General politics

[PseudoSABR]

 

There is one narrative here, like there is almost anywhere you travel around the internet.  We have to be locked into an eternal battle between conservatives and liberals, republicans and democrats, big government vs small government, high taxes vs low taxes, sanity vs insanity, Trump vs decency.  That's it.  There is no room for anything else.  That's the narrative and every single person follows it.  Every single post, regardless of the side they take, refers to this or assumes this when the keys begin to be punched on the keyboard.  Is it possible there is more to the discussion, more possibilities than this, or should we continue having that ongoing battle play out.  Anyone that says something outside of this narrative will not be getting very far and will likely leave this place, never to return, but to be honest I have not seen more than 1 or 2 comments in over 70 pages that even attempt to do this.  The narrative is the same narrative that makes us believe that Fox News is for conservatives and all of the others, generally speaking, are for liberals.  It's nonsense.  Every single piece of news you get is coming from the same narrative, and convince us that we simply need one political party to obtain power over the other, and that's just how it is, that's life, and that we need to accept that to be a good citizen.

 

What everyone wants me and others to do with alternate viewpoints, is to bring us into that narrative and speak on those terms.  They aren't comfortable going outside of the box this narrative has formed.  That's what they know, it's what they hear everyday on the news they watch or the articles they read.  So that must be what we should be debating.  The reality is it's not, but we all believe that we should, so we do and then you get what we have in this thread and others, endless amounts of ideas and stances that all come from the same source.

I'm going to quibble with semantics and I think I'd prefer the term paradigm rather narrative--the latter implying a cohesive story.   But otherwise I agree we too often limit ourselves and our discussion to that which ready available through highly controlled interfaces/consumer touchpoints.  I'm reminded of the Noam Chomsky quote making the rounds since being evoked by Tucker Carlson of all people--'The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.'

 

And I think the people around here are tolerant of outside the box ideas and modes of having discourse.  At some point, you'll have to broach a topic or suggest another way of analyzing a problem to see how people really respond.  I mean if we're all operating within the same paradigm/narrative, without some outside influence to suggest an alternative, we'll be unwittingly blind.  

[Badsmerf]

Champ... like Levi asked... what subject would you rather discuss? It is pretty open for debate here, and if you have something off the beaten path I'm sure it would stir a nice discussion. The reason we talk about relevant new items... like it or not, is because they are relevant.

 

ewen, I'm no fan of how Israel operates. She could have phrased her legitimate concern in a better manner... but I don't think the GOP has room to judge when so many go to bat for Trump when he says way worse. The whole glass houses thing...

[MMMordabito]

 

Heaven knows Minnesota has done quite a job going out of its way to give these people a great setup plan for life.  Would be nice to see them make an attempt to assmiliate if they want citizenship.

 

Sorry if this offends anyone

 

Not offended.  I can understand that viewpoint.   However, I do believe that the second generation is attempting.  My daughter (probably the most color blind, least prejudice person on the planet) has befriended several Somali girls at school.  They want to be like everyone else.  However, I think the distrust goes both ways, so it's going to take more time.   My problem is when I hear people down at Riverside interviewed saying that they think sharia law is better than what we have here.  It's nonsense. I mean rule under those circumstances is exactly why people leave in the first place.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Thanks.  I'd be interested to know which part you can agree with me on.  Maybe we can work from there and I can find points I agree with you on based on your response.

 

It's more like a left vs. a slight variation of left thought.  Even if some diehard conservative came in here (which is rare), and he was debating a left point of view, it would be the same end result.  All viewpoints are coming from the same source, the media, so in reality, there is nothing of substance being discussed, just rehashed and reiterated points we have heard 1000 times before. 

 

Should we care about The Covington Boys?  Robert Kraft? AOC? Mueller's latest?  Trump's newest scandal?  The Smollet case? These are the things we are being fed on a daily basis, and we are simply regurgitating what the media is talking about, as if these things are important in the grand scheme of things.  If you enjoy the entertainment aspect of it, and can admit that this is entertainment, then I can be sympathetic to that, but these issues are being discussed as if they mean something and hold value.

Of course it's entertainment; there's a pettiness and narrowness in bringing up the topics of the day.  But we've also had meaningful discussion about Modern Monetization Theory, Basic Income, the market effects of AI and automation.  We have threads on dogs, books, personal stories.  

 

As much as we might be unwittingly operating in this admittedly hegemonic discourse, there's real human values here, and a genuine effort to have a meaningful conversation, not just a fun one where we score internet points. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Cheers to that.  And I hope you can appreciate when I am talking about what I am seeing here and what I am trying to do to wake a couple of people up based off of that.

 

I've had a lot of life lessons as well where I came out stronger on the other side thanks to someone freeing me from conformity.  It's a healthy practice and I'm sure we all have a lot more of these moments to come.

 

I'm still perplexed by what you imply is not being talked about.  Yes, the news shapes what we discuss, but what we care about (and discuss) also shapes the news.  That's a two way street.

 

You're being very nebulous and it'd help if you'd be willing to be more specific.  What is it we are not talking about?  What is outside the narrative that we (and all) should be talking about?

 

It's becoming frustrating trying to pierce that part of the discussion.  I'm struggling to contextualize your larger point without at least one example to help me see what you're saying.

[Champuckett]

 

I'm going to quibble with semantics and I think I'd prefer the term paradigm rather narrative--the latter implying a cohesive story.   But otherwise I agree we too often limit ourselves and our discussion to that which ready available through highly controlled interfaces/consumer touchpoints.  I'm reminded of the Noam Chomsky quote making the rounds since being evoked by Tucker Carlson of all people--'The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.'

 

And I think the people around here are tolerant of outside the box ideas and modes of having discourse.  At some point, you'll have to broach a topic or suggest another way of analyzing a problem to see how people really respond.  I mean if we're all operating within the same paradigm/narrative, without some outside influence to suggest an alternative, we'll be unwittingly blind.  

This is a good response.  I think you are onto something sir! 

 

The narrative/story is a simple one.  We, as a nation, think politics is comprised of 2 political parties and you have to pick a side to get anywhere, to have a voice in this country.  And these political parties ensure the safety of our rights and/or expansion or reduction when necessary.  If you are outside of this box, then you are an independent, and that's the outer limits of the scope of the box.  All of the accompanying media we have reinforces this idea with 100% of the stories they publish, never allowing anything beyond this box to seep into our consciousness.  Not even on Fox News, nor on Drudge,  is there supposed alternate viewpoints to the establishment media.

 

As I stated before, we aren't going to get anywhere unless we can realize that this has in fact happened and that we are still using that narrative, brought to us by express delivery everyday on our cell phones, computers, and tablets by the liberal/conservative media.

 

As for the suggestion of broaching a topic, I think I will keep working on what I have been, and that is talking about what the narrative is, does it even exist, and how the media reinforces that narrative, and how we participate in our own small way in reinforcing it.

[Champuckett]

 

Champ... like Levi asked... what subject would you rather discuss? It is pretty open for debate here, and if you have something off the beaten path I'm sure it would stir a nice discussion. The reason we talk about relevant new items... like it or not, is because they are relevant.

ewen, I'm no fan of how Israel operates. She could have phrased her legitimate concern in a better manner... but I don't think the GOP has room to judge when so many go to bat for Trump when he says way worse. The whole glass houses thing...

 

I'll just quote the response I gave to Pseudo:

 

"As for the suggestion of broaching a topic, I think I will keep working on what I have been, and that is talking about what the narrative is, does it even exist, and how the media reinforces that narrative, and how we participate in our own small way in reinforcing it."

 

Is there a narrative that we are willingly or unknowingly following as I laid out in the above post?

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think you're very wrong about that and I am pretty sure you know I am not lacking in confidence.If you do not see that maybe you aren't all that perceptive?

 

I can't say I am suprised no one brought up Ilhan Omar, are Somali immigrants like Hindu cows here?  

 

To the first paragraph - then perhaps you should be more self-critical.  Your foray into the discussion here is welcome, but your first points seriously lacked clarity and were not well reasoned or argued.  It took several pages to seem to make progress on that.

 

Now, the second part I quoted here is a better attempt, so I'll respond.  Since I'm no longer in MN that particular news is less a part of my every day life.  I've read about it and I think it's right to condemn her.  She has somewhat valid point, but she's making it terribly.  I think some of her quotes were knowingly tip-toeing the line on being anti-semitic, I think others less so.  I think some of the criticism is trying too damn hard to play "gotcha".  But that's the world we live in.

 

And the Israel/Palestine issue is one of the top ones for both sides being so polarized they are basically irrational.  So that doesn't help.

[Champuckett]

 

 

Of course it's entertainment; there's a pettiness and narrowness in bringing up the topics of the day.  But we've also had meaningful discussion about Modern Monetization Theory, Basic Income, the market effects of AI and automation.  We have threads on dogs, books, personal stories.  

 

As much as we might be unwittingly operating in this admittedly hegemonic discourse, there's real human values here, and a genuine effort to have a meaningful conversation, not just a fun one where we score internet points. 

Yeah, entertaining topics are being discussed elsewhere on the boards here.  This thread, which revolves around politics, is doing the same thing, talking about entertainment, under the guise of speaking about the important issues of our day.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The narrative/story is a simple one.  We, as a nation, think politics is comprised of 2 political parties and you have to pick a side to get anywhere, to have aor reduction when necessary.  If you are outside of this box, then you are an independent, and that's the outer limits of the scope of the box. 

 

I think that's true in general.  I do not think that is true (most of the time) here.  It seems as though that is your contention....right?

[Champuckett]

 

 

I'm still perplexed by what you imply is not being talked about.  Yes, the news shapes what we discuss, but what we care about (and discuss) also shapes the news.  That's a two way street.

 

You're being very nebulous and it'd help if you'd be willing to be more specific.  What is it we are not talking about?  What is outside the narrative that we (and all) should be talking about?

 

It's becoming frustrating trying to pierce that part of the discussion.  I'm struggling to contextualize your larger point without at least one example to help me see what you're saying.

 

Is there a narrative that we are willingly or unknowingly following as I laid out in the above post?

[PseudoSABR]

 

Yeah, the problem isn't a detail here or a detail there, a stance, or a series of issues.   You are correct on that.  It would make it simple to simply argue against that topic.  We could go back and forth about any of the popular political debates of the day, but in the end that's never going to get you or I anywhere. 

 

I understand you don't see the collective here as CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NPR yet nearly every single topic is based off CNN, Fox, MSNBC, or NPR topics of the day/week/month.  That's not implying that they are being directly linked here (although they sometimes are), I'm saying these news agencies begin to spread the new thing we are supposed to be discussing, and we are each being dutiful citizens talking about the desired discussions in spaces like we have here.  That's a huge part of the problem and I'm not singling this website out or the group of participants we have here.  I've tried to ensure it is clear through multiple posts now that the problem exists across the board on a majority of internet discussion sites.  The problem and scope go beyond our tiny little community here at TD.  You first have to realize that this is happening and funneling of all of your intellectual capacities into a small and limited box, before you can begin to break out.

I think you're underselling our collective and individual intelligence.  I hope this doesn't come off patronizing and you may not be coming from this perspective, but I recall as a young English grad student reading Baudrillard, Foucault, Adorno, seeing clear the shallow discourse all around, that indeed we lived within the simulacra, that knowledge was produced/manufactured, that we should be having an entirely different discussion--not dissimilar to what you are saying.  But putting that discussion in action among strangers is hard work, and takes boldness to push forward in the mere hope that people are interested, esp. without something like an academic frame work.  I don't think it's fair to expect such a community to exist aprori--esp. in this random corner of the internet.  You have to make that community.   

 

This is all to say, I encourage you to contribute.  Make a thread on a topic we should be talking about.  Maybe no one cares, maybe we continue the same narrative, or maybe we have a cool discussion.  

[Champuckett]

 

I think you're underselling our collective and individual intelligence.  I hope this doesn't come off patronizing and you may not be coming from this perspective, but I recall as a young English grad student reading Baudrillard, Foucault, Adorno, seeing clear the shallow discourse all around, that indeed we lived within the simulacra, that knowledge was produced/manufactured, that we should be having an entirely different discussion--not dissimilar to what you are saying.  But that discussion in action among strangers is hard work, and takes boldness to push forward in the mere hope that people are interested, esp. without something like an academic frame work.  I don't think it's fair to expect such a community to exist aprori--esp. in this random corner of the internet.  You have to make that community.   

 

This is all to say, I encourage you to contribute.  Make a thread on a topic we should be talking about.  Maybe no one cares, maybe we continue the same narrative, or maybe we have a cool discussion.  

 

I at no point have insulted anyone's intelligence.  I have pointed out that this is happening across 90% of the internet and have not targeted TD.  This would imply that I think 90% of the people out there participating are stupid or lacking intelligence.  Not what I said, nor anything I implied.  I'm sorry this is what you have picked up from this.

 

The collective has simply fallen into the same trap that all other sub-collectives have fallen into.  That's what I am pointing out.  Whether or not this a matter of intelligence is up to you, but I do not personally think this is an intelligence problem.

 

And you are exactly right about making that community.  The responsibility is up to us.  And that's why I am here right now, typing up this response to you and why I have been responding to each of these inquiries.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Is there a narrative that we are willingly or unknowingly following as I laid out in the above post?

 

I don't know, I'm having trouble fully understanding your point because it's shrouded in generalities.

 

If what you're saying is we view politics through the right/left poles and have a narrow view on political philosophies...sure!  I think there is a wide spectrum of political possibilities and I think viewing it as a line is problematic.  My politics are consistent by all over the map.  

 

If it's something else....I don't know.  I feel like I'm having to guess too much.  You keep implying there is a better narrative.  What would that be or look like?  (Perhaps with less nebulous examples for clarity purposes?)

[Champuckett]

 

I don't know, I'm having trouble fully understanding your point because it's shrouded in generalities.

 

If what you're saying is we view politics through the right/left poles and have a narrow view on political philosophies...sure!  I think there is a wide spectrum of political possibilities and I think viewing it as a line is problematic.  My politics are consistent by all over the map.  

 

If it's something else....I don't know.  I feel like I'm having to guess too much.  You keep implying there is a better narrative.  What would that be or look like?  (Perhaps with less nebulous examples for clarity purposes?)

 

Yeah.  We view politics through the left and right paradigm, not because of anything having to do with what these 2 polemics offer, but what we are told and allowed to believe in by the media.  I think right now, with everything granted to us by the media, we are given a very low amount of possibilities for our world and how it should be run.  Pseudo made a great Noam Chomsky quote above that illustrates that this isn't just something that I am bringing up for the first time, so there is nothing revelatory here.  Yet what I see are the same media induced narratives being brought up going all the way back to page 1.  If it is known that this is the case, then why are we continuing to fall into this trap.  That would indicate it is willingly.  I have my doubts about that, I don't think most of the people here are happily conversing knowing they are lemmings.  I lean towards it being unbeknownst to each individual, but it's possible I am wrong.

[PseudoSABR]

 

This is a good response.  I think you are onto something sir! 

 

The narrative/story is a simple one.  We, as a nation, think politics is comprised of 2 political parties and you have to pick a side to get anywhere, to have a voice in this country.  And these political parties ensure the safety of our rights and/or expansion or reduction when necessary.  If you are outside of this box, then you are an independent, and that's the outer limits of the scope of the box.  All of the accompanying media we have reinforces this idea with 100% of the stories they publish, never allowing anything beyond this box to seep into our consciousness.  Not even on Fox News, nor on Drudge,  is there supposed alternate viewpoints to the establishment media.

 

As I stated before, we aren't going to get anywhere unless we can realize that this has in fact happened and that we are still using that narrative, brought to us by express delivery everyday on our cell phones, computers, and tablets by the liberal/conservative media.

 

As for the suggestion of broaching a topic, I think I will keep working on what I have been, and that is talking about what the narrative is, does it even exist, and how the media reinforces that narrative, and how we participate in our own small way in reinforcing it.

You're assuming that many of us don't already know this, but yet we still live among the people we do in the times we are in, and so even between those bull**** margins, we invest in those things that matter and we have some notion to practically effect.  To tell another story, I recall debating determinism and quantum theory late one night with a buddy in college, and at the end I said something declaratory and arrogant like 'at least we realize that free will doesn't exist' to which he said, 'now what/', to which i didn't have an answer.  Like I said, it is hard work to make meaningful discussion in these times, being critical about the meta-discussion, without some skin in the game, remains willfully blind to how difficult the endeavor is--engaging other humans meaningfully with authentic content no less. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

I at no point have insulted anyone's intelligence.  I have pointed out that this is happening across 90% of the internet and have not targeted TD.  This would imply that I think 90% of the people out there participating are stupid or lacking intelligence.  Not what I said, nor anything I implied.  I'm sorry this is what you have picked up from this.

 

The collective has simply fallen into the same trap that all other sub-collectives have fallen into.  That's what I am pointing out.  Whether or not this a matter of intelligence is up to you, but I do not personally think this is an intelligence problem.

 

And you are exactly right about making that community.  The responsibility is up to us.  And that's why I am here right now, typing up this response to you and why I have been responding to each of these inquiries.

I didn't suggest you had insulted anyone.  Merely, implicit in your posts was that we don't understand how limited and controlled our discourse is by all kinds of out-sized influences; many of us do understand, and attempt to do the best with what we've got.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Yeah.  We view politics through the left and right paradigm, not because of anything having to do with what these 2 polemics offer, but what we are told and allowed to believe in by the media.  I think right now, with everything granted to us by the media, we are given a very low amount of possibilities for our world and how it should be run.  Pseudo made a great Noam Chomsky quote above that illustrates that this isn't just something that I am bringing up for the first time, so there is nothing revelatory here.  Yet what I see are the same media induced narratives being brought up going all the way back to page 1.  If it is known that this is the case, then why are we continuing to fall into this trap.  That would indicate it is willingly.  I have my doubts about that, I don't think most of the people here are happily conversing knowing they are lemmings.  I lean towards it being unbeknownst to each individual, but it's possible I am wrong.

 

I see discussions here well outside those parameters.  So I don't agree anyone is going along with anything willingly or unwillingly.

 

The conversations weave in and out of common and uncommon discussions.  I feel no more bound to whatever "narrative" it is you think is better than the "media" one you are criticizing.  In fact, I'd argue your very criticism sounds (ironically) like the narrative you are decrying.  You think there is a right narrative to be had and a wrong narrative currently being engaged in.  (Very limiting, frankly, like left-right) You use words like "the media", a term very common in exactly the paradigm you're criticizing.  And, perhaps worst of all, you remain very nebulous and non-specific in a way that keeps the conversation less nuanced and more black and white.  (This narrative is wrong, this other one is better.  What the better one is?  Well, let's talk about what's wrong with this one.  We never get to...what is the better one?)

 

Perhaps food for thought.

[ewen21]

Trump has no leverage in this Omar controversy. For him to not denounce the Charlotteville marchers renders him useless here.

[Champuckett]

 

You're assuming that many of us don't already know this, but yet we still live among the people we do in the times we are in, and so even between those bull**** margins, we invest in those things that matter and we have some notion to practically effect.  To tell another story, I recall debating determinism and quantum theory late one night with a buddy, and at the end I said something declaratory and arrogant like 'at least we realize that free will doesn't exist' to which he said, 'now what/', to which i didn't have an answer.  Like I said, it is hard work to make meaningful discussion in these times, being critical about the meta-discussion, without some skin in the game, remains willfully blind to how difficult the endeavor is--engaging other humans meaningfully. 

 

So to be clear, you do know that the narrative that you are following is limited in scope and I'm simply rehashing ideas that you and most others here are already aware of.

 

If that's the case, then why is this thread filled with those limited scope talking points regarding nearly every single political topic?  Is there an urge to break free?

[Champuckett]

 

 

I didn't suggest you had insulted anyone.  Merely, implicit in your posts was that we don't understand how limited and controlled our discourse is by all kinds of out-sized influences; many of us do understand, and attempt to do the best with what we've got.

 

I am sorry if I incorrectly took it as that suggestion.  And I am sorry for this being implicit to whatever degree that it is.  I asked a couple questions in my post above which applies as a response to your post here as well.

[Aaron Cross]

Test

[Champuckett]

 

 

I see discussions here well outside those parameters.  So I don't agree anyone is going along with anything willingly or unwillingly.

 

The conversations weave in and out of common and uncommon discussions.  I feel no more bound to whatever "narrative" it is you think is better than the "media" one you are criticizing.  In fact, I'd argue your very criticism sounds (ironically) derived from the very thing you seem to be decrying.  You think there is a right narrative to be had and a wrong narrative currently being engaged in.  (Very limiting, frankly) You use words like "the media", a term very common in exactly the paradigm you're criticizing.  And, perhaps worst of all, you remain very nebulous and non-specific as a way of keeping the conversation less nuanced and more black and white.

 

Perhaps food for thought.

 

Respectfully, I think we are seeing different things regarding the behavior of the participants in this thread.

 

I at no point said there is a right narrative to be had.  Simply we are all following the same narrative, which is brought to us by the media, and this is not just a problem in the thread here.

 

I'm sorry this topic is nebulous to you.  I think it holds merit and is a why we have seen the direction this particular thread has taken since the beginning.  But again, it is not just a problem here with the members here, but expands well beyond this thread or message board.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Test

Congratulations.  You passed.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I am sorry if I incorrectly took it as that suggestion.  And I am sorry for this being implicit to whatever degree that it is.  I asked a couple questions in my post above which applies as a response to your post here as well.

No apology, needed. My point is that this forum, for whatever it is, is more on board with what you're laying down than you might realize. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Respectfully, I think we are seeing different things regarding the behavior of the participants in this thread.

 

I at no point said there is a right narrative to be had.  Simply we are all following the same narrative, which is brought to us by the media, and this is not just a problem in the thread here.

 

I'm sorry this topic is nebulous to you.  I think it holds merit and is a why we have seen the direction this particular thread has taken since the beginning.  But again, it is not just a problem here with the members here, but expands well beyond this thread or message board.

 

Calling it nebulous does not mean it has no merit.  It means you seem to be dancing around the outside rather than speaking with clarity.  This post does it again, it speaks in huge, sweeping generalities.  These are not helpful and makes whatever point you're making difficult to consider.

 

You are implying the narrative here is wrong/bad/incorrect/lesser - you pick the adjective. That implies there is a better one to be had....correct?

 

You call it a "problem", that implies it is one that needs to be solved.  How?

 

You also imply this thread is poisoned by this  problem, but I think the majority of us see it differently.  But maybe we're wrong.  I can't consider that however, until you approach making your point with more clarity and specificity.  

[Champuckett]

 

No apology, needed. My point is that this forum, for whatever it is, is more on board with what you're laying down than you might realize. 

 

It is possible on some level that this is correct.  In terms of the topics being espoused, I see little difference from what the media is talking about as compared to what is being talked about here.

[Mike Sixel]

Test

True.

 

Or A.

 

Not sure what kind of test, but I hope it is true or false or multiple choice, otherwise I got it wrong for sure.

[Mike Sixel]

It is possible on some level that this is correct. In terms of the topics being espoused, I see little difference from what the media is talking about as compared to what is being talked about here.

Isn't that because the media, whatever that is, is talking about everything? Or, the things most important to us? What, specifically, aren't we discussing? Just one example....

[PseudoSABR]

 

So to be clear, you do know that the narrative that you are following is limited in scope and I'm simply rehashing ideas that you and most others here are already aware of.

 

If that's the case, then why is this thread filled with those limited scope talking points regarding nearly every single political topic?  Is there an urge to break free?

Because life goes on.  The trivial becomes interesting because it is there, and when depth seems warranted it's present here, even if you don't see it yet.  One can only scream life is bull****, before we all agree, and get back to the now what question.  Engagement is more important than purity of content; we may not be able to change the world, but we make the endeavor to make our incremental differences. Should that be enough? No, that's why we have depression.  #kiddingnotkidding