CDZ Serious question for independents/moderates/centrists, etc.

[Divine Wind]

But look at the climate change debate. I'll hear from one "source" that temperatures are increasing pretty much every year, then from another that they haven't increased in 15.

I'm not saying that one side is right and the other is wrong, I don't want to move this to that topic, but I'm saying that each side of the argument views their data as "factual", which essentially kills the debate right out of the gate. You can't have any kind of conversation, let alone a constructive conversation, when the participants can't even agree on FACTS.

So one "news" source pushes one side, and another pushes the other. People VOTE for people who agree with THEIR "facts". That's where we are right now, and it's only getting worse.
.

The climate change "debate" is a classic example of politics twisting science. Personally, I blame Al Gore for the hyperbole and politicization after his defeat in 2000. The argument was political and, as political arguments often do, were met with "push back". It was the Left saying "We're all going to die! We need to shut down the factories now!!!" and the Right saying "Bullshit. We're fine". The truth is in the middle.

A scientist will present data and then add, "needs more research". A politician will say "this means something" or "this means nothing", meaning they will draw a conclusion from data that doesn't prove either case.

Critical thinkers will look at the data and agree that the climate is changing. There are pros and cons to those changes. There is evidence of both natural and manmade processes at work. There is evidence we can influence the environment, but no evidence we can stop or reverse the process.

As for "the Newz", they'll push whatever sells. Period.
God Bless America!

 

[Divine Wind]

The major problem with today's media is that the news cycle is instantaneous. Rather than waiting to update by tomorrow's paper, it needs to be updated immediately or you missed the story
The result is news being released before it is fully vetted and sources are checked

Agreed it's one major problem.

Another major problem is confirmation bias. People have so many media choices today and not just the 3 major networks. Media corporations are in intense competition for viewers and modify their content to attract viewers. This is why "The History Channel" became the Nazi and Ancient Aliens channel while "The Discovery Channel" became a pseudoscience goofball channel. Because of the multiplex of viewing choices people have, they tend to watch only those news/infotainment channels which reinforce their own views. RWers don't watch MSNBC to openly learn opposing views and LWers don't watch Fox News for the same reason.

Another major problem is, as Toffler popularized, "Information Overload". There's so much information being spewed out that even people with higher education or average or better IQs have a difficult time processing it all much less the half of society that has less education and/or IQs.

I watch Fox news. Keep your friends close, your enemies closer. Not that they're really enemies, just the "other side."

The question was posed to those who are NOT like you and Wry Catcher in terms of your cowboys and Indians approach to politics, however.

Okay. I'll shut up then. I don't think things are in as bad shape as Mac thinks, that was my point.

Agreed things aren't as bad as some purport. Our nation has been through a lot worse times.

 

[dblack]

Here's a serious question for posters here who don't identify with either side of the political spectrum (a limited audience here, but worth a shot):

It really seems like we've moved beyond "fake news" and have have literally reached a point where there are two separate realities. Listen to a lefty, and they're 100% convinced that the other "side" is in abject meltdown and about to collapse at any moment. Listen to a righty and you get the same. So:

How are you consuming the news right now? When a media person (either the traditional "press" or a partisan advocate or someone on the internet) says or reports or claims something, do you take it at face value any more, to any degree?

I've literally reached a point it's impossible for me to trust pretty much any input. And honestly, because I am curious about what's happening around me, that's troubling.

How about you?
.

I try to do a lot of 'reading between the lines'. That's dangerous too, of course. It makes one even more susceptible to confirmation bias. But you can often glean the real story underlying fake news if you're willing to work a bit more. I sometimes read three or four different articles on the same story.

Reading several takes on any given story will help in a couple of ways. Obviously, the differences in the way the stories are reported is important. But even more insight can drawn from the similarities, especially when several mainstream sources all contain the exact same verbiage. When you see that, it's a good bet it's 'fake news' - ie a particular plea or point of view being funnelled to the news media for distribution.

Ted Koppel did some great work exposing this news pipeline approach to propaganda ten years ago. The tldr: Some news reporters - too many - are lazy and unscrupulous. They will happily regurgitate material handed to them by propagandists if it bumps their word count and helps them meet a deadline. Especially if doing so puts them "in good" with a particular information source. (ie reporters that write the stories as directed by their 'sponsors' are more likely to get the inside scoop from those sources.)

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Of course it does. You are a leftist.

The question was posed for those who AREN'T like you in terms of complete conformity.

You echo other fools who have yet to define the word "leftist", which you & other fools use as a pejorative. I'd bet you have no clues as to the etymology of the "Left" and the "Right" and your set (fools) echo many things of which you have no clue.

Actually, I studied political science when I was at Stanford.

How about you?

Did you learn anything? BTW, "Go Bears"

Yes, of course.

I added to my existing knowledge, having read Rawl's theories of social justice while a senior in high school when I was 16.

Of course, that was most likely well before you were born. You sound very young.

I "sound"? Your reading skill are exceptional, if you can hear my age by the written word. Actually, I studied Poli Sci at CAL, along with US History. But who cares, you will probably dismiss it as all fake facts, given that CAL is a public U. and not a private one.

Q. Did you enjoy the pubs in East Palo Alto during your matriculation on the farm?

BTW: I was at CAL '65 - '67 (Active Duty USNR, 2/67 to 1/69) & '69 - '72. When did you attend Stanford?

East Palo Alto? I didn't know anybody adventurous enough to brave going there during the day, much less at night.

 

[Picaro]

I've tried to keep this thread on track, but I'm not having much luck.

I'm not saying it's difficult to detect spin and partisan slant. That's no big deal at this point, sadly.

I'm saying that the two ends of the spectrum, more and more, are essentially operating in two universes when it comes to "news" and "facts", so much so that there is less and less overlap in pretty much everything they "report".

I'm not sure if I'm putting it well - does that make more sense?
.

Well enough; if somebody doesn't get that it isn't your problem.

Did your school by chance ever give a course or an overview on Gramsci? Alinsky's 'rules for radicals' is Gramsci For Dummies, basically, only Gramsci digs a lot into changing meanings of words, methodologies for changing entire cultures by gradual means using the media, and tactics for destroying weaker cultures and making them 'receptive' to takeovers by 'intellectuals' and 'Marxist' politicians.

His methods permeate the 'left' wing and 'progressives' rhetoric; even advertising pros use his methods, and so do right wingers; 'Libertarians' are especially prone to using his methods, they probably don't know where it comes from. Pravda and other propagandists used his stuff, along with other research from psychologists. Alinsky's 'Gramsci Lite' was popularized in the late 1950's and took hold in both Europe and the U.S. on college campuses, and a lot of the old Soviet Cold War narratives are very much alive and well still to this day.. We didn't 'get here' overnight

 

[Picaro]

You echo other fools who have yet to define the word "leftist", which you & other fools use as a pejorative. I'd bet you have no clues as to the etymology of the "Left" and the "Right" and your set (fools) echo many things of which you have no clue.

Actually, I studied political science when I was at Stanford.

How about you?

Did you learn anything? BTW, "Go Bears"

Yes, of course.

I added to my existing knowledge, having read Rawl's theories of social justice while a senior in high school when I was 16.

Of course, that was most likely well before you were born. You sound very young.

I "sound"? Your reading skill are exceptional, if you can hear my age by the written word. Actually, I studied Poli Sci at CAL, along with US History. But who cares, you will probably dismiss it as all fake facts, given that CAL is a public U. and not a private one.

Q. Did you enjoy the pubs in East Palo Alto during your matriculation on the farm?

BTW: I was at CAL '65 - '67 (Active Duty USNR, 2/67 to 1/69) & '69 - '72. When did you attend Stanford?

East Palo Alto? I didn't know anybody adventurous enough to brave going there during the day, much less at night.

Took the exit off 101 once, just to see if it lived up to the reputation; hardly anybody on the streets, not even cars, and the sidewalks, gutters and streets were literally covered with discarded needles. Turned around and left immediately. Very spooky place. I used to live a few exits south, down in Sunnyvale, during the week for a couple of years, off Fair Oaks.

 

[Divine Wind]

Actually, I studied political science when I was at Stanford.

How about you?

Did you learn anything? BTW, "Go Bears"

Yes, of course.

I added to my existing knowledge, having read Rawl's theories of social justice while a senior in high school when I was 16.

Of course, that was most likely well before you were born. You sound very young.

I "sound"? Your reading skill are exceptional, if you can hear my age by the written word. Actually, I studied Poli Sci at CAL, along with US History. But who cares, you will probably dismiss it as all fake facts, given that CAL is a public U. and not a private one.

Q. Did you enjoy the pubs in East Palo Alto during your matriculation on the farm?

BTW: I was at CAL '65 - '67 (Active Duty USNR, 2/67 to 1/69) & '69 - '72. When did you attend Stanford?

East Palo Alto? I didn't know anybody adventurous enough to brave going there during the day, much less at night.

Took the exit off 101 once, just to see if it lived up to the reputation; hardly anybody on the streets, not even cars, and the sidewalks, gutters and streets were literally covered with discarded needles. Turned around and left immediately. Very spooky place. I used to live a few exits south, down in Sunnyvale, during the week for a couple of years, off Fair Oaks.

The comments piqued my interest so I looked it up and found this:

East Palo Alto, California - Wikipedia
"...43% of East Palo Alto's residents were African Americans in 1990,[7] which was the result of redlining practices and racial deed restrictions in Palo Alto.[8] Latinos now constitute about 65% of the total population, while the proportion of African Americans has decreased to about 15%. A small minority of Pacific Islanders also reside in East Palo Alto, most of Tongan, Samoan and Indo-Fijian origin.[citation needed]. East Palo Alto has the largest concentration of Pacific Islanders of any American city or town outside of Hawaii[citation needed].

In the past, East Palo Alto experienced profound crime and poverty, especially during the 1980s and early 1990s. In 1992, it had the highest homicide rate in the country with 24,322 people, and 42 murders, equaling a rate of 172.7 homicides per 100,000 residents.[9] Since then the city's crime problems have subsided, and the murder rate in particular has declined to a typical urban level. In 2006, East Palo Alto experienced a comparatively low six murders, seven in 2007, and only five in 2008...."

Times change and seeing the murder rate drop from "the highest in the country" in 1992 with over 24,000 murders/year down to an average of 7 murders/year around 2007 as the racial demographics changed is interesting.

 

[Mac1958]

I've tried to keep this thread on track, but I'm not having much luck.

I'm not saying it's difficult to detect spin and partisan slant. That's no big deal at this point, sadly.

I'm saying that the two ends of the spectrum, more and more, are essentially operating in two universes when it comes to "news" and "facts", so much so that there is less and less overlap in pretty much everything they "report".

I'm not sure if I'm putting it well - does that make more sense?
.

Well enough; if somebody doesn't get that it isn't your problem.

Did your school by chance ever give a course or an overview on Gramsci? Alinsky's 'rules for radicals' is Gramsci For Dummies, basically, only Gramsci digs a lot into changing meanings of words, methodologies for changing entire cultures by gradual means using the media, and tactics for destroying weaker cultures and making them 'receptive' to takeovers by 'intellectuals' and 'Marxist' politicians.

His methods permeate the 'left' wing and 'progressives' rhetoric; even advertising pros use his methods, and so do right wingers; 'Libertarians' are especially prone to using his methods, they probably don't know where it comes from. Pravda and other propagandists used his stuff, along with other research from psychologists. Alinsky's 'Gramsci Lite' was popularized in the late 1950's and took hold in both Europe and the U.S. on college campuses, and a lot of the old Soviet Cold War narratives are very much alive and well still to this day.. We didn't 'get here' overnight

FYI, I was the student, not the teacher. A hungover student, usually, full disclosure.



It would be interesting to trace the political trajectory that got us to this place on college campuses. It's certainly an element of this grotesque ideological binary system that we're in....
.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You echo other fools who have yet to define the word "leftist", which you & other fools use as a pejorative. I'd bet you have no clues as to the etymology of the "Left" and the "Right" and your set (fools) echo many things of which you have no clue.

Actually, I studied political science when I was at Stanford.

How about you?

Did you learn anything? BTW, "Go Bears"

Yes, of course.

I added to my existing knowledge, having read Rawl's theories of social justice while a senior in high school when I was 16.

Of course, that was most likely well before you were born. You sound very young.

I "sound"? Your reading skill are exceptional, if you can hear my age by the written word. Actually, I studied Poli Sci at CAL, along with US History. But who cares, you will probably dismiss it as all fake facts, given that CAL is a public U. and not a private one.

Q. Did you enjoy the pubs in East Palo Alto during your matriculation on the farm?

BTW: I was at CAL '65 - '67 (Active Duty USNR, 2/67 to 1/69) & '69 - '72. When did you attend Stanford?

East Palo Alto? I didn't know anybody adventurous enough to brave going there during the day, much less at night.

Well, maybe you did attend Stanford, I was testing you. On the west shore of the south bay in east Palo Alto there was a drug program run by a group which included bible study as part of their rehab. treatment. I needed to interview a victim who was on felony probation and serving day for day credit there. This was in the early 80's, and at that time was as you suggest, it was a very violent community.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I was testing you. .

Obviously. Do you actually think you had to tell me that?

Getting back to the topic, one thing I have noticed over the years is that right wingers seem to have no problems calling themselves right wingers. Doctrinaire leftists all too often squirm and deny they are leftists, even when they are utterly conformist and play the game of identity politics to the hilt.

I miss the days when the left embraced liberalism as its guiding principle. Multiculturalism has destroyed that as it is actually in the business of preserving social injustice -- an archly conservative approach to politics. The fear of being called racist has resulted in the establishment of an entire belief system predicated upon double standards. Liberalism is all about the application of universal principles, but Multiculturalism concerns itself with preserving social mores of certain groups, no matter how illiberal.

Since you play the game of identity politics the way you do, going so far as to defend Islamists, I referred to you as a leftist. If you had a track record of supporting liberal principles, I would have identified you as a liberal. This thread, however, was an invitation to those who AREN'T strongly partisan and while there are certainly no rules governing who can and cannot respond, at least a little honesty might be in order when those with strongly partisan views do respond.

 

[sjay]

The first step...never trust a left wing news source....CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, PBS.......and then verify those that are balanced, like Fox....

fox balanced, joke of the century, fox is direct opposite of msnbc nothing more.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I was testing you. .

Obviously. Do you actually think you had to tell me that?

Getting back to the topic, one thing I have noticed over the years is that right wingers seem to have no problems calling themselves right wingers. Doctrinaire leftists all too often squirm and deny they are leftists, even when they are utterly conformist and play the game of identity politics to the hilt.

I miss the days when the left embraced liberalism as its guiding principle. Multiculturalism has destroyed that as it is actually in the business of preserving social injustice -- an archly conservative approach to politics. The fear of being called racist has resulted in the establishment of an entire belief system predicated upon double standards. Liberalism is all about the application of universal principles, but Multiculturalism concerns itself with preserving social mores of certain groups, no matter how illiberal.

Since you play the game of identity politics the way you do, going so far as to defend Islamists, I referred to you as a leftist. If you had a track record of supporting liberal principles, I would have identified you as a liberal. This thread, however, was an invitation to those who AREN'T strongly partisan and while there are certainly no rules governing who can and cannot respond, at least a little honesty might be in order when those with strongly partisan views do respond.

Yep, I really did need to tell you that. Oh, and BTW, a google search would have given you all you needed to know about east Palo Alto, so I'm still not sure you attended Stanford, but I'm satisfied you at least know how to do some research before posting.

"Doctrinaires leftists"? "Multiculturalism destroyed social justice"? You need some explaining to do. I would apply the use of the word "doctrinaire" to the GOP of today - Ryan's drum beat for the conservative agenda for example. I doubt very much a moderate Democrat, left of center by definition, has a matrix in mind when discussing issues. The D's have not singled out individuals as DINO's when they question what they believe are wrong-headed ideas.

Most Democrats I know, and D Pols I have listened to, believe in equal opportunity and equality before the law; most of the latter vote that way. Is that what you mean by "Doctrinaire leftists"?

I believe in the classic liberal principle of a social contract - does that make a leftist"? Does supporting and having empathy for other human beings and animals, protecting our environment and rejecting authoritarianism make a doctrinaire leftist?

I learned that the simple explanation for using labels was best illustrated as the Face of a clock: Going clockwise from the 12, we see Republicans, moderate, conservative and radical to the 6 and Democrats as revolutionary, progressive/liberal and moderate back up to the 12.

Radicals and Revolutionaries reject compromise, they represent the doctrinaire set, and at their extreme, the idiot fringe. We see that mostly in the minor political movements, but over the past decade or so, the GOP has tossed their moderate members under the bus, have rejected compromise and debate and are now led by an incompetent authoritarian. Congress has now rejected checks and balances as a threat to their agenda, and that should scare all of us. See my signature line, and think about it.

 

[Picaro]

It would be interesting to trace the political trajectory that got us to this place on college campuses. It's certainly an element of this grotesque ideological binary system that we're in....
.

Well, Hugh Davis Graham's history on how politics morphed the Civil Rights movement to fit bureaucratic and Party political needs is a good start for those interested, very detailed and well written. I was surprised by a lot it, and I thought I had read extensively and followed the money enough to have most of it down, but I found I was wrong and only partially informed; the insider politics was some truly insane and bizarre stuff for us unwashed Deplorables out here in fly over country, while it appears to be 'normal' for Washington and state houses.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It would be interesting to trace the political trajectory that got us to this place on college campuses. It's certainly an element of this grotesque ideological binary system that we're in....
.

I'm not sure about college campuses per se, but a certain sort of Manichaean mind set is pretty much hard wired into our two party political system where we are encouraged to see either/or rather than shades of grey. Good grief, all the authoritarian leftists who call you a right winger for not being extreme enough attests to that.

I also think that the more chaotic and technological the world become, the more people have a need for tribe. Since there are two competing tribes in this country, people chose one or the other and then simply go about the business of soldiering.

As far as College campuses, it's the social sciences leading the charge. Professors with bloated egos do not allow for critical though, as they punish those who disagree. The need for good grades forces students to accept the prevailing orthodoxy, and there are few out there with the balls to point out that the emperor is naked.

 

[Mac1958]

It would be interesting to trace the political trajectory that got us to this place on college campuses. It's certainly an element of this grotesque ideological binary system that we're in....
.

I'm not sure about college campuses per se, but a certain sort of Manichaean mind set is pretty much hard wired into our two party political system where we are encouraged to see either/or rather than shades of grey. Good grief, all the authoritarian leftists who call you a right winger for not being extreme enough attests to that.

I also think that the more chaotic and technological the world become, the more people have a need for tribe. Since there are two competing tribes in this country, people chose one or the other and then simply go about the business of soldiering.

As far as College campuses, it's the social sciences leading the charge. Professors with bloated egos do not allow for critical though, as they punish those who disagree. The need for good grades forces students to accept the prevailing orthodoxy, and there are few out there with the balls to point out that the emperor is naked.

Good stuff. My guess is that also, the exponential proliferation of "media" sources are the primary driver here. The sheer volume of them have pushed the two sides further and further apart, exacerbating the "us vs. them" thing to an insane degree. There is simply little room (or worse, demand) for curiosity, humility or pragmatism. That's why I don't see how this gets fixed.
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

online news, from AP, UPI Reuters, Yahoo

I know not to accept anything in the news at face value. Both (all) sides spin facts to make their side look good and the other side look bad. It kind of makes me think of creative resume writing.

I'll listen to Rush or one of the other talkers and watch MSNBC or CNN (and I do this exercise quite a bit) and I'm just stunned by the sheer separation in realities. Not just opinions, but actual realities. It's like informational whiplash, and because the separation is expanding so quickly, it's just getting more difficult to make sense of it.
.

You think CNN and Rush are opposite equals and neither has a grasp on reality?

Interesting.