a link to a podcast in which somebody is talking about structural issues in the economy which could have repercussions in the future. But that is not the same thing as saying that the economy of 2016 is worse that the economy of 2008.

There is no reasonable argument to be made that the economy of 2008 is better than the economy of 2016. That you think you've made that argument just illustrates how sloppy your thinking is.

People surround themselves with opinions they agree with and don’t want to hear the other side. The media needs to provide a forum to debate everything. everything should be up for debate. That is how democracy works and our lack of debate is why our democracy is failing.
This is exactly the role the media plays currently. You're not smart enough to understand it, but you're the one who is attempting to shut that down. You're the one shouting "fake news" at valid opinions. You're the problem.

You need to stop strawmanning my argument and accept some criticism of the media.
You're reading comprehension is terrible. There is no rational way to read what I've written and think I'm not critical of the media. I just don't accept your particular criticisms of the media, because I think they're stupid and you've yet to provide any evidence to support them.
Ok this isn’t going anywhere so I'm going try something else. I just want a yes/no answer from you. Were Hillary and Trump good canidates go choose from?
It's not going anywhere because you're making a non-sensical argument.

As I've said before, neither Clinton nor Trump were particularly inspiring.

Ok, why do you think we got two uninspiring canidates, vs two inspiring ones?
Literally thousands of reasons.
I would be interested to hear what they are.
I mean, like I said, there are endless reasons. I'm not going to be able to touch on even a small fraction of them here. That said, here are a few off the top of my head:

1. "Geographic sorting." People tend to live in places where people around them are like them culturally and politically. Very few House districts are even competitive anymore and even in the senate the percentage of consistently competitive seats has declined substantially over the past ~50 years. This creates little incentive for bi-partisanship when it comes to actual governance. Elected officials answer to their constituency, and when their constituency is monolithic their voting records follow suit. Partisanship just begets more partisanship until the government basically just stops functioning. We're pretty much there. Non-functional government leads to worse governors, which leads to shitty candidates.

2. Poor voter turnout and absurd voter registration restrictions. We should automate the voter registration process and encourage more people to vote rather than legislate away voting rights. Voting is a basic tenant of our democracy. It's crazy that anybody would argue otherwise. Voting should be easier.

As a result of low turnout, vocal minorities control American politics. For instance, given how few house/senate districts are actually competitive these days, primary elections become de facto elections. Yet only 14% of people participate in primary elections and they tend to be the most partisan people. Those, ultimately, are the voters politicians at the house/senate/state levels answer to. They have outsized power and are basically responsible for 90% of congressional seats. These are groups whose beliefs are unrepresentative of the nation as a whole, but they yield such power that politicians ultimately end up serving only them, because primaries and the voters who vote in them have become far too important. We're in serious need of primary reform. California, for instance, allows the top two primary vote getters to advance to the general election, even if they're members of the same party. That incentivizes candidates to appeal to voters on both sides of the aisle to win votes.

Instead, the existing incentive structure bends towards special interests and the will of a small minority. Ever wonder how it is that widely popular policy ideas never see the floor for a vote? This is a big part of why and how.

It's also a big part of how national candidates are selected. If you want party support, you better cater to that active 14% of voters.

3. Related to one and two: Americans don't hold their politicians accountable and basically just vote on party lines. Which reinforces the issues created by one and two. Americans should be smarter and demand better.

I could go on for another 5,000 words, but won't. For what it's worth, none of those 5,000 words would be about the structure of the Presidential debate.

You make some interesting points. I agree those are problems. Now were those problems brought up at all by the moderators in the debates? You would think our canidates should be asked about the problems facing our country right? In a perfect debate they would be correct? I don’t believe they were, so I really don’t get how you can be so happy with the debates.

Also semi-related why do you have to poll at 15% to be included in the debates. That seems ridiculously high and I think is done so intentionally to keep out opposing view points.
At no point have I said I'm "happy with the debates." I just happen to think debate format doesn't rank anywhere near the top of the list in terms of problems that need solving and that systemic, structural issues aren't going to be solved by asking better questions, or whatever you're driving at. I referenced problems facing us at a macro level and you basically ignored what I said and made an attempt to tie what I said to the the debates.

I mean, I get that you're in the midst of a weird, desperate quest to prove you're not as dumb as you've made yourself seem over the last few weeks, but this is just silly. You've now gone from insisting opinions you don't like are "fake news" to insisting that the media's shitty because the Presidential debates didn't include questions addressing three specific points that I made.

You accuse others, constantly, of "strawmanning" your arguments but this is the very definition of a strawman.

You've raised a point that's based on a false premise -- that debate moderators don't ask questions that about problems facing the country -- and are now trying to use that point to demonstrate that the media's to blame for huge structural issues because they ask the wrong questions during debates. That's a dumb point. You know how I learned of those huge structural issues that you agree with? From the media. The people you're calling "fake news."

During the debates, Trump and Hillary were asked questions about all of the following: tax policy, health policy, policy around Middle Eastern refugees, the war in Syria, energy policy, abortion, the Supreme Court, immigration policy, ISIS, Iraq, Medicare, the National Debt, Social Security, job creation, national security, race relations and a bunch of other topics.

I'm sure you'll find a reason to explain why all of those topics are fake or whatever, but they're important issues in their own right. No debate, regardless of format, is going to address every issue facing the country. Expecting otherwise is silly.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
5/31/2018 12:00 PM
TheBobcatBandit wrote:expand_more
BobcatBandit,

Interestingly, and related to your claims about the media, there was a good piece on Vox this morning. Two business professors at University of Maryland take a look at why Elon Musk is going after the media. Maybe his concerns are not altruistic after all?

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/5/30/17405922/elon-...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-its-like-when-elon-mus...

Then there is this story where the journalist who wrote it was found to be extremely biased towards musk on Twitter for no reason. Maybe these are the types of fake news stories he and I are talking about.
Wait, a journalist criticized Musk on twitter and she experienced vile, misogynistic behavior from his fan club and that proves your point.... how? Are you saying she deserved to be raked through the coals and be called a c**t for questioning Elon Musk's behavior? When you say "extremely biased towards Musk" do you actually mean "extremely biased against" him? I'm very confused about what you're trying to say.

No, I didn’t say that at all.

I should have been more clear. Before she wrote this story she had been found months before making fun of Elon Musk and his genitalia on Twitter. Which would leave me to believe she is biased towards him. If you read the tweets she wrote about him before they were crazy and unprofessional. Then she writes this article slamming him for making valid criticism of the news. That’s a problem. So she can make fun of him in a unprofessionally way but then when he criticizes an article in a proffesional way he gets attacked. That’s absurd. This article itself is absurd because she is holding him accountable for other people’s actions.
Your reading comprehension is really, really bad.

The author is not holding him accountable for other people's actions, she's pointing out that people with a large platform should understand the impact they have and be more thoughtful in their critiques.

Further, this article isn't "slamming him for making a valid critique of the news." As I mentioned, your reading comprehension is really bad. She's saying that we should be critical of institutions, but should do so in a thoughtful manner because when we don't, it emboldens stupid people.

What, exactly, is the problem here? That two people don't like each other? That two people disagree about the role of the media? Or the validity of nanoscience as a degree? That famous people sometimes face critiques you disagree with? I honestly just don't understand your point.
Last Edited: 5/31/2018 12:30:52 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
TheBobcatBandit
5/31/2018 7:11 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((That’s not my argument, my argument is that the most important job interview in the world should have detail to them. Yet it doesn’t and nobody in the media acts like that is a big deal. All they do is criticize the candidate from the party across from them instead of trying to figure out how every year we end up with two terrible candidates. It’s because the debates are terrible and nobody gets called out for how full of shit they’re. I don’t understand how we can have two terrible people as our choices and have you act like the process that led to that isn’t flawed. It obviously is flawed or we wouldn’t have two terrible canidates. There are many flaws but a big one is the setup of the debates and the media’s coverage of the canidate. Again if you can’t get the canidate to sit down for three hours and have a serious discussion about policy they what kind of canidates are we picking from. )))))))))))))))))))
I'm aware of what your argument is, I just think it's stupid and at this point it's clear you can't provide substantiating evidence. To wit, you're accusing me of "strawmanning" your argument, when the entire premise of your argument rests on the idea that the media "doesn't act like it's a big deal" that candidates don't dig deeply enough into policy. That's an absurd proposition. The media pressed both candidates on policy over and over. You know who didn't give a shit that one candidate wasn't willing/able to provide policy specifics? Voters.

I mean, this is a guy who said he'd repeal the ACA on day one and replace it with "something terrific." And that was enough for his voters.

And the media was endlessly critical of him for his lack of policy specifics. So much so that it hurt your feelings because the coverage of Trump was so negative. You, the guy who thinks elections should be policy based, thinks the media was needlessly unfair to the candidate who didn't run on policy at all. And also thinks the media doesn't "act like it's a big deal" when candidates don't discuss policy. And also thinks voters shouldn't have to use the internet to find that info.

You keep strawmanning my argument. Yes I agree with Peter Schiff but I’m open to have a debate about it. The problem is there is no forum to debate it and you keep ignoring the possibility that could be a problem.
I'm actually not ignoring that possibility, at all. In fact, I'm the one arguing for the importance of a free and open media environment where different ideas and presented and debated. In case you've forgotten, I'm not the one that threw a fit about somebody at the Washington Post having an opinion that differs from mine and yelled about "fake news."

In fact, you've shown a complete unwillingness to have a debate about anything. You've insisted that opinions that differ from yours are "fake news" without any substantiating facts. You're the one who has become a foot soldier in the war against the first amendment, my man. Sort of hard to argue you're arguing in favor of a forum to debate ideas when you're screaming about other people' opinions being fake.

It’s not that the other opinions are fake it’s that the other opinions are presented as a fact when they’re an opinion.
I can't stress this enough: you just can't tell the difference. You've demonstrated that over and over.

I would like to see them debated instead of acting like it is a fact. Which the media constantly does.
You haven't presented a single example of this. In fact, you've done the opposite by presenting instances in which the same issue is discussed from varying viewpoints.

The fact that you hadn’t even heard an argument that the economy could be worse off and that you thought a was crazy for ever saying so is a testimate to this.
I still think you're crazy for saying so. It's a really stupid argument and what's more, is that you haven't actually made it yet.

What you've done is post a link to a podcast in which somebody is talking about structural issues in the economy which could have repercussions in the future. But that is not the same thing as saying that the economy of 2016 is worse that the economy of 2008.

There is no reasonable argument to be made that the economy of 2008 is better than the economy of 2016. That you think you've made that argument just illustrates how sloppy your thinking is.

People surround themselves with opinions they agree with and don’t want to hear the other side. The media needs to provide a forum to debate everything. everything should be up for debate. That is how democracy works and our lack of debate is why our democracy is failing.
This is exactly the role the media plays currently. You're not smart enough to understand it, but you're the one who is attempting to shut that down. You're the one shouting "fake news" at valid opinions. You're the problem.

You need to stop strawmanning my argument and accept some criticism of the media.
You're reading comprehension is terrible. There is no rational way to read what I've written and think I'm not critical of the media. I just don't accept your particular criticisms of the media, because I think they're stupid and you've yet to provide any evidence to support them.
Ok this isn’t going anywhere so I'm going try something else. I just want a yes/no answer from you. Were Hillary and Trump good canidates go choose from?
It's not going anywhere because you're making a non-sensical argument.

As I've said before, neither Clinton nor Trump were particularly inspiring.

Ok, why do you think we got two uninspiring canidates, vs two inspiring ones?
Literally thousands of reasons.
I would be interested to hear what they are.
I mean, like I said, there are endless reasons. I'm not going to be able to touch on even a small fraction of them here. That said, here are a few off the top of my head:

1. "Geographic sorting." People tend to live in places where people around them are like them culturally and politically. Very few House districts are even competitive anymore and even in the senate the percentage of consistently competitive seats has declined substantially over the past ~50 years. This creates little incentive for bi-partisanship when it comes to actual governance. Elected officials answer to their constituency, and when their constituency is monolithic their voting records follow suit. Partisanship just begets more partisanship until the government basically just stops functioning. We're pretty much there. Non-functional government leads to worse governors, which leads to shitty candidates.

2. Poor voter turnout and absurd voter registration restrictions. We should automate the voter registration process and encourage more people to vote rather than legislate away voting rights. Voting is a basic tenant of our democracy. It's crazy that anybody would argue otherwise. Voting should be easier.

As a result of low turnout, vocal minorities control American politics. For instance, given how few house/senate districts are actually competitive these days, primary elections become de facto elections. Yet only 14% of people participate in primary elections and they tend to be the most partisan people. Those, ultimately, are the voters politicians at the house/senate/state levels answer to. They have outsized power and are basically responsible for 90% of congressional seats. These are groups whose beliefs are unrepresentative of the nation as a whole, but they yield such power that politicians ultimately end up serving only them, because primaries and the voters who vote in them have become far too important. We're in serious need of primary reform. California, for instance, allows the top two primary vote getters to advance to the general election, even if they're members of the same party. That incentivizes candidates to appeal to voters on both sides of the aisle to win votes.

Instead, the existing incentive structure bends towards special interests and the will of a small minority. Ever wonder how it is that widely popular policy ideas never see the floor for a vote? This is a big part of why and how.

It's also a big part of how national candidates are selected. If you want party support, you better cater to that active 14% of voters.

3. Related to one and two: Americans don't hold their politicians accountable and basically just vote on party lines. Which reinforces the issues created by one and two. Americans should be smarter and demand better.

I could go on for another 5,000 words, but won't. For what it's worth, none of those 5,000 words would be about the structure of the Presidential debate.

You make some interesting points. I agree those are problems. Now were those problems brought up at all by the moderators in the debates? You would think our canidates should be asked about the problems facing our country right? In a perfect debate they would be correct? I don’t believe they were, so I really don’t get how you can be so happy with the debates.

Also semi-related why do you have to poll at 15% to be included in the debates. That seems ridiculously high and I think is done so intentionally to keep out opposing view points.
At no point have I said I'm "happy with the debates." I just happen to think debate format doesn't rank anywhere near the top of the list in terms of problems that need solving and that systemic, structural issues aren't going to be solved by asking better questions, or whatever you're driving at. I referenced problems facing us at a macro level and you basically ignored what I said and made an attempt to tie what I said to the the debates.

I mean, I get that you're in the midst of a weird, desperate quest to prove you're not as dumb as you've made yourself seem over the last few weeks, but this is just silly. You've now gone from insisting opinions you don't like are "fake news" to insisting that the media's shitty because the Presidential debates didn't include questions addressing three specific points that I made.

You accuse others, constantly, of "strawmanning" your arguments but this is the very definition of a strawman.

You've raised a point that's based on a false premise -- that debate moderators don't ask questions that about problems facing the country -- and are now trying to use that point to demonstrate that the media's to blame for huge structural issues because they ask the wrong questions during debates. That's a dumb point. You know how I learned of those huge structural issues that you agree with? From the media. The people you're calling "fake news."

During the debates, Trump and Hillary were asked questions about all of the following: tax policy, health policy, policy around Middle Eastern refugees, the war in Syria, energy policy, abortion, the Supreme Court, immigration policy, ISIS, Iraq, Medicare, the National Debt, Social Security, job creation, national security, race relations and a bunch of other topics.

I'm sure you'll find a reason to explain why all of those topics are fake or whatever, but they're important issues in their own right. No debate, regardless of format, is going to address every issue facing the country. Expecting otherwise is silly.
You’re hopeless. I think the people who read this exchange will realize who the “dumb” one is. In fact saying that I am the dumb one in this exchange is the fakest post I’ve ever seen ;)
mail
TheBobcatBandit
5/31/2018 7:13 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
BobcatBandit,

Interestingly, and related to your claims about the media, there was a good piece on Vox this morning. Two business professors at University of Maryland take a look at why Elon Musk is going after the media. Maybe his concerns are not altruistic after all?

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/5/30/17405922/elon-...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-its-like-when-elon-mus...

Then there is this story where the journalist who wrote it was found to be extremely biased towards musk on Twitter for no reason. Maybe these are the types of fake news stories he and I are talking about.
Wait, a journalist criticized Musk on twitter and she experienced vile, misogynistic behavior from his fan club and that proves your point.... how? Are you saying she deserved to be raked through the coals and be called a c**t for questioning Elon Musk's behavior? When you say "extremely biased towards Musk" do you actually mean "extremely biased against" him? I'm very confused about what you're trying to say.

No, I didn’t say that at all.

I should have been more clear. Before she wrote this story she had been found months before making fun of Elon Musk and his genitalia on Twitter. Which would leave me to believe she is biased towards him. If you read the tweets she wrote about him before they were crazy and unprofessional. Then she writes this article slamming him for making valid criticism of the news. That’s a problem. So she can make fun of him in a unprofessionally way but then when he criticizes an article in a proffesional way he gets attacked. That’s absurd. This article itself is absurd because she is holding him accountable for other people’s actions.
Your reading comprehension is really, really bad.

The author is not holding him accountable for other people's actions, she's pointing out that people with a large platform should understand the impact they have and be more thoughtful in their critiques.

Further, this article isn't "slamming him for making a valid critique of the news." As I mentioned, your reading comprehension is really bad. She's saying that we should be critical of institutions, but should do so in a thoughtful manner because when we don't, it emboldens stupid people.

What, exactly, is the problem here? That two people don't like each other? That two people disagree about the role of the media? Or the validity of nanoscience as a degree? That famous people sometimes face critiques you disagree with? I honestly just don't understand your point.
Fake news
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
5/31/2018 8:23 PM
TheBobcatBandit wrote:expand_more
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((That’s not my argument, my argument is that the most important job interview in the world should have detail to them. Yet it doesn’t and nobody in the media acts like that is a big deal. All they do is criticize the candidate from the party across from them instead of trying to figure out how every year we end up with two terrible candidates. It’s because the debates are terrible and nobody gets called out for how full of shit they’re. I don’t understand how we can have two terrible people as our choices and have you act like the process that led to that isn’t flawed. It obviously is flawed or we wouldn’t have two terrible canidates. There are many flaws but a big one is the setup of the debates and the media’s coverage of the canidate. Again if you can’t get the canidate to sit down for three hours and have a serious discussion about policy they what kind of canidates are we picking from. )))))))))))))))))))
I'm aware of what your argument is, I just think it's stupid and at this point it's clear you can't provide substantiating evidence. To wit, you're accusing me of "strawmanning" your argument, when the entire premise of your argument rests on the idea that the media "doesn't act like it's a big deal" that candidates don't dig deeply enough into policy. That's an absurd proposition. The media pressed both candidates on policy over and over. You know who didn't give a shit that one candidate wasn't willing/able to provide policy specifics? Voters.

I mean, this is a guy who said he'd repeal the ACA on day one and replace it with "something terrific." And that was enough for his voters.

And the media was endlessly critical of him for his lack of policy specifics. So much so that it hurt your feelings because the coverage of Trump was so negative. You, the guy who thinks elections should be policy based, thinks the media was needlessly unfair to the candidate who didn't run on policy at all. And also thinks the media doesn't "act like it's a big deal" when candidates don't discuss policy. And also thinks voters shouldn't have to use the internet to find that info.

You keep strawmanning my argument. Yes I agree with Peter Schiff but I’m open to have a debate about it. The problem is there is no forum to debate it and you keep ignoring the possibility that could be a problem.
I'm actually not ignoring that possibility, at all. In fact, I'm the one arguing for the importance of a free and open media environment where different ideas and presented and debated. In case you've forgotten, I'm not the one that threw a fit about somebody at the Washington Post having an opinion that differs from mine and yelled about "fake news."

In fact, you've shown a complete unwillingness to have a debate about anything. You've insisted that opinions that differ from yours are "fake news" without any substantiating facts. You're the one who has become a foot soldier in the war against the first amendment, my man. Sort of hard to argue you're arguing in favor of a forum to debate ideas when you're screaming about other people' opinions being fake.

It’s not that the other opinions are fake it’s that the other opinions are presented as a fact when they’re an opinion.
I can't stress this enough: you just can't tell the difference. You've demonstrated that over and over.

I would like to see them debated instead of acting like it is a fact. Which the media constantly does.
You haven't presented a single example of this. In fact, you've done the opposite by presenting instances in which the same issue is discussed from varying viewpoints.

The fact that you hadn’t even heard an argument that the economy could be worse off and that you thought a was crazy for ever saying so is a testimate to this.
I still think you're crazy for saying so. It's a really stupid argument and what's more, is that you haven't actually made it yet.

What you've done is post a link to a podcast in which somebody is talking about structural issues in the economy which could have repercussions in the future. But that is not the same thing as saying that the economy of 2016 is worse that the economy of 2008.

There is no reasonable argument to be made that the economy of 2008 is better than the economy of 2016. That you think you've made that argument just illustrates how sloppy your thinking is.

People surround themselves with opinions they agree with and don’t want to hear the other side. The media needs to provide a forum to debate everything. everything should be up for debate. That is how democracy works and our lack of debate is why our democracy is failing.
This is exactly the role the media plays currently. You're not smart enough to understand it, but you're the one who is attempting to shut that down. You're the one shouting "fake news" at valid opinions. You're the problem.

You need to stop strawmanning my argument and accept some criticism of the media.
You're reading comprehension is terrible. There is no rational way to read what I've written and think I'm not critical of the media. I just don't accept your particular criticisms of the media, because I think they're stupid and you've yet to provide any evidence to support them.
Ok this isn’t going anywhere so I'm going try something else. I just want a yes/no answer from you. Were Hillary and Trump good canidates go choose from?
It's not going anywhere because you're making a non-sensical argument.

As I've said before, neither Clinton nor Trump were particularly inspiring.

Ok, why do you think we got two uninspiring canidates, vs two inspiring ones?
Literally thousands of reasons.
I would be interested to hear what they are.
I mean, like I said, there are endless reasons. I'm not going to be able to touch on even a small fraction of them here. That said, here are a few off the top of my head:

1. "Geographic sorting." People tend to live in places where people around them are like them culturally and politically. Very few House districts are even competitive anymore and even in the senate the percentage of consistently competitive seats has declined substantially over the past ~50 years. This creates little incentive for bi-partisanship when it comes to actual governance. Elected officials answer to their constituency, and when their constituency is monolithic their voting records follow suit. Partisanship just begets more partisanship until the government basically just stops functioning. We're pretty much there. Non-functional government leads to worse governors, which leads to shitty candidates.

2. Poor voter turnout and absurd voter registration restrictions. We should automate the voter registration process and encourage more people to vote rather than legislate away voting rights. Voting is a basic tenant of our democracy. It's crazy that anybody would argue otherwise. Voting should be easier.

As a result of low turnout, vocal minorities control American politics. For instance, given how few house/senate districts are actually competitive these days, primary elections become de facto elections. Yet only 14% of people participate in primary elections and they tend to be the most partisan people. Those, ultimately, are the voters politicians at the house/senate/state levels answer to. They have outsized power and are basically responsible for 90% of congressional seats. These are groups whose beliefs are unrepresentative of the nation as a whole, but they yield such power that politicians ultimately end up serving only them, because primaries and the voters who vote in them have become far too important. We're in serious need of primary reform. California, for instance, allows the top two primary vote getters to advance to the general election, even if they're members of the same party. That incentivizes candidates to appeal to voters on both sides of the aisle to win votes.

Instead, the existing incentive structure bends towards special interests and the will of a small minority. Ever wonder how it is that widely popular policy ideas never see the floor for a vote? This is a big part of why and how.

It's also a big part of how national candidates are selected. If you want party support, you better cater to that active 14% of voters.

3. Related to one and two: Americans don't hold their politicians accountable and basically just vote on party lines. Which reinforces the issues created by one and two. Americans should be smarter and demand better.

I could go on for another 5,000 words, but won't. For what it's worth, none of those 5,000 words would be about the structure of the Presidential debate.

You make some interesting points. I agree those are problems. Now were those problems brought up at all by the moderators in the debates? You would think our canidates should be asked about the problems facing our country right? In a perfect debate they would be correct? I don’t believe they were, so I really don’t get how you can be so happy with the debates.

Also semi-related why do you have to poll at 15% to be included in the debates. That seems ridiculously high and I think is done so intentionally to keep out opposing view points.
At no point have I said I'm "happy with the debates." I just happen to think debate format doesn't rank anywhere near the top of the list in terms of problems that need solving and that systemic, structural issues aren't going to be solved by asking better questions, or whatever you're driving at. I referenced problems facing us at a macro level and you basically ignored what I said and made an attempt to tie what I said to the the debates.

I mean, I get that you're in the midst of a weird, desperate quest to prove you're not as dumb as you've made yourself seem over the last few weeks, but this is just silly. You've now gone from insisting opinions you don't like are "fake news" to insisting that the media's shitty because the Presidential debates didn't include questions addressing three specific points that I made.

You accuse others, constantly, of "strawmanning" your arguments but this is the very definition of a strawman.

You've raised a point that's based on a false premise -- that debate moderators don't ask questions that about problems facing the country -- and are now trying to use that point to demonstrate that the media's to blame for huge structural issues because they ask the wrong questions during debates. That's a dumb point. You know how I learned of those huge structural issues that you agree with? From the media. The people you're calling "fake news."

During the debates, Trump and Hillary were asked questions about all of the following: tax policy, health policy, policy around Middle Eastern refugees, the war in Syria, energy policy, abortion, the Supreme Court, immigration policy, ISIS, Iraq, Medicare, the National Debt, Social Security, job creation, national security, race relations and a bunch of other topics.

I'm sure you'll find a reason to explain why all of those topics are fake or whatever, but they're important issues in their own right. No debate, regardless of format, is going to address every issue facing the country. Expecting otherwise is silly.
You’re hopeless. I think the people who read this exchange will realize who the “dumb” one is.
They sure will.
mail
person
cc-cat
5/31/2018 8:34 PM
TheBobcatBandit wrote:expand_more
Fake news
Interesting. Someone who declared a need to get back to the type of investigative reporting of Watergate, yells "Fake News" - I'm sure if our current POTUS, who adores the term, were in office during Watergate, two of the greatest investigative reporters in history would have been viscously attacked by Trump and his throng of fans - you know - "that failing Washington Post owned by that woman who bleeds all over the place."

"Relax, relax" says Sarah Huckabee the next day. "What he was referring to is she is what is commonly referred to as a "bleeding heart" liberal. I think the press owes the President an apology."

All kidding aside, I dismiss most anyone who uses the term "fake news" - it is a lazy attempt to disregard information they find does not support their agenda. Not saying you are using it as such here, but in most all cases.
Last Edited: 5/31/2018 8:35:44 PM by cc-cat
mail
TheBobcatBandit
5/31/2018 10:00 PM
cc-cat wrote:expand_more
Fake news
Interesting. Someone who declared a need to get back to the type of investigative reporting of Watergate, yells "Fake News" - I'm sure if our current POTUS, who adores the term, were in office during Watergate, two of the greatest investigative reporters in history would have been viscously attacked by Trump and his throng of fans - you know - "that failing Washington Post owned by that woman who bleeds all over the place."

"Relax, relax" says Sarah Huckabee the next day. "What he was referring to is she is what is commonly referred to as a "bleeding heart" liberal. I think the press owes the President an apology."

All kidding aside, I dismiss most anyone who uses the term "fake news" - it is a lazy attempt to disregard information they find does not support their agenda. Not saying you are using it as such here, but in most all cases.
lol I know it doesn’t help but If you read Elon Musk and this ladies tweets and then you read the article she writes and can’t tell it is an incredibly low standard of journalism. Then idk what else to say then yell fake news. I’m not going to explain how every article out there is biased. Especially one as obvious as this, it doesn’t need to be explained. If someone isn’t smart enough to tell them they shouldn’t be calling other people dumb. Maybe you can read the tweets she put cc cat then read the article and explain to them it’s flaws because I’m running out of juice.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
5/31/2018 10:41 PM
TheBobcatBandit wrote:expand_more
Fake news
Interesting. Someone who declared a need to get back to the type of investigative reporting of Watergate, yells "Fake News" - I'm sure if our current POTUS, who adores the term, were in office during Watergate, two of the greatest investigative reporters in history would have been viscously attacked by Trump and his throng of fans - you know - "that failing Washington Post owned by that woman who bleeds all over the place."

"Relax, relax" says Sarah Huckabee the next day. "What he was referring to is she is what is commonly referred to as a "bleeding heart" liberal. I think the press owes the President an apology."

All kidding aside, I dismiss most anyone who uses the term "fake news" - it is a lazy attempt to disregard information they find does not support their agenda. Not saying you are using it as such here, but in most all cases.
lol I know it doesn’t help but If you read Elon Musk and this ladies tweets and then you read the article she writes and can’t tell it is an incredibly low standard of journalism. Then idk what else to say then yell fake news. I’m not going to explain how every article out there is biased. Especially one as obvious as this, it doesn’t need to be explained. If someone isn’t smart enough to tell them they shouldn’t be calling other people dumb. Maybe you can read the tweets she put cc cat then read the article and explain to them it’s flaws because I’m running out of juice.
You've missed the point, again. But that's not surprising, given that you call everything you disagree with "fake".

You are arguing against the idea of people expressing opinions. It is a completely absurd argument. I have, a dozen different times, explained to you that you've got every right to disagree with opinion pieces. But that yelling "fake news" is a stupid, damaging response to disagreeing with an opinion. It's particularly stupid when, in your critiques of the pieces, you demonstrate you don't even have the reading comprehension to follow along.

My point isn't that media isn't biased. It's that bias does not equal "fake" and "corrupt". The media is an essential institution and you're making a mistake to join the Trump's idiot brigade in shouting "fake news" when you disagree with somebody. It's a simple point. You've missed it over and over.

What I was asking, and you keep missing is this: a lady wrote a biased article about Elon Musk and you disagreed with it. You think it's fake. So what now? Ban opinion pieces? Seriously. What are you proposing? You keep ranting against opinions you disagree with and calling them fake. So what are you proposing instead?
Last Edited: 5/31/2018 10:47:53 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
cc-cat
6/1/2018 12:11 AM
TheBobcatBandit wrote:expand_more
lol I know it doesn’t help but If you read Elon Musk and this ladies tweets and then you read the article she writes and can’t tell it is an incredibly low standard of journalism. Then idk what else to say then yell fake news.
Simply call it what it is. Bad journalism. As I said yelling fake news is lazy and in most cases an insult to reporters (many of whom are Ohio grads) who do the work to get the story right but are attacked and insulted because their reporting is counter to someone’s view and interest. without question the overwhelming majority of times trump yells fake news it is simply an attempt to discredit a report. Yet lazy ignorant people blindly buy it and he therefore gets away with it. It has simply become a cover for trump to lie. Don’t use the term. By doing so you give it credence and demean thousands of OUr graduates.
mail
TheBobcatBandit
6/1/2018 12:26 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Fake news
Interesting. Someone who declared a need to get back to the type of investigative reporting of Watergate, yells "Fake News" - I'm sure if our current POTUS, who adores the term, were in office during Watergate, two of the greatest investigative reporters in history would have been viscously attacked by Trump and his throng of fans - you know - "that failing Washington Post owned by that woman who bleeds all over the place."

"Relax, relax" says Sarah Huckabee the next day. "What he was referring to is she is what is commonly referred to as a "bleeding heart" liberal. I think the press owes the President an apology."

All kidding aside, I dismiss most anyone who uses the term "fake news" - it is a lazy attempt to disregard information they find does not support their agenda. Not saying you are using it as such here, but in most all cases.
lol I know it doesn’t help but If you read Elon Musk and this ladies tweets and then you read the article she writes and can’t tell it is an incredibly low standard of journalism. Then idk what else to say then yell fake news. I’m not going to explain how every article out there is biased. Especially one as obvious as this, it doesn’t need to be explained. If someone isn’t smart enough to tell them they shouldn’t be calling other people dumb. Maybe you can read the tweets she put cc cat then read the article and explain to them it’s flaws because I’m running out of juice.
You've missed the point, again. But that's not surprising, given that you call everything you disagree with "fake".

You are arguing against the idea of people expressing opinions. It is a completely absurd argument. I have, a dozen different times, explained to you that you've got every right to disagree with opinion pieces. But that yelling "fake news" is a stupid, damaging response to disagreeing with an opinion. It's particularly stupid when, in your critiques of the pieces, you demonstrate you don't even have the reading comprehension to follow along.

My point isn't that media isn't biased. It's that bias does not equal "fake" and "corrupt". The media is an essential institution and you're making a mistake to join the Trump's idiot brigade in shouting "fake news" when you disagree with somebody. It's a simple point. You've missed it over and over.

What I was asking, and you keep missing is this: a lady wrote a biased article about Elon Musk and you disagreed with it. You think it's fake. So what now? Ban opinion pieces? Seriously. What are you proposing? You keep ranting against opinions you disagree with and calling them fake. So what are you proposing instead?

Read Elon Musk tweets, he has a great proposal for it. Again nothing wrong with putting out opinions but if their opinion is clearly biased or flawed then they need to be called out for it. People can’t tell the difference between opinion and fact and there is no institution that we can look at to debate the opinion. So a person is going to read that article and come away with an opinion that Elon Musk supporters are sexist, which is absurd. By reading that article or others opinion articles similar to it. The reader might completely change the way they operate in the world and why? Because so called journalist are bias and have no idea what they’re talking about. So when someone who calls themselves a journalist, and writes a biased opinion, I’m going to call it fake news. Fake = the bias and news = the journalist. That article was fake news or in more prevcise words a biased opinion written by a journalist.

How does bias not = corrupt?

Maybe you’re missing the point that the trump brigades fake news rant has a grain of truth in it. The fact that you just said bias doesn’t = corrupt or fake is absurd. So if I’m clearly biased towards something you don’t think that comes off in the way I would write. Is that what you’re saying? because that makes no sense at all.
Last Edited: 6/1/2018 12:37:53 AM by TheBobcatBandit
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
6/1/2018 6:33 AM
TheBobcatBandit wrote:expand_more
Read Elon Musk tweets, he has a great proposal for it. Again nothing wrong with putting out opinions but if their opinion is clearly biased or flawed then they need to be called out for it. [/QUOTE]If an opinion is flawed, debate the point being made. Like an adult. Don't just shout "fake news." This isn't hard. A free and open forum for ideas is good. Shouting down opinions you disagree with is bad. Pretty simple, honestly.

People can’t tell the difference between opinion and fact and there is no institution that we can look at to debate the opinion. So a person is going to read that article and come away with an opinion that Elon Musk supporters are sexist, which is absurd. By reading that article or others opinion articles similar to it. The reader might completely change the way they operate in the world and why? Because so called journalist are bias and have no idea what they’re talking about.
You seem to operate in a black and white world with no room for nuance and it colors how you approach this conversation. To a pretty comical extent. The mere fact that you think there's a clear, bright line between fact and opinion in a case like this is baffling to me.

A more rational person would have realized that their attempt to "demolish" the Washington Post opinion piece actually just illustrated that tax policy's extremely nuanced and complex. What are the 'facts' that one can fall back on? You keep insisting there's simple right answers to incredibly complex, nuanced issues that all of these opinion pieces are purposefully obscuring. And then when pressed for those simple right answers you end up betraying your own biases in your response. You didn't respond with facts. You just presented your own opinion as fact. Which is exactly what you're railing against. It's very obvious hypocrisy to everybody but you.

You've determined in this case that it's absurd that Elon Musk supporters are sexist. You've done so despite screenshots of Elon Musk supporters being clearly sexist. Perhaps -- and I know nuance is hard for you so bear with me -- some Elon Musk supporters are sexist and some aren't?

The irony here is that the reason it's so difficult for you to accept that is because of your own entrenched biases. It is good to have opinions questioned. It is a fundamentally good thing that different voices exist. I'm sorry it makes you so uncomfortable and angry.


So when someone who calls themselves a journalist, and writes a biased opinion, I’m going to call it fake news. Fake = the bias and news = the journalist. That article was fake news or in more prevcise words a biased opinion written by a journalist.
Thanks for breaking own the taxonomy of the phrase. You've somehow managed to make it even stupider.

[QUOTE=TheBobcatBandit]
How does bias not = corrupt?

Maybe you’re missing the point that the trump brigades fake news rant has a grain of truth in it. The fact that you just said bias doesn’t = corrupt or fake is absurd. So if I’m clearly biased towards something you don’t think that comes off in the way I would write. Is that what you’re saying? because that makes no sense at all.
Humans are inherently biased. The media is, as well, and the constitution accepts that and holds as a basic tenant of our democracy that a free press is not only guaranteed but essential. That you and Trump's idiot followers don't understand the role opinion plays in a free press doesn't suddenly render the First Amendment obsolete.

My point isn't that bias doesn't show itself in opinion pieces. My point's the exact opposite. That bias is an unavoidable part of a free and open society where speech isn't governed. Not only is it unavoidable, but it's a feature not a bug. Varying ideas are good. Disagreement is good. Policing speech is bad.

You are, at a very basic level, trying to shut down opinions you disagree with. It's dangerous and misguided. You should seriously re-think your stance on this. You're contributing to the problem you're trying to solve.

By the way, this very morning the President called for a television show that was critical of his administration's immigration policies to be cancelled. The state is now calling for the cancellation of particular pieces of media. That's a direct attack on the First Amendment, and you're enabling it, whether you realize it or not. The attacks on "fake news" and the constant lies from the administration are designed to position the media as the enemy. And once enough people believe that, you can start censoring the voices you dislike. Anybody who believes in the ideals of free speech should be opposed. You're not though, because, I guess, some Elon Musk supporters were sexist in response to a journalist who is critical of Musk, and you wish she hasn't mentioned it, or whatever.

Keep fighting the good fight and picking important battles though. Let the President lie to your face and then pat yourself on the back for calling journalists you disagree with liars. You aren't smart enough to recognize the difference in damage between blatant lies from the head of the Free world and misguided opinions on a blog, yet you're smart enough to lecture others for their opinions and police their speech. You're the problem, my man. You should try to be part of the solution.
Last Edited: 6/1/2018 7:58:52 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
TheBobcatBandit
6/1/2018 9:22 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Read Elon Musk tweets, he has a great proposal for it. Again nothing wrong with putting out opinions but if their opinion is clearly biased or flawed then they need to be called out for it.
If an opinion is flawed, debate the point being made. Like an adult. Don't just shout "fake news." This isn't hard. A free and open forum for ideas is good. Shouting down opinions you disagree with is bad. Pretty simple, honestly.

People can’t tell the difference between opinion and fact and there is no institution that we can look at to debate the opinion. So a person is going to read that article and come away with an opinion that Elon Musk supporters are sexist, which is absurd. By reading that article or others opinion articles similar to it. The reader might completely change the way they operate in the world and why? Because so called journalist are bias and have no idea what they’re talking about.
You seem to operate in a black and white world with no room for nuance and it colors how you approach this conversation. To a pretty comical extent. The mere fact that you think there's a clear, bright line between fact and opinion in a case like this is baffling to me.

A more rational person would have realized that their attempt to "demolish" the Washington Post opinion piece actually just illustrated that tax policy's extremely nuanced and complex. What are the 'facts' that one can fall back on? You keep insisting there's simple right answers to incredibly complex, nuanced issues that all of these opinion pieces are purposefully obscuring. And then when pressed for those simple right answers you end up betraying your own biases in your response. You didn't respond with facts. You just presented your own opinion as fact. Which is exactly what you're railing against. It's very obvious hypocrisy to everybody but you.

You've determined in this case that it's absurd that Elon Musk supporters are sexist. You've done so despite screenshots of Elon Musk supporters being clearly sexist. Perhaps -- and I know nuance is hard for you so bear with me -- some Elon Musk supporters are sexist and some aren't?

The irony here is that the reason it's so difficult for you to accept that is because of your own entrenched biases. It is good to have opinions questioned. It is a fundamentally good thing that different voices exist. I'm sorry it makes you so uncomfortable and angry.


So when someone who calls themselves a journalist, and writes a biased opinion, I’m going to call it fake news. Fake = the bias and news = the journalist. That article was fake news or in more prevcise words a biased opinion written by a journalist.
Thanks for breaking own the taxonomy of the phrase. You've somehow managed to make it even stupider.

How does bias not = corrupt?

Maybe you’re missing the point that the trump brigades fake news rant has a grain of truth in it. The fact that you just said bias doesn’t = corrupt or fake is absurd. So if I’m clearly biased towards something you don’t think that comes off in the way I would write. Is that what you’re saying? because that makes no sense at all.
Humans are inherently biased. The media is, as well, and the constitution accepts that and holds as a basic tenant of our democracy that a free press is not only guaranteed but essential. That you and Trump's idiot followers don't understand the role opinion plays in a free press doesn't suddenly render the First Amendment obsolete.

My point isn't that bias doesn't show itself in opinion pieces. My point's the exact opposite. That bias is an unavoidable part of a free and open society where speech isn't governed. Not only is it unavoidable, but it's a feature not a bug. Varying ideas are good. Disagreement is good. Policing speech is bad.

You are, at a very basic level, trying to shut down opinions you disagree with. It's dangerous and misguided. You should seriously re-think your stance on this. You're contributing to the problem you're trying to solve.

(((((((Look at my post. Didn’t I just say that I have no problem with people stating their opinions. I clearly just said that and you are ignoring it. I am all for free speech but I would prefer the people who get paid and get their opinions promoted throughout the country do a better job. She has the right to write the article and I have the right to criticize it. The irony is you and her seem to try to be oppressing my right to criticize it and then have the nerve to say I’m against free speech. Time and time again we come back to this and you still ignore the problem. Where exactly can we debate these opinions in a fair way? Show me the place where that is done? If we can’t debate them, then wrong opinions will not be filtered out of our politics and like it has for the past 50 years make the world a worse place. ))))))))))))))))

By the way, this very morning the President called for a television show that was critical of his administration's immigration policies to be cancelled. The state is now calling for the cancellation of particular pieces of media. That's a direct attack on the First Amendment, and you're enabling it, whether you realize it or not. The attacks on "fake news" and the constant lies from the administration are designed to position the media as the enemy.

(((((Nope I’m not enabling that. I haven’t once in my post called for that but hey you can strawman me into a trump supporter again. Why not?))))))))))

And once enough people believe that, you can start censoring the voices you dislike. Anybody who believes in the ideals of free speech should be opposed. You're not though, because, I guess, some Elon Musk supporters were sexist in response to a journalist who is critical of Musk, and you wish she hasn't mentioned it, or whatever.

(((((((((((Again I’m not censoring voices I dislike, I’m just stating they’re wrong. In fact in this very article she says that Elon Musk should censor what he says about the media. You’re full of it. You literally will say anything to defend the media. Why can’t you just realize many of our news outlets are biased and have been spreading disinformation for years. Maybe because you work in the media? Idk, maybe because you’re just a person who can’t acvelt criticism? Idk, but you say you’re for free speech then defend an article that tries to silence someone’s speech. ))))))))))))))

Keep fighting the good fight and picking important battles though. Let the President lie to your face and then pat yourself on the back for calling journalists you disagree with liars. You aren't smart enough to recognize the difference in damage between blatant lies from the head of the Free world and misguided opinions on a blog, yet you're smart enough to lecture others for their opinions and police their speech. You're the problem, my man. You should try to be part of the solution.
Yeah again I’m not the one who is supporting an article that literally is telling Elon Musk he needs to watch what he says.













Fake news
Last Edited: 6/1/2018 9:23:48 AM by TheBobcatBandit
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
6/1/2018 9:26 AM
TheBobcatBandit wrote:expand_more
Read Elon Musk tweets, he has a great proposal for it. Again nothing wrong with putting out opinions but if their opinion is clearly biased or flawed then they need to be called out for it.
If an opinion is flawed, debate the point being made. Like an adult. Don't just shout "fake news." This isn't hard. A free and open forum for ideas is good. Shouting down opinions you disagree with is bad. Pretty simple, honestly.

People can’t tell the difference between opinion and fact and there is no institution that we can look at to debate the opinion. So a person is going to read that article and come away with an opinion that Elon Musk supporters are sexist, which is absurd. By reading that article or others opinion articles similar to it. The reader might completely change the way they operate in the world and why? Because so called journalist are bias and have no idea what they’re talking about.
You seem to operate in a black and white world with no room for nuance and it colors how you approach this conversation. To a pretty comical extent. The mere fact that you think there's a clear, bright line between fact and opinion in a case like this is baffling to me.

A more rational person would have realized that their attempt to "demolish" the Washington Post opinion piece actually just illustrated that tax policy's extremely nuanced and complex. What are the 'facts' that one can fall back on? You keep insisting there's simple right answers to incredibly complex, nuanced issues that all of these opinion pieces are purposefully obscuring. And then when pressed for those simple right answers you end up betraying your own biases in your response. You didn't respond with facts. You just presented your own opinion as fact. Which is exactly what you're railing against. It's very obvious hypocrisy to everybody but you.

You've determined in this case that it's absurd that Elon Musk supporters are sexist. You've done so despite screenshots of Elon Musk supporters being clearly sexist. Perhaps -- and I know nuance is hard for you so bear with me -- some Elon Musk supporters are sexist and some aren't?

The irony here is that the reason it's so difficult for you to accept that is because of your own entrenched biases. It is good to have opinions questioned. It is a fundamentally good thing that different voices exist. I'm sorry it makes you so uncomfortable and angry.


So when someone who calls themselves a journalist, and writes a biased opinion, I’m going to call it fake news. Fake = the bias and news = the journalist. That article was fake news or in more prevcise words a biased opinion written by a journalist.
Thanks for breaking own the taxonomy of the phrase. You've somehow managed to make it even stupider.

How does bias not = corrupt?

Maybe you’re missing the point that the trump brigades fake news rant has a grain of truth in it. The fact that you just said bias doesn’t = corrupt or fake is absurd. So if I’m clearly biased towards something you don’t think that comes off in the way I would write. Is that what you’re saying? because that makes no sense at all.
Humans are inherently biased. The media is, as well, and the constitution accepts that and holds as a basic tenant of our democracy that a free press is not only guaranteed but essential. That you and Trump's idiot followers don't understand the role opinion plays in a free press doesn't suddenly render the First Amendment obsolete.

My point isn't that bias doesn't show itself in opinion pieces. My point's the exact opposite. That bias is an unavoidable part of a free and open society where speech isn't governed. Not only is it unavoidable, but it's a feature not a bug. Varying ideas are good. Disagreement is good. Policing speech is bad.

You are, at a very basic level, trying to shut down opinions you disagree with. It's dangerous and misguided. You should seriously re-think your stance on this. You're contributing to the problem you're trying to solve.

(((((((Look at my post. Didn’t I just say that I have no problem with people stating their opinions. I clearly just said that and you are ignoring it. I am all for free speech but I would prefer the people who get paid and get their opinions promoted throughout the country do a better job. She has the right to write the article and I have the right to criticize it. The irony is you and her seem to try to be oppressing my right to criticize it and then have the nerve to say I’m against free speech. Time and time again we come back to this and you still ignore the problem. Where exactly can we debate these opinions in a fair way? Show me the place where that is done? If we can’t debate them, then wrong opinions will not be filtered out of our politics and like it has for the past 50 years make the world a worse place. ))))))))))))))))

By the way, this very morning the President called for a television show that was critical of his administration's immigration policies to be cancelled. The state is now calling for the cancellation of particular pieces of media. That's a direct attack on the First Amendment, and you're enabling it, whether you realize it or not. The attacks on "fake news" and the constant lies from the administration are designed to position the media as the enemy.

(((((Nope I’m not enabling that. I haven’t once in my post called for that but hey you can strawman me into a trump supporter again. Why not?))))))))))

And once enough people believe that, you can start censoring the voices you dislike. Anybody who believes in the ideals of free speech should be opposed. You're not though, because, I guess, some Elon Musk supporters were sexist in response to a journalist who is critical of Musk, and you wish she hasn't mentioned it, or whatever.

(((((((((((Again I’m not censoring voices I dislike, I’m just stating they’re wrong. In fact in this very article she says that Elon Musk should censor what he says about the media. You’re full of it. You literally will say anything to defend the media. Why can’t you just realize many of our news outlets are biased and have been spreading disinformation for years. Maybe because you work in the media? Idk, maybe because you’re just a person who can’t acvelt criticism? Idk, but you say you’re for free speech then defend an article that tries to silence someone’s speech. ))))))))))))))

Keep fighting the good fight and picking important battles though. Let the President lie to your face and then pat yourself on the back for calling journalists you disagree with liars. You aren't smart enough to recognize the difference in damage between blatant lies from the head of the Free world and misguided opinions on a blog, yet you're smart enough to lecture others for their opinions and police their speech. You're the problem, my man. You should try to be part of the solution.
Yeah again I’m not the one who is supporting an article that literally is telling Elon Musk he needs to watch what he says.

Fake news
[/QUOTE]Man is your reading comprehension terrible. No wonder you hate opinion pieces so much. Must be confusing and scary to not understand anything.

Edit: Sorry, missed your parenthetical responses in the quote.

(((((((Look at my post. Didn’t I just say that I have no problem with people stating their opinions. I clearly just said that and you are ignoring it. I am all for free speech but I would prefer the people who get paid and get their opinions promoted throughout the country do a better job. She has the right to write the article and I have the right to criticize it. The irony is you and her seem to try to be oppressing my right to criticize it and then have the nerve to say I’m against free speech. Time and time again we come back to this and you still ignore the problem. Where exactly can we debate these opinions in a fair way? Show me the place where that is done? If we can’t debate them, then wrong opinions will not be filtered out of our politics and like it has for the past 50 years make the world a worse place. ))))))))))))))))
I have clearly encouraged you to criticize the article and engage around the points made. What you've actually done is just stake an opposite stance without addressing anything specific, and proceeded to call her article "fake." This entire time I've been trying to explain why that's a harmful approach. I am in no way, shape, or form "oppressing your right to criticize" her. I, in fact, have basically begged you to criticize the articles you keep calling fake with detail and support for your opinions.

As for where we debate ideas, that happens across public discourse. It happens in the podcasts you're a proponent of, on Fox News, in college classrooms, on Twitter, and any of a thousand other places. When a science reporter publicly responds to Elon Musk's tweets, that's a public debate of ideas. Hell, we're actually doing it right now.

One of the points I've been trying to make is the sheer volume of access people have to different ideas and opinions. There are thousands of media channels that didn't exist a decade ago, as OCF points out below. The challenge is ensuring a variety of opinion. I don't think shouting "fake news" at opinions you disagree with is the way to ensure that variety of opinion.

(((((Nope I’m not enabling that. I haven’t once in my post called for that but hey you can strawman me into a trump supporter again. Why not?))))))))))
I haven't called you a Trump supporter. I've called you a "foot soldier is his war against the media" because you keep using his tag line to attack opinions you dislike. I'm trying to illustrate to you how that phrase has been used to foster distrust in the media specifically to allow people to avoid reckoning with actual, proven facts. By applying that phrase to opinion pieces, you're just muddying the waters more. I think it's a bad thing to do, given that what you actually want is more honesty in media. I think you're trying to accomplish that in basically the worst way possible. By using that phrase, you are aligning yourself with people whose intentions stand in polar opposition to yours. They use it to obscure facts and to convince people to mistrust accurate reporting when it's unfavorable. It's a dangerous precedent to set.

[QUOTE=TheBobcatBandit]
(((((((((((Again I’m not censoring voices I dislike, I’m just stating they’re wrong. In fact in this very article she says that Elon Musk should censor what he says about the media. You’re full of it. You literally will say anything to defend the media. Why can’t you just realize many of our news outlets are biased and have been spreading disinformation for years. Maybe because you work in the media? Idk, maybe because you’re just a person who can’t acvelt criticism? Idk, but you say you’re for free speech then defend an article that tries to silence someone’s speech. ))))))))))))))
This is why I keep accusing you of having very poor reading comprehension. That Elon Musk article is not advocating "censoring what Elon Musk says about the media." You rant about people presenting opinions as fact and how damaging it is, and make no effort to honestly represent the writer's point. So either your reading comprehension's poor, or you're being intellectually dishonest. I suspect it's the reading comprehension.

She's suggesting that he be more thoughtful with his platform. She is not trying to shut down his voice, but rather trying to demonstrate the impact that he has on journalists and science journalists in particular, and suggesting that if he knew that impact, he might act differently. It's a simple, non-controversial point. You're welcome to disagree with it, but I don't know how you can classify it as "disinformation" (it's an opinion with supporting evidence, after all) and it seems disingenuous to so stridently insist you're right and that journalist's wrong.

I asked you very specific questions about what you disagreed with. You responded with "fake news" and insisted it's absurd that Elon Musk might have some misogynistic supporters. You didn't provide evidence. You just presented your opinion as fact.

Beyond that, I've very clearly, on a dozen different instances, acknowledged media bias. In the post you were responding to, I said:

"Humans are inherently biased. The media is as well, and the constitution accepts that and holds as a basic tenant of our democracy that a free press is not only guaranteed but essential. That you and Trump's idiot followers don't understand the role opinion plays in a free press doesn't suddenly render the First Amendment obsolete.

My point isn't that bias doesn't show itself in opinion pieces. My point's the exact opposite. That bias is an unavoidable part of a free and open society where speech isn't governed. Not only is it unavoidable, but it's a feature not a bug. Varying ideas are good. Disagreement is good. Policing speech is bad."

Which again, is why I think your reading comprehension is bad. I've clearly acknowledged that the media's biased many times over. We just disagree on the solution and your use of a stupid phrase in stupid ways.
Last Edited: 6/1/2018 4:21:48 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
OhioCatFan
6/1/2018 12:12 PM
I’m leaving today for a Mediterranean cruise to celebrate our 50th wedding anniversary, so I will not be having much BA time for about two weeks; however, I just wanted to make one comment, which I hope all will find interesting. Back in the 1970s, when I was teaching journalism at Marshall University, I taught a class entitlted “Mass Media and Society.” One of the scholars we studied in that class was Marshall McLuhan. Based on his media theoreis, which were themselves based on a specific strain of Canadian economic theory, he postulated that electronic media were transforming us from a society that processed information in a linear and sequential manner to one that processed information in a multidemensional and holistic manner. From this he further postulated that we would begin to relate to each other in a tribalistic global village manner. This lead to the concusion that we were headed for a return to the 19th Century norm of media that made no attempt to be objective but simply interacted with their part of the global village in manner not too dissimilar to a story teller sitting around the tribal council circle. I believe we have now essentially arrived at that point.

It might be instructive for some here to read up on the history of the Associated Press, and why the concept of “objective journalism” was developed in the first place. This is part of journalism history that’s often overlooked and is very interesting. The rationale for “objective reporting” you’ll discover was not what you probably think it was.
Last Edited: 6/1/2018 12:13:39 PM by OhioCatFan
mail
The Optimist
6/3/2018 10:30 AM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
Canadian economic theory
Fake news
Showing Messages: 226 - 250 of 354
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)