Author Topic: A pervasive trend in political discussions (and hoping to move forward)  (Read 23217 times)

rkbabang

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5203
Re: A pervasive trend in political discussions (and hoping to move forward)
« Reply #20 on: August 18, 2017, 08:16:46 AM »
+1   The media is 100% agenda driven.  The joke is watching them try to act like evenhanded purveyors of truth.

Where do you get your news from if it's not the media? You can't possibly be traveling across the country at the scene of each breaking event.

Exactly, that isn't possible.  To stay as informed as you can, you need to try to use multiple sources, but understand what the biases of each of the sources you are using are.  They report what happened while putting their own spin on it. You can usually be 99% sure the event happened (unless you are watching Alex Jones or something), but you just can't be entirely sure that it happened in exactly the way they are reporting it.



rkbabang

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5203
Re: A pervasive trend in political discussions (and hoping to move forward)
« Reply #21 on: August 18, 2017, 08:20:42 AM »
What would unbiased media look like? Is it even sustainable for a single outlet?

The editorial stuff is how you differentiate yourself. Honestly, that's the value-added portion of a media outlet. Listening to folks who immerse themselves in news and provide some opinion. If you find yourself upset about some journalist or news anchor that doesn't seem to base their opinion on facts then factually prove them wrong to yourself. It will only make you better. The other option is to just ignore them. They are generally free services.

As a thought experiment, lets pretend that all editorial comments within an article are removed and only facts are listed. Then there would still be room for bias based on the order of the facts, the sentence structure, the adjectives/nouns used, and so on.
* People predictably retain listed information (first fact, last fact, and middle fact - generally)
* Sentence structure can influence how facts are internally interpreted
* Adjectives, while maybe technically correct, can also predictably influence interpretation

For more info, ask Scott Hall how to get people to click on or respond to some message at a higher rate than other people saying the same exact thing in a different way.

I personally don't think unbiased news is possible.  What bothers me is that they don't admit that.   You watch fox news and they advertise "we report you decide".  I call BS on that.  You watch CNN or read the NYT and they claim to be legitimate unbiased news organizations.  I call BS on that too.

I'd rather everyone admit their biases up front.

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5599
Re: A pervasive trend in political discussions (and hoping to move forward)
« Reply #22 on: August 18, 2017, 08:20:50 AM »
The trend I notice is that people engage in far more thoughtful intelligent argument on the investment threads than the political threads with some exceptions. In fact our political threads very much resemble our worst investment threads (e.g. Valeant).
Two issues I've seen with this:

1. Many political topics are not so cut-and-dry. Investments can be quantified and are easier to put in a box and try and figure out. Plus there is more incentive ($$$s) to do so, and you're more thoughtful when it's your skin in the game. There's a real risk to being wrong.

2. Even when people do try and bring some analysis to the political threads, it's very difficult for the point to land. I've had to explain the same thing 3x over at some point, literally bolding the increasing the font size so the other poster got clarity. It's so easy to talk past one another because the frame of discussion isn't contained on an 8"x11" income statement.

So these threads can turn into an opinion-dump (or maybe a garbage dump). But I can tolerate them for that, because we're all human, we have thoughts and we want to vent them.
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."

wachtwoord

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1443
Re: A pervasive trend in political discussions (and hoping to move forward)
« Reply #23 on: August 18, 2017, 08:22:44 AM »
How can you be so sure that the only conclusion is that intelligent people say that they don't know? You have read all the research? You are a climate change expert?

Because, unless one of the researchers invented a time machine, there simply hasn't been enough time (by many centuries) to develop a sufficient dataset to draw any sort of statistically significant conclusion. I've read some of the research yes. Statistically they are extremely weak (otherwise they couldn't draw conclusions and would not get published)

Since when do liberals want forced sharing of resources (heavy taxation), restricting gun laws, strong limitation of free speech? It might be me, but I though it was sort of by definition that liberals want individuals to have as much freedom as possible, which means stuff like free markets and a limited government and no limitation of free speech....

Yes, as rkbabang  explains liberalism has been hijacked and the term is actually a misnomer now, as the liberals want more  restrictions of freedoms than even the conservatists with all their social dogma. Also the term is the Netherlands (where you are from) is used differently then in the US. The Dutch word 'Liberaal' generally refers to neo-liberalism which advocates some economic freedoms but with much more government control and a far larger government than classical liberalism (true liberalism) ever would. The VVD are neo-liberals. The Libertarian party (extremely small in the Netherlands) comes closest to classical-liberalism.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master"

Cardboard

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3622
Re: A pervasive trend in political discussions (and hoping to move forward)
« Reply #24 on: August 18, 2017, 08:42:02 AM »
One thing that is now amazing is the amount of brainwashing that has occurred due to the mainstream media or the difficulty for some to even recognize what is left and what is right nowadays.

They have done such a good job that the Nazis in Germany are considered as a right wing party while all their social and economic programs were clearly heavy left or socialism. It is convenient for the media to associate the right with racists to discredit any of their agenda. 

I have had discussions with many who now believe that a party proposing a tax cut or any form of government spending cut is automatically center-right while all their policies are around socialism or obviously left from the center.

Then all of a sudden that party which is clearly liberal and pro-social programs of all kinds is now conservative and getting awfully dangerous and close to the extreme right which means the Nazis!

Cardboard


rkbabang

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5203
Re: A pervasive trend in political discussions (and hoping to move forward)
« Reply #25 on: August 18, 2017, 08:49:05 AM »
One thing that is now amazing is the amount of brainwashing that has occurred due to the mainstream media or the difficulty for some to even recognize what is left and what is right nowadays.

They have done such a good job that the Nazis in Germany are considered as a right wing party while all their social and economic programs were clearly heavy left or socialism. It is convenient for the media to associate the right with racists to discredit any of their agenda. 

I have had discussions with many who now believe that a party proposing a tax cut or any form of government spending cut is automatically center-right while all their policies are around socialism or obviously left from the center.

Then all of a sudden that party which is clearly liberal and pro-social programs of all kinds is now conservative and getting awfully dangerous and close to the extreme right which means the Nazis!

Cardboard

That has always frustrated me when nazis are call right wing.  They are extreme left on economic issues and extreme right social issues, basically the polar opposite of a libertarian.

wachtwoord

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1443
Re: A pervasive trend in political discussions (and hoping to move forward)
« Reply #26 on: August 18, 2017, 09:11:41 AM »
One thing that is now amazing is the amount of brainwashing that has occurred due to the mainstream media or the difficulty for some to even recognize what is left and what is right nowadays.

They have done such a good job that the Nazis in Germany are considered as a right wing party while all their social and economic programs were clearly heavy left or socialism. It is convenient for the media to associate the right with racists to discredit any of their agenda. 

I have had discussions with many who now believe that a party proposing a tax cut or any form of government spending cut is automatically center-right while all their policies are around socialism or obviously left from the center.

Then all of a sudden that party which is clearly liberal and pro-social programs of all kinds is now conservative and getting awfully dangerous and close to the extreme right which means the Nazis!

Cardboard

That has always frustrated me when nazis are call right wing.  They are extreme left on economic issues and extreme right social issues, basically the polar opposite of a libertarian.

Nazis ARE left wing (as most/all facist groups in history). Their political party was called NSDAP: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (national socialistic German worker party).

Calling them right wing is left wing propaganda, as is calling the hatred of certain groyps of people a right wing trait. That's absolute bullshit.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master"

merkhet

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3070
Re: A pervasive trend in political discussions (and hoping to move forward)
« Reply #27 on: August 18, 2017, 09:29:05 AM »
Well, this thread seems to be going well...

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5599
Re: A pervasive trend in political discussions (and hoping to move forward)
« Reply #28 on: August 18, 2017, 09:39:15 AM »
Well, this thread seems to be going well...
Heh...I mean, it started off with "hey, if all you liberals would just do THIS, then we can get to the bottom of it all".
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."

KJP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1245
Re: A pervasive trend in political discussions (and hoping to move forward)
« Reply #29 on: August 18, 2017, 10:10:53 AM »

In general, liberals does not admit important fundamental premises that could help us move forward in political debates

For example:
1) In the global warming debate, the liberals fail to admit that it is almost impossible to come up with a scientifically rigorous predictive model that confirms that global warming is caused by man made CO2

2) In the sexism debates, the (some) liberals fail to admit that there are biological differences between men and women that contribute to the population disparity in a particular industry.

3) In the racism debates, the liberals fail to admit that a few left-wing organizations such as Black Live Matters and Antifa have hate and racist elements as its doctrines.

Why am I pointing these out? Because by failing to admit these fundament premises, we cannot agree on a common starting point to come up with viable solutions to resolve these issues. In fact if you admit the premises pointed out above, we could address the problem as follows:

Rather than indisputable truths, your "fundamental premises" seem to me to be either unnecessary or properly contested due to their vagueness.  For example, using your numbering:

(1) If this "fundamental premise" is true, it implies that it is also impossible to prove that human activity is NOT causing warming.  It also implies that we don't know the probability distribution of outcomes ranging from benign to catastrophic.  But we do have a plausible theory about how human activity could be causing warming.  So, to sum up, we have a plausible theory that certain human activity could lead to catastrophic consequences, but we have no way to assess the probability of that actually occurring.  Wouldn't common risk assessment tools -- from the precautionary principle, to the Kelly Criterion to diversification (all designed to, among other things, avoid catastrophe) -- all argue in far of action, rather than inaction, on those facts, so long as there was a treatment whose side effects were less damaging than the potentially catastrophic outcome we're trying to avoid?  And if the actions implied by "humans are causing global warming" and "I don't know if humans are causing global warming" are the same, then what difference does it make whether you believe one or the other?

(3) This "fundamental premise" assumes that, for example, everyone that affiliates with or supports BLM agrees on one set of identifiable doctrines or beliefs and that set of identifiable doctrines is both known to and agreed upon by people reading this thread.  But that's not an accurate reflection of most social movements, which often encompass a range of views under one umbrella.  To the extent you want to discuss specific and presumably widely held beliefs within the movement, perhaps you could identify specific doctrines or beliefs from this website that you believe are racist or "hateful" and should be universally condemned:  http://blacklivesmatter.com/ 
« Last Edit: August 18, 2017, 10:41:50 AM by KJP »