General politics

[TheLeviathan]

 

 

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but why is the media or even the secondary media (Trump/conservative) not tackling any of these issues.

 

There are many good questions in here, but this seems to be the one you currently care about the most.  

 

The media does cover a lot of these stories, but they have to prioritize right?  There are only so many hours in a day and so many stories to cover.  I would say that there is certainly room to wonder what motivates those priorities.  I'd venture to guess we would frequently not care for those reasons.

[Champuckett]

 

 

But merely because it was not brought up in the first 15-20 pages is not sufficient to draw the conclusions you did.  

 

No one has a problem with you injecting something like this: "Have you all ever wondered how we get our information and if we can trust it?"

 

That's a good question.  You'd have found a lot of interesting feedback to it.  But that isn't what you did, instead you assumed that because in a narrow band of discussion this one thing didn't come up during this one frame of time, that people weren't thinking about it or caring about it.  That wasn't fair and the confusion it caused as a result kept us from getting to a question that would have been interesting.

 

You judged all of us for failing a test we never took.  Perhaps you'll consider starting over and just asking one of those pertinent questions? 

 

I made it clear, this isn't about TD, this is about the internet at large.  Making things personal was not my intent and that was made clear from the first post of mine.  I think I have said it at least 10 times now, this is happening all around, everywhere, not just here.

 

I think you said earlier no one was acting defensive, but now you are saying you and others have been judged.  It is possible if people felt judged, they felt defensive.  It's possible they felt nothing.  I said it was understandable that anyone might feel challenged.  I'm getting at the underpinning of the discourse we are involved in, nothing more.  This can feel challenging, and I'm not ignorant of that.  It can also result in more reaction and less introspection, which I laid out in the first post I said on this topic.

 

The questions have been asked at least 3 times I believe, in different forms each time, and to different members of the board.  So it's possible they slipped through the cracks with so many responding to my posts.  I just laid another round out to Pseudo.

 

I'm happy to take this back to pm's to discuss your questions with your friends, or what not, if you don't want to discuss it here.

[Champuckett]

 

There are many good questions in here, but this seems to be the one you currently care about the most.  

 

The media does cover a lot of these stories, but they have to prioritize right?  There are only so many hours in a day and so many stories to cover.  I would say that there is certainly room to wonder what motivates those priorities.  I'd venture to guess we would frequently not care for those reasons.

 

I'm doubting they have to prioritize as much as we are being lead to believe.  They seem to be choosing the stories that divide us most often, and the stories that may be real news goes on the back burner or gets thrown away.  If that is the case though and we could come to an agreement on that, then the appropriate question would be why.  But I think you hinted at that in this comment.

 

You are right in the fact that they are limited in resources and time.  And I absolutely agree that there is a lot of room to wonder.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm doubting they have to prioritize as much as we are being lead to believe.  They seem to be choosing the stories that divide us most often, and the stories that may be real news goes on the back burner or gets thrown away.  If that is the case though and we could come to an agreement on that, then the appropriate question would be why.  But I think you hinted at that in this comment.

 

You are right in the fact that they are limited in resources and time.  And I absolutely agree that there is a lot of room to wonder.

 

Is it that they choose the stories that divide us, or the ones we care about the most are the ones that divide us?  All the media is doing, then, is servicing our desire to have we want most.

 

The question with what the media provides and what we want is something of a chicken and the egg to me.  Especially now when media is so available to the individual.

[biggentleben]

 

Yes, this is of course true, but don't mistake that the majority jumping on the minority was an unexpected outcome.  It was fully known this would be the response long before I came here.  I mentioned it in the first post I made here on the topic, but I only started here because another participant was trying to seemingly put an outside opinion into the mix, and I figured that might be an opportunity to open up dialogue about this.

 

Now I'm getting multiple members asking me to leave essentially, unless I am mistaken, which is the number one way to discourage discussion.  And they have their list of reasons, so that's that.

 

Not at all.

 

You're being intentionally vague and unrelated AT ALL to this thread. As far as I'm concerned, tremendous patience has been displayed by all engaging in your attempt to derail a political thread away from politics.

 

No one has asked you to leave. The request is to join in the conversation of the subject at hand, which is politics. You've expressed multiple times now that you do not wish to discuss politics. The request has been to engage in the subject of this thread rather than derail it, not to leave altogether.

 

Your interpretation could say significant amounts about your preconceptions about what you would face, and continuing in generalities until you received something close enough to claim what you wanted to show as "bad" among the members here was your method to receive that interpreted response.

 

I'm affronted that you would assume so little of the members of this forum. I've been chatting with people on this board for nearly 20 years as a Braves fan and never been asked to leave. Assuming this would be your response from these members is offensive and demeaning.

[biggentleben]

 

Why not force a change in the rules, or at the very least expose the ruleset for what it is.  Seems like a good start.

 

Eventually, you need to play the game, though.

[biggentleben]

 

I made it clear, this isn't about TD, this is about the internet at large.  Making things personal was not my intent and that was made clear from the first post of mine.  I think I have said it at least 10 times now, this is happening all around, everywhere, not just here.

 

I think you said earlier no one was acting defensive, but now you are saying you and others have been judged.  It is possible if people felt judged, they felt defensive.  It's possible they felt nothing.  I said it was understandable that anyone might feel challenged.  I'm getting at the underpinning of the discourse we are involved in, nothing more.  This can feel challenging, and I'm not ignorant of that.  It can also result in more reaction and less introspection, which I laid out in the first post I said on this topic.

 

The questions have been asked at least 3 times I believe, in different forms each time, and to different members of the board.  So it's possible they slipped through the cracks with so many responding to my posts.  I just laid another round out to Pseudo.

 

I'm happy to take this back to pm's to discuss your questions with your friends, or what not, if you don't want to discuss it here.

 

Page 68 of this thread...first entry into the discussion. You certainly weren't discussing the media when stating this:

 

 

It feels like a waste of time unless you are part of the pre-approved opinions of the group.I wish we could have more open discussions about these topics and not let it divulge into negativity, sarcasm, or the piling on effect that is currently happening every time someone tries to put an opinion out there that goes against the grain.

 

That has nothing to do with the line you're currently pushing toward media.This is an attempt to talk down those who speak on this forum and state that they would attack anyone not choosing to agree with them. It took you going through multiple vague angles to finally get enough responses asking you to pony up with actual conversation to get this "negativity" and "piling on" that you obviously pre-judged all of us with.

 

Your own words...

[Champuckett]

 

Is it that they choose the stories that divide us, or the ones we care about the most are the ones that divide us?  All the media is doing, then, is servicing our desire to have we want most.

 

The question with what the media provides and what we want is something of a chicken and the egg to me.  Especially now when media is so available to the individual.

 

When the division results in blacks hating whites, whites hating blacks, endless war, endless political fighting, fear, hatred, of everyone you feel you are standing against, then the trend we are on would indicate nefarious behavior and divisiveness by not just one media institutions, but all.  Doesn't matter which party you are in, you walk away after consuming these stories hating one or more groups.

[TheLeviathan]

 

When the division results in blacks hating whites, whites hating blacks, endless war, endless political fighting, fear, hatred, of everyone you feel you are standing against, then the trend we are on would indicate nefarious behavior and divisiveness by not just one media institutions, but all.  Doesn't matter which party you are in, you walk away after consuming these stories hating one or more groups.

 

Or, again, you already have hate in your heart and you looked for a reason to fuel it.  I'd like to see you provide some reasoning for why it was the media first influencing people, as opposed to the idea that the media is servicing a demand already existing.

 

Now, the latter isn't necessarily better.  We want media to be about truth, but I'm not sure the media wants us to hate each other.  I think media wants to appeal to us.  If so, it means you may have things backwards.

[Champuckett]

 

 

Not at all.

 

You're being intentionally vague and unrelated AT ALL to this thread. As far as I'm concerned, tremendous patience has been displayed by all engaging in your attempt to derail a political thread away from politics.

 

No one has asked you to leave. The request is to join in the conversation of the subject at hand, which is politics. You've expressed multiple times now that you do not wish to discuss politics. The request has been to engage in the subject of this thread rather than derail it, not to leave altogether.

 

Your interpretation could say significant amounts about your preconceptions about what you would face, and continuing in generalities until you received something close enough to claim what you wanted to show as "bad" among the members here was your method to receive that interpreted response.

 

I'm affronted that you would assume so little of the members of this forum. I've been chatting with people on this board for nearly 20 years as a Braves fan and never been asked to leave. Assuming this would be your response from these members is offensive and demeaning.

 

I am talking about politics, just not the politics you are interested in pursuing, not the status quo of what has been discussed here.  It has everything to do with the world and country we live in.  I have described what I feel the problem is, the narrative, since page 1 and have filled in any details people have requested of me thus far.

 

The request has been to discuss political pre-approved talking points relating to politics, yes, and that is not what I am going to involve myself with.  But others are free to speak about these topics.  They were in the first couple of pages I was responding to people but have ceased now.  I don't know why they have, but they can continue onward as they had been.

 

You're mistaking that my intentions have been to make a fool of members of the thread.  I think others would disagree they have been made a fool of in the first place, so it's subjective.  I personally don't feel like I have attempted to make a fool of anyone and certainly did not come anywhere close to making a fool of anyone in the slightest.  And I have gone out of my way to make it clear this has nothing to do on a personal level with the members here, but is occurring in forums across the internet in the same manner.

 

I like the community here as far as discussing the Twins and talking sports.  Lot of great people here I would gladly share time with in real life if we ever had an opportunity.  This, however, has nothing to do with the topic at hand.  I've said everything you are seeing here to every member of my family and my friends and no one has taken it as an insult or me making a fool of them to any degree.

 

Are these insights more about me as a person and my intent or my arguments.

[biggentleben]

 

Or, again, you already have hate in your heart and you looked for a reason to fuel it.  I'd like to see you provide some reasoning for why it was the media first influencing people, as opposed to the idea that the media is servicing a demand already existing.

 

Now, the latter isn't necessarily better.  We want media to be about truth, but I'm not sure the media wants us to hate each other.  I think media wants to appeal to us.  If so, it means you may have things backwards.

 

Not saying all media covers things the same, but those claiming to be legitimate news media require journalistic integrity and face legal challenges if they do not tell an accurate, true story. Those registered as entertainment news or not registered at all are not held to that standard. Comparing one to the other in what they can cover is not comparing apples to apples.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Fascinating to watch this conversation evolve 

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Not saying all media covers things the same, but those claiming to be legitimate news media require journalistic integrity and face legal challenges if they do not tell an accurate, true story. Those registered as entertainment news or not registered at all are not held to that standard. Comparing one to the other in what they can cover is not comparing apples to apples.

 

Agreed.  I think part of the problem is the term "media" is so ubiquitous it's almost meaningless.

[Champuckett]

 

 

Or, again, you already have hate in your heart and you looked for a reason to fuel it.  I'd like to see you provide some reasoning for why it was the media first influencing people, as opposed to the idea that the media is servicing a demand already existing.

 

Now, the latter isn't necessarily better.  We want media to be about truth, but I'm not sure the media wants us to hate each other.  I think media wants to appeal to us.  If so, it means you may have things backwards.

 

Yeah, that's exactly right.  Many do have hate in their heart, I was no exception decades ago, like many, and that hate got focused on groups that it had no business being focused on.  And I see that hate being used to cause hatred in people that I respect, and it's something that is very apparently a modality that we need to work our way out of. 

 

Me being here, is literally the tiny attempt to do that, as badly criticized, poorly attempted, and ill conceived in all forms that it has taken.  ~30%-40% of the responses to my comments are participants attempting to correct my behavior, explaining the proper way to act.  I'm taking note of everything everyone is saying, and I appreciate the concern and/or the feedback, but that's getting us off track.

 

And there may be anger or confusion being thrown my way as we speak, but in the grand scheme of things, I'm hoping to at least reduce the hatred or fear we are all feeling these days, in the tiniest way possible, which would be considered a great victory.  We and our neighbors are not enemies of each other, but right now, if you turn on the news, you would think this to be the case.  Race, political party, sexual orientation, doesn't matter, every group now has their opponents, and everyone is told, even demanded, to take sides.

[biggentleben]

 

Are these insights more about me as a person and my intent or my arguments.

 

Just again your attempt to shadow your attempt to speak down to the choice here to converse about issues at hand in this world from many different angles. You've apparently chosen not to engage in these discussions, but to berate those who do have discussions on concerns of the world. Use verbal vaguery around it all you'd like, the intention is no less obvious.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Yeah, that's exactly right.  Many do have hate in their heart, I was no exception decades ago, like many, and that hate got focused on groups that it had no business being focused on.  And I see that hate being used to cause hatred in people that I respect, and it's something that is very apparently a modality that we need to work our way out of. 

 

Unfortunately, media is not alone to blame.  This is where many of hte things we've spent time talking about here in this thread converge.  Media is but an element of the problem you are talking about, whereas I think you cite it as the cause.

[biggentleben]

 

Yeah, that's exactly right.  Many do have hate in their heart, I was no exception decades ago, like many, and that hate got focused on groups that it had no business being focused on.  And I see that hate being used to cause hatred in people that I respect, and it's something that is very apparently a modality that we need to work our way out of. 

 

Me being here, is literally the tiny attempt to do that, as badly criticized, poorly attempted, and ill conceived in all forms that it has taken.  There may be anger or confusion being thrown my way as we speak, but the in the grand scheme of things, I'm hoping to at least reduce this in the tiniest way possible, which would be considered a great victory.  We and are neighbors are not enemies of each other, but right now, if you turn on the news, you would think this to be the case.  Race, political party, sexual orientation, doesn't matter, every group now has their opponents, and everyone is told, even demanded, to take sides.

 

Of course, as long as people agree 100% with how you see the world. Then, of course, we're headed in the right direction. Otherwise, we're all hopeless.

[Champuckett]

 

 

Yeah, that's exactly right.  Many do have hate in their heart, I was no exception decades ago, like many, and that hate got focused on groups that it had no business being focused on.  And I see that hate being used to cause hatred in people that I respect, and it's something that is very apparently a modality that we need to work our way out of. 

 

Me being here, is literally the tiny attempt to do that, as badly criticized, poorly attempted, and ill conceived in all forms that it has taken.  ~30%-40% of the responses to my comments are participants attempting to correct my behavior, explaining the proper way to act.  I'm taking note of everything everyone is saying, and I appreciate the concern and/or the feedback, but that's getting us off track.

 

And there may be anger or confusion being thrown my way as we speak, but in the grand scheme of things, I'm hoping to at least reduce the hatred or fear we are all feeling these days, in the tiniest way possible, which would be considered a great victory.  We and our neighbors are not enemies of each other, but right now, if you turn on the news, you would think this to be the case.  Race, political party, sexual orientation, doesn't matter, every group now has their opponents, and everyone is told, even demanded, to take sides.

 

We are all on the same team, and always have been, always will be.  Every time we are not, that's a victory for the media.

 

Edit: Post edited a bunch

 

[TheLeviathan]

I have to say, usually I'm the guy that doesn't let someone off the hook for a really poorly made argument.....but damn, I sorta enjoy this version of Ben!

 

We let out his inner o-lineman today.

[Champuckett]

 

 

Unfortunately, media is not alone to blame.  This is where many of hte things we've spent time talking about here in this thread converge.  Media is but an element of the problem you are talking about, whereas I think you cite it as the cause.

 

The media right now, in my estimation, is the primary cause, the cancerous tumor inside of the brain that needs immediate operation.  The rest of the body has infection and weakness, but without addressing the primary cause first, the rest will mean little.

 

I would agree that there are certainly other elements at play here.

[biggentleben]

 

I have to say, usually I'm the guy that doesn't let someone off the hook for a really poorly made argument.....but damn, I sorta enjoy this version of Ben!

 

We let out his inner o-lineman today.

 

Give me something to do rather than writing code for my new website, and I'm game!

[Champuckett]

 

 

Of course, as long as people agree 100% with how you see the world. Then, of course, we're headed in the right direction. Otherwise, we're all hopeless.

 

You don't have to agree with how I see the world at all.  In fact, that would ultimately lead us back to the same point we are finding ourselves in right now.  We need variation and different mindsets, working together, but this is not possible, if we are bitterly divided through a mass media that seeks to keep us enslaved within their narrative.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The media right now, in my estimation, is the primary cause, the cancerous tumor inside of the brain that needs immediate operation.  The rest of the body has infection and weakness, but without addressing the primary cause first, the rest will mean little.

 

I would agree that there are certainly other elements at play here.

 

How long has media been the cancer?  Was this a change?

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

There are many good questions in here, but this seems to be the one you currently care about the most.  

 

The media does cover a lot of these stories, but they have to prioritize right?  There are only so many hours in a day and so many stories to cover.  I would say that there is certainly room to wonder what motivates those priorities.  I'd venture to guess we would frequently not care for those reasons.

 

I'm doubting they have to prioritize as much as we are being lead to believe.  They seem to be choosing the stories that divide us most often, and the stories that may be real news goes on the back burner or gets thrown away.  If that is the case though and we could come to an agreement on that, then the appropriate question would be why.  But I think you hinted at that in this comment.

 

You are right in the fact that they are limited in resources and time.  And I absolutely agree that there is a lot of room to wonder.

 

When I was a kid, on Sunday nights, before the Internet, my dad would always let me stay up for the 10 o'clock news so I could watch the Vikings highlights one more time (the highlights were usually just the touchdowns, of course, no other plays mattered). Anyway, the formula was the same, every Sunday night: News at 10 for about 18 minutes, weather for 5 or 6 minutes, then the sports, then the happy ending of the day. Over time it occurred to me that this was the formula every night, even on nights without football.

 

I asked myself, why isn't there more time for highlights on Sunday? Is there really the same amount of news on every day of the week? Why do they need to stop right at 10:35 every night? 

 

But the bleache blonde was so beautiful (Henley), and the anchorman's hair was so perfect (Warren Zevon), that I never really cared what they were saying!   

 

Just kidding. I've been a media skeptic ever since. I probably never got a good answer to why the news must end right at 10:35, no matter how much or how little news there is on any given day. And now knowing a little more than I did then, even thought I "get" why, I still don't really understand why. At least the newspapers still run special sections when the baseball seasons starts, instead of trying to fit it all into the sports page.

 

[Craig Arko]

https://tcmedianow.com/wcco-tv-bedtime-nooz-february-1969/

[Champuckett]

 

How long has media been the cancer?  Was this a change?

 

That's not something I can answer.  I truly don't know.  I would lean towards inception, but that's just a guess.  Right now I can see the country tearing itself apart, and I think this is the origin of that.

 

What's funny is we are on a sports forum, sports being largely comprised of teams.  And I think it is the teams that have been and are being created by the media that are causing us to begin tearing everything down.

 

Like I said earlier, we are in reality, all on the same team and always will be.  We need to somehow reach that understanding and I think a lot of the problems we have been facing over the last many decades can actually be eradicated, but I can understand how overly optimistic that sounds.

 

This doesn't mean we come to the same political or philosophical conclusions about everything, we are always going to have our differences, it simply means we wake up and realize how we are being pitted against one another.

[Champuckett]

 

 

When I was a kid, on Sunday nights, before the Internet, my dad would always let me stay up for the 10 o'clock news so I could watch the Vikings highlights one more time (the highlights were usually just the touchdowns, of course, no other plays mattered). Anyway, the formula was the same, every Sunday night: News at 10 for about 18 minutes, weather for 5 or 6 minutes, then the sports, then the happy ending of the day. Over time it occurred to me that this was the formula every night, even on nights without football.

 

I asked myself, why isn't there more time for highlights on Sunday? Is there really the same amount of news on every day of the week? Why do they need to stop right at 10:35 every night? 

 

But the bleache blonde was so beautiful (Henley), and the anchorman's hair was so perfect (Warren Zevon), that I never really cared what they were saying!   

 

Just kidding. I've been a media skeptic ever since. I probably never got a good answer to why the news must end right at 10:35, no matter how much or how little news there is on any given day. And now knowing a little more than I did then, even thought I "get" why, I still don't really understand why. At least the newspapers still run special sections when the baseball seasons starts, instead of trying to fit it all into the sports page.

 

Appreciate the levity.

[Craig Arko]

[TheLeviathan]

 

That's not something I can answer.  I truly don't know.  I would lean towards inception, but that's just a guess.  Right now I can see the country tearing itself apart, and I think this is the origin of that.

 

Shouldn't you be able to answer the first question before you make that conclusion?  If media's corrosive impact has always existed, why only now is the problem occurring?

 

We've had "teams" in politics for as long as there have been societies.  We have had hate and factions.  Perhaps the media is not causing the issues at all, perhaps the issue is within human nature itself.  Media might fan the flames, but it isn't the root cause or the origin.

 

If it was, you should be able to show how humanity was humming along nicely until the "media" ruined the party.

[PseudoSABR]

ON TOPIC, WARNING

 

The leniency of the Manafort sentence, and the Judge's comments, demonstrate how far reaching tribalism goes.