General politics

[Aaron Cross]

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.

When I went to general politics it was in 2017, had to make a post to get to the current discussion. LOL

[PseudoSABR]

 

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.

It's just fodder, to get to the nuance, the realness.  Some of us having been engaging these topics for the better parts of two decades, so we've covered a lot, and the bull**** media provides new fodder.  

 

We're also a practical bunch, so we entertain the notion what is politically possible, which sadly concedes the constraints of our time.

[Craig Arko]

Just a thought, but instead of posting theories about why it’s impossible to have a productive discussion, just try having a productive discussion instead.

 

Be open to surprise.

[Champuckett]

 

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.  

 

I think I am speaking with clarity on what I am trying to add to the thread. 

 

Yes, the narrative by the media is being followed here.  Yes, it is narrowed.  Why is it assumed that we have to follow a narrative?

 

Yes it most certainly is a problem and I wouldn't be wasting more than a second of time here if I didn't feel it was.  My participation here is that attempt to first address the problem, which is happening as we speak.  And yes, this thread is "poisoned" by this problem.  There has been personal effort over multiple years put into this thread by multiple people's contributions, so it's understandable that the majority sees it differently.  And you hit the nail on the head, the majority seeing things this one way, and not seeing it any alternative way, is a problem.

 

Thank you for admitting the possibility that you are wrong.  It is also possible that I am wrong.  I'm not above that possibility, no one is.  I'm doing my best to not attack the board here, but point out the predictable direction the board has taken in this thread.  The reason it's predictable is because you can see the same patterns and behavior play out nearly unanimously across the internet on discussion forums everywhere. 

 

I mean it it with my most sincere intentions I don't think anyone is lacking intelligence or understanding of some of these issues.  But what I have seen play out throughout the thread from top to bottom indicates a closely followed narrative that has been laid out by the media.  It's possible for now, we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

[Champuckett]

 

 

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....

 

Thanks for the comment Mike.  The "media" is simply the conglomeration of mostly American news, lead by the AP, that adheres to the same principles and does not deviate far from one another and ultimately has zero dissenting perspectives.

 

Political parties, do we need them, why do they exist.  We could start there if you are interested.

[Champuckett]

 

 

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 endeavor to make our incremental differences. Should that be enough? No, that's why we have depression.  #kiddingnotkidding

 

Life goes on, but could it be better.  Can we do anything more than what we have now.  Can we make more of a difference than we think we can.  Has our education and the media been used to castrate our enthusiasm for making change.  I think we could use a little more optimism in the world, but that's just me.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think I am speaking with clarity on what I am trying to add to the thread. 

 

 

With all due respect, the evidence suggests the contrary.  Lots of intelligent, discerning people are stuck on the same point.  Perhaps you should rewind and see why that is and try a different way to say what it is you're trying to say.

 

At this point, I still couldn't bottle what you're saying into one or even two sentences.  It is unclear at this point.

 

And in response to Psuedo you say things can be "better" - how?  Not in generalities please.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Life goes on, but could it be better.  Can we do anything more than what we have now.  Can we make more of a difference than we think we can.  Has our education and the media been used to castrate our enthusiasm for making change.  I think we could use a little more optimism in the world, but that's just me.

We are all trying to fight the good fight.  And we balance that between what is possible given our current society and what is ideal.  To abandon that which is good but flawed yet politically possible, in favor of the perfect is to do nothing.  We talk about this tension a lot around here actually.

[Champuckett]

 

 

It's just fodder, to get to the nuance, the realness.  Some of us having been engaging these topics for the better parts of two decades, so we've covered a lot, and the bull**** media provides new fodder.  

 

We're also a practical bunch, so we entertain the notion what is politically possible, which sadly concedes the constraints of our time.

 

Why not demand better from the media or maybe discard it and move on.  I said in a number of my posts prior, that as long as we can admit that this is just entertainment to us, and we aren't actually discussing these topics having meaningful impacts on our lives, at least that is being honest with ourselves.  I could be wrong, but I think people are discussing these issues with the notion that what the media says is real and credible and base their reactions we see here on that credibility. 

 

But yeah I actually agree, I look at the stories we see on on a daily basis at worst, entertainment and at best, clues to what they desire us to believe.

[ewen21]

Levi, you really need to look at this.  These are three posts in succession on the top of page 62.

 

My first post:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
This is about the most in-depth estimation of Trump's approval rating as I can find.  It uses about every single poll there is and tries to average it out.  As far as I can tell, it's about 40something approve and 50something disapprove.  Whereas here, I would venture to say it is about 95% disapprove and 5% too afraid to comment,

I struggle to see how he can be approved by anyone. Even a partisan conservative.... I just don't see how one can approve how he is doing his job. Likely, he will go down as the worst president in my lifetime. I think they are overestimating his support. We do have a Trump topic btw.

My response:

It's an aggregate from a lot of sources. I'm really not interested in polls, but I wanted to look for a fair reflection. It feels to you all these sources have a pro Trump bias. That is certainly possible

Could it be that there is an anti-Trump bias here

 

I was speaking about POLLS having a PRO-TRUMP bias.  I mused....

Does this site (if it were polled) have an anti-Trump bias

 

Bias is a very rudimentary term in statistics.  This is why random sampling occurs.

 

For heaven's sake. I have clarified this a number of times and it wasn't even all that confusing unless you chose to be, reacting to the word BIAS.  Why in the world do you keep referencing this after I have clarified this several times?

 

This is what chmpuckett was talking about, quite frankly.

 

Get off it already.  It's done.

If you have any further question PM me.  Stop carrying on here.

 

 

[Craig Arko]

For myself, I prefer foreign media for reporting of news in the U.S. In particular, I strongly recommend the BBC.

[ewen21]

 

With all due respect, the evidence suggests the contrary.  Lots of intelligent, discerning people are stuck on the same point.  

 

Once again, that is your choice.  He is clarifying again and again and you feign ignorance.

 

His initial post was not only commendable, but also crystal clear AND respectful.

Seems like you are having trouble with ti.

[Champuckett]

 

 

With all due respect, the evidence suggests the contrary.  Lots of intelligent, discerning people are stuck on the same point.  Perhaps you should rewind and see why that is and try a different way to say what it is you're trying to say.

 

At this point, I still couldn't bottle what you're saying into one or even two sentences.  It is unclear at this point.

 

And in response to Psuedo you say things can be "better" - how?  Not in generalities please.

 

I'm unsure on which part you are still unclear on.  There is a narrative.  The media puts that narrative out to the masses.  Said narrative is being followed in this thread since page 1.  I have pointed this out in this thread.  I don't know how I can simplify that further.

 

I don't think it's controversial to have the desire to make the world a better place than it is right now.  We still have modern day slavery, starvation, human trafficking, and corruption in 100% of all countries at the highest to the bottom levels.  There is room for improvement.  Do I have the answers to all of those problems?  Of course not.  No one does, but we can begin by chipping away one tiny piece at a time.

 

I think this discussion between you and I might be better served inside private messages so we can work out where the misunderstanding is, if you are willing.  I can message you right now.

[Champuckett]

 

 

For myself, I prefer foreign media for reporting of news in the U.S. In particular, I strongly recommend the BBC.

 

Those are all part of the same media ultimately, including BBC.

[ewen21]

I have to take a little hiatus from this thread.  I have personal things to attend to, but I will be back here next week for sure.

 

I applaud chmpuckett for TRYING hard to explain his commitment to civility and finding some common ground.  

[Craig Arko]

Those are all part of the same media ultimately, including BBC.

Evidence?

[PseudoSABR]

 

Why not demand better from the media or maybe discard it and move on.  I said in a number of my posts prior, that as long as we can admit that this is just entertainment to us, and we aren't actually discussing these topics having meaningful impacts on our lives, at least that is being honest with ourselves.  I could be wrong, but I think people are discussing these issues with the notion that what the media says is real and credible and base their reactions we see here on that credibility. 

 

But yeah I actually agree, I look at the stories we see on on a daily basis at worst, entertainment and at best, clues to what they desire us to believe.

I do demand better of the media, and I largely try to curate my news from sources that I believe deserve my patronage.  But my role as a consumer is limited in affect, and as I said engagement is more important. 

 

As you suggest, the media is a window or a mirror; we can learn from the stories it tells.  We should be cynical, but we are not all of what is presented is a falsehood, and we should weigh the credibility of the source and against the subject matter, but without the media, we would not learn of both trivialities and also real world events.  

 

Speaking of trivialities, sports/twins

[Champuckett]

 

Evidence?

 

The proof is in the pudding.  All of the media worldwide follows the same talking points, the same pattern, and consolidate, especially on the biggest issues.  In addition to that, the BBC is state run media, which does not historically good marks for being fair and accurate.  But I understand before the response comes, this is not proof, this is not evidence, therefore I am incorrect.

 

I may and probably am putting words into board members mouths that they didn't say, but people I was just having discussions with could help point this out since they agreed that we are indeed being pushed into a narrow field of debate by the persistently limiting media.  If I am doing so, they can surely speak for themselves.  Whether they specifically were implying the BBC or American based news only  is unknown, but they seemed to have at least a minimal amount of awareness that this was indeed happening at the least.  And I mean that part as a compliment.

[ewen21]

 

Evidence?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6775061/BBC-faces-probe-biased-reports-pointless-stories-claims-not-impartial.html

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1092413/brexit-news-BBC-Brexit-bias-UK-public-brexit-date-theresa-may-referendum-tv

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/

 

 

These one word responses are lazy

[Champuckett]

 

 

I do demand better of the media, and I largely try to curate my news from sources that I believe deserve my patronage.  But my role as a consumer is limited in affect, and as I said engagement is more important. 

 

As you suggest, the media is a window or a mirror; we can learn from the stories it tells.  We should be cynical, but we are not all of what is presented is a falsehood, and we should weigh the credibility of the source and against the subject matter, but without the media, we would not learn of both trivialities and also real world events.  

 

Speaking of trivialities, sports/twins

 

That's good that you demand more of them.  I think the world would be a much better place without the current form of media that we have, as it has helped sustain the power groups that still occupy most of the world power.  There is no doubt we need news and information in some form, and unfortunately the conflicting interests play a larger role than we are lead to believe.

[PseudoSABR]

 

That's good that you demand more of them.  I think the world would be a much better place without the current form of media that we have, as it has helped sustain the power groups that still occupy most of the world power.  There is no doubt we need news and information in some form, and unfortunately the conflicting interests play a larger role than we are lead to believe.

Maybe.  We don't have the counter-factual to weigh this reality against.  Sure, we can say we'd like a better mode of spreading information, but unless someone puts forward that better mode, how is history shaped any differently.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm unsure on which part you are still unclear on.  There is a narrative.  The media puts that narrative out to the masses.  Said narrative is being followed in this thread since page 1.  I have pointed this out in this thread.  I don't know how I can simplify that further.

 

I don't think it's controversial to have the desire to make the world a better place than it is right now.  We still have modern day slavery, starvation, human trafficking, and corruption in 100% of all countries at the highest to the bottom levels.  There is room for improvement.  Do I have the answers to all of those problems?  Of course not.  No one does, but we can begin by chipping away one tiny piece at a time.

 

I think this discussion between you and I might be better served inside private messages so we can work out where the misunderstanding is, if you are willing.  I can message you right now.

 

Part one of simplifying or clarifying is to stop repeating the same terms.  Your terms are nebulous.  Read: they are not clear.  This is not something I'm unclear on - Mike, Psuedo, Smerf, and I are not understanding you.

 

As a teacher, when I see the majority of those I'm teaching misunderstanding the same point - I look at myself.  That means something I'm doing or saying is confusing the issue.  In this thread, for four prominent, intelligent posters to be confused should lead you to do the same.  

 

You need to restate what this "narrative" is in other terms and with more specifics.  Same with what can be done "better".  

 

You might be speaking the most profound truth of all time.  But right now it's mud.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Evidence?

No evidence. It's supposition.  But we should always be wary of state and corporate run institutions, often their interests are more aligned than we want to believe, arguably the same group of people control each.  I trust BBC and NPR more than corporate media, but we should have some cynicism, and realize they are in tune in the moment, and don't advocate for our future. 

[Champuckett]

 

Maybe.  We don't have the counter-factual to weigh this reality against.  Sure, we can say we'd like a better mode of spreading information, but unless someone puts forward that better mode, how is history shaped any differently.

 

I think that better mode is happening as we speak, but it's possible I could be getting ahead of myself.  There is a renewed interest right now by people at large to bring integrity back to news and bring actual investigative news back as well. 

 

You may already know this, but I'll put this out there for anyone else that might be unaware.  What we have right now are mega news corporations in major cities, and they have local affiliate sites that do most of the investigating, and run the results of the investigation up the ladder.  The central hubs never leave the studio anymore, they collate information through computers.  They also take a lot of stories from the AP and run them as their own. 

 

You will see it even says that the author is the AP, but it will be front page news, as if the news did the research and investigation for the story themselves.  Instead they simply piggy back off of everyone else's work with little confirmation, which means if the story turns out to be wrong, they won't know, because they don't have their own investigation team there on site to correct said story.  This is not how news used to work but it certainly is how it works now.  The internet transitioned the platform into this model, and so that's the low quality of information we are getting that is advertised as cutting edge news.

[TheLeviathan]

I mean, if your point can be boiled down to: "be skeptical and cynical about major media"....sure.

 

 

I'm skeptical and cynical about just about everything.  Not sure many people would disagree with your claim.  However, I don't think you have a solid foundation to say that any discussion that rings similar beats with media stories means that we are being driven by the same narrative.

 

There is overlap, sure.  But correlation is not causation.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Part one of simplifying or clarifying is to stop repeating the same terms.  Your terms are nebulous.  Read: they are not clear.  This is not something I'm unclear on - Mike, Psuedo, Smerf, and I are not understanding you.

 

As a teacher, when I see the majority of those I'm teaching misunderstanding the same point - I look at myself.  That means something I'm doing or saying is confusing the issue.  In this thread, for four prominent, intelligent posters to be confused should lead you to do the same.  

 

You need to restate what this "narrative" is in other terms and with more specifics.  Same with what can be done "better".  

 

You might be speaking the most profound truth of all time.  But right now it's mud.

The way forward is mud, but his critique about our discussion tracking the days news is a bit fair, that he's being blind to the nuance around here does miss the forest for trees.  

[Craig Arko]

The proof is in the pudding.  All of the media worldwide follows the same talking points, the same pattern, and consolidate, especially on the biggest issues.  In addition to that, the BBC is state run media, which does not historically good marks for being fair and accurate.  But I understand before the response comes, this is not proof, this is not evidence, therefore I am incorrect.

 

I may and probably am putting words into board members mouths that they didn't say, but people I was just having discussions with could help point this out since they agreed that we are indeed being pushed into a narrow field of debate by the persistently limiting media.  If I am doing so, they can surely speak for themselves.  Whether they specifically were implying the BBC or American based news only  is unknown, but they seemed to have at least a minimal amount of awareness that this was indeed happening at the least.  And I mean that part as a compliment.

You seem very dedicated to perpetuating this narrative you so despise. That’s really unfortunate.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The way forward is mud, but his critique about our discussion tracking the days news is a bit fair, that he's being blind to the nuance around here does miss the forest for trees.  

 

Certainly, anything as large a topic like media is muddy.  However, our conversations track with the news some, maybe even most of the time, but the stretch from tracking = led blindly/willingly is where the critique falls apart for me.  

 

If that is what is being said.  I'm still unclear. 

 

And my concerns with the irony in how dichotomous his critique is about dichotomy grow with every post.  He seems to be stuck in exactly the same kind of "narrative", just one of his own making.

[Champuckett]

 

 

Part one of simplifying or clarifying is to stop repeating the same terms.  Your terms are nebulous.  Read: they are not clear.  This is not something I'm unclear on - Mike, Psuedo, Smerf, and I are not understanding you.

 

As a teacher, when I see the majority of those I'm teaching misunderstanding the same point - I look at myself.  That means something I'm doing or saying is confusing the issue.  In this thread, for four prominent, intelligent posters to be confused should lead you to do the same.  

 

You need to restate what this "narrative" is in other terms and with more specifics.  Same with what can be done "better".  

 

You might be speaking the most profound truth of all time.  But right now it's mud.

 

You named some of the most heavy contributors to this thread, which is the subject of my concerns.  It's understandable if these are the same people that are going to be questioning what I am saying the most intensely.  And yes, it's going to be difficult for some to understand what I am talking about, since those were some of the very same people I am addressing as participants of the thread.   And Pseudo understands what I have written even if he may disagree with me.  Reread what he said above or he can speak for himself again here if he chooses.  If I am wrong about that and misread his prior statements, then I apologize for that, but it seemed pretty clear he understands, although he does not agree.

 

I said I would happily talk with you in private messages and I have already messaged you to clear this up and answer any questions you have.  I have not received a response yet.

 

The narrative is what the media pushes, that we have liberals/democrats/republicans/conservatives running our country and that their stances on issues are the only available options.  These factions debate between one another and their talking points are the foundation for where our public discourse is derived.  The discourse is false in nature and there are more options available to be discussed than what they lead us to believe.  The narrative also focuses only on things that benefits the state, so we will tend to get stories that only show the state in a positive light, or show enemies of the state in a negative light.  The stories that pop up that are news that we may or may not be interested in, will be chosen unbeknownst to us or our desires, and we will not end up getting the full picture of reality and what it is that is happening in our country or in the world.  Alternative forms of media are slowly beginning to fill in these gaps of missing/discarded information that we previously did not have, which is enabling us to see a bigger picture of what is happening.

 

To do "better", we simply need to stop following said narrative.  This does not mean we follow a new narrative, simply abandon the existing one.  Participating in following the narrative, preaching it, discussing it, it will continue the media's domination of the narrative over us and thus, their power over us in terms of forming what we think and speak about with one another, especially with political debate.  It will begin to shine light on those (politicians, corporations, bankers, etc) interested in subverting the will of the people.  This is already in the process of happening as many are leaving the establishment media behind and finding new forms of collecting information.  I think you are likely aware that this is already happening.

 

I'm sorry if this is muddy and cloudy and foggy.  This is making perfect sense to me and others, and it's ok if it's not something you agree with.  I think I may have hit a wall with you on this issue unfortunately, and I mentioned in a prior post, it's ok to agree to disagree.  I have explained my stance multiple times now.  I suppose if I am still unable to get across what I am saying, then I am perhaps a poor writer and/or speaker of ideas and the problem lies on my end of things.  I don't think this is the case since others have understood, but it is absolutely possible, and again, I am more than happy to discuss this further in private messages so we don't take up a lot of the public space here on this one point of clarification.

 

Edit: You responded to my pm, thanks, just noticed.

[Champuckett]

 

 

You seem very dedicated to perpetuating this narrative you so despise. That’s really unfortunate.

 

How am I dedicated to perpetuating this narrative.  I'm here in this thread, pointing out that it is being followed and that a majority of discussions are revolving around it, and that we all need to examine this in the hope, that in time an end comes to following it.