Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

In another thread, there was a discussion with another poster about developing opinion based on the information that's recieved. For the sake of improving communication, and to help in moving discussion along in a manner that helps to see others perspectives, here's how I would develop opinion. If I'm doing it wrong, or if you have further suggestion, I would open it up to bring that forward:

1. I have education and lived life experience, experienced other culture, and have learned extensively about the histories of varying countries who've had atrocities. This would include:

-The killing fields of Cambodia

-Holocaust memorials in Europe

-Genocide memorials in Rwanda

-Various educational tours to learn of the history of South Africa

-UNESCO heritage sites in Canada

-Slavery in the US 

Based on using this as a framework, I see some parallels in society that are not heading in the right direction imo. 

2. I would consider myself leaning right of center but can understand the value of economic social policies to improve the livelihoods of people who are vulnerable in society I.e. people with varying disabilities, children, etc. I try to root my worldview in fairness and is why I would feel passionate about some of the nonsense that I feel is coming out of the USs legal system under Biden. 

3. I haven't watched CNN since probably the 2016 election cycle. Prior to that I would have considered myself to support Obama, but this was probably more the product and power of the media to prop him up and maintain his image. 

I believe social media and platforms like YouTube had have removed somewhat that "filter" where you have to interpret the world through the lense of journalism and exposed in a way the spin machine. This likely contributes to a level of distrust in the press. 

I believe Harder has made some decent points in the past on some of the downsides of social media, and now essentially giving ill informed people a bull horn in a sense; to me the answer is learning how to siphon through the noise which I'm sure will come with time. 

4. Usually what I'm responding to is what's currently the broader discussion going on on places like Fox or even influencer accounts on social media. 

Feel free to critique. 

Edited by West
Posted

great topic. and something i've been thinking about a lot because i am reading Yuval Harari's latest book, "Nexus". a must read. its about information networks.

the institutions that have made Western culture the most successful in history are democratic elections, the judiciary, and journalism. these are successful pillars when they are self correcting. if elections are secure and fair then they correct political power and policy. the judiciary polices itself. judges are supposed to be embarrassed when told by higher courts that they "erred". people used to go to school for journalism. they learned ethics. public reporting has always had its bad actors but usually it was self correcting because when on outlet got it wrong then another outlet would identify it and the outlet that "erred" would lose credibility.

additionally, you have institutions like the CDC and the National Science Foundation. science polices itself through peer review. thousands of individuals work at these establishments.

we live in an era here in the west where these institutions are under attack.

traditional news TV has been degrading since the Reagan FCC dropped the Fairness Doctrine. Broadcasters are no longer required to give equal airtime to political parties or countering opinions. i watch Fox, CNN and MSNBC. CNN actually has both GOP and Democratic representation at the table. And boy does that ever keep both from saying crazy stuff. Fox and MSNBC are both biased. They rarely have political representation on the other side. i will say though that MSNBC tries to make a logical case while Fox... just makes shit up. and thus their huge payments for false reporting. In fact Fox has even said in court that their "opinion news" hosts should not be believed.

and the internet is further to blame. 20% of participants make up 80% of all political content. there is NO SHAME when they spread outright lies because their audience is caught in an echo chamber. social media makes more money when outlandish lies are spread!

and so we have a new world. what is truth is being challenged by new forces.

  • Thanks 1
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You will never get the full story from such a narrow source of news.

And Fox is a PROVEN LIAR.

How is my source of news narrow? 

I've allowed academic type resources such as UNESCO to shape how I would view the world and have emerged myself in other cultures. When you meet someone who, as an example, was an orphan in a 3rd world country because their parents were murdered because of minor appearance differences had them determined to be a people group worthy of being hunted and murdered that'll shape your world view more than reading about it on your preferred news website 

20 minutes ago, godzilla said:

great topic. and something i've been thinking about a lot because i am reading Yuval Harari's latest book, "Nexus". a must read. its about information networks.

the institutions that have made Western culture the most successful in history are democratic elections, the judiciary, and journalism. these are successful pillars when they are self correcting. if elections are secure and fair then they correct political power and policy. the judiciary polices itself. judges are supposed to be embarrassed when told by higher courts that they "erred". people used to go to school for journalism. they learned ethics. public reporting has always had its bad actors but usually it was self correcting because when on outlet got it wrong then another outlet would identify it and the outlet that "erred" would lose credibility.

additionally, you have institutions like the CDC and the National Science Foundation. science polices itself through peer review. thousands of individuals work at these establishments.

we live in an era here in the west where these institutions are under attack.

traditional news TV has been degrading since the Reagan FCC dropped the Fairness Doctrine. Broadcasters are no longer required to give equal airtime to political parties or countering opinions. i watch Fox, CNN and MSNBC. CNN actually has both GOP and Democratic representation at the table. And boy does that ever keep both from saying crazy stuff. Fox and MSNBC are both biased. They rarely have political representation on the other side. i will say though that MSNBC tries to make a logical case while Fox... just makes shit up. and thus their huge payments for false reporting. In fact Fox has even said in court that their "opinion news" hosts should not be believed.

and the internet is further to blame. 20% of participants make up 80% of all political content. there is NO SHAME when they spread outright lies because their audience is caught in an echo chamber. social media makes more money when outlandish lies are spread!

and so we have a new world. what is truth is being challenged by new forces.

Fair to some extent. 

However, part of that is we live in an era where they've been somewhat weaponized. 

Honestly I couldn't watch CNN mostly because I saw what they do on their network as having major red flags for me based on lived experience abroad. The Rwandan genocide, as one example, used mass media to label one group of people as termites and everything else. CNN used different language, but with similar outcomes from what I could tell. 

Edited by West
Posted
23 minutes ago, West said:

How is my source of news narrow? 

I've allowed academic type resources such as UNESCO to shape how I would view the world and have emerged myself in other cultures. When you meet someone who, as an example, was an orphan in a 3rd world country because their parents were murdered because of minor appearance differences had them determined to be a people group worthy of being hunted and murdered that'll shape your world view more than reading about it on your preferred news website 

Show us where UNESCO publishes NEWS.

They are probably a valuable source for HISTORY.

 

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Show us where UNESCO publishes NEWS.

They are probably a valuable source for HISTORY.

 

Okay so you are mad that I consider CNN to be what you consider Fox?

How do you filter and come to the conclusions you do? 

And that's not really my point about UNESCO but since you asked here you go

https://www.unesco.org/en/newsroom

Edited by West
Posted
1 minute ago, West said:

Okay so you are mad that I consider CNN to be what you consider Fox?

Not mad. What is your evidence for CNN being as bad a source as FOS LIES?

Did they have to pay $800 LYING and LIBEL?

1 minute ago, West said:

How do you filter and come to the conclusions you do? 

I observe a wide variety of news sources, and filter based on reputation and for accuracy over time.

Of course FOS LIES took a huge hit for accuracy when they were PROVEN LIARS.

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Not mad. What is your evidence for CNN being as bad a source as FOS LIES?

Did they have to pay $800 LYING and LIBEL?

I observe a wide variety of news sources, and filter based on reputation and for accuracy over time.

Of course FOS LIES took a huge hit for accuracy when they were PROVEN LIARS.

CNN settled an undisclosed amount with Nick Sandmann, a 16 or 17 year old CHILD at the time where he had his face plastered all over the internet. This, alongside other reasons, was a reason why I stopped watching CNN; the coverage of this as well as other stories that they ran are quite vile.  You actually think these are good people? 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/media/cnn-settles-lawsuit-viral-video/index.html

 

How do you filter based on reputation? Your opinions? How would you suggest I filter this knowing I have a moral issue with how CNN has historically conducted themselves? 

Edited by West
Posted
5 minutes ago, West said:

CNN settled an undisclosed amount with Nick Sandmann, a 16 or 17 year old CHILD at the time where he had his face plastered all over the internet. This, alongside other reasons, was a reason why I stopped watching CNN; the coverage of this as well as other stories that they ran are quite vile.  You actually think these are good people? 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/media/cnn-settles-lawsuit-viral-video/index.html

 

How do you filter based on reputation? Your opinions? 

let me ask you a couple questions...

do Democrats hate America?

do Democrats want to destroy America?

this is kind of the pinnacle of the political argument for Fox News. there are tonnes of ridiculous detailed claims that lead to that conclusion and so i'm identifying just the most striking. this is communicated in those very words constantly. CONSTANTLY.

its the same old model... repeat, repeat, repeat. its not news. its brain washing.

not even CNN and MSNB say that Republicans hate America and that they want to destroy their own country. and really, this is probably the reason why Democrats lost the last election. Because they aren't scaring people enough.

Everyone Who Hates America (According To Fox News)

  • Like 1
Posted
27 minutes ago, West said:

CNN settled an undisclosed amount with Nick Sandmann, a 16 or 17 year old CHILD at the time where he had his face plastered all over the internet. This, alongside other reasons, was a reason why I stopped watching CNN; the coverage of this as well as other stories that they ran are quite vile.  You actually think these are good people? 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/media/cnn-settles-lawsuit-viral-video/index.html

That lawsuit is said to have been settled for $2M. AKA just a nuisance settlement.

The amount is undisclosed, but Sandmann's net worth is estimated at $2M

27 minutes ago, West said:

 

How do you filter based on reputation?

Long term record of being right.

27 minutes ago, West said:

Your opinions?

The record of corroboration by other reputable sources.

27 minutes ago, West said:

How would you suggest I filter this knowing I have a moral issue with how CNN has historically conducted themselves? 

Do you really believe FOS LIES is morally superior? Why? 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, godzilla said:

let me ask you a couple questions...

do Democrats hate America?

do Democrats want to destroy America?

this is kind of the pinnacle of the political argument for Fox News. there are tonnes of ridiculous detailed claims that lead to that conclusion and so i'm identifying just the most striking. this is communicated in those very words constantly. CONSTANTLY.

its the same old model... repeat, repeat, repeat. its not news. its brain washing.

not even CNN and MSNB say that Republicans hate America and that they want to destroy their own country. and really, this is probably the reason why Democrats lost the last election. Because they aren't scaring people enough.

Everyone Who Hates America (According To Fox News)

Fox is definitely right of center especially in their prime time. However, there's also Fox Business, and their weekend programming which is more information based. Many of their articles are Associated Press as well. 

I think you honestly need to watch CNN and MSNBC with a bit more of a critical lense. There's a lot of things they do or say on there that is hateful toward different groups of people. They've labelled half the country as racist degenerates and have run multiple hit pieces on people. 

Do Democrats hate America? I would say their party has become significantly more radicalized since probably Obama's second term than they were under lets say Al Gore or Bill Clinton of the late 90s early 2000s. Hence why you've seen some splinter off such as RFK, or even Joe Manchin who left the party to sit as an independent. 

 

Edited by West
Posted
Just now, godzilla said:

might i suggest learning about fascism as well. this pretty well defines Trumps message.

in fascist rhetoric, "the other are fundamentally opposed to the nation". ie. they hate the nation

The 10 tactics of fascism

I've read many of these pieces. However watching Trump's speeches in their entirety do not really support the hit pieces.

Just my opinion. 

Posted
9 minutes ago, robosmith said:

That lawsuit is said to have been settled for $2M. AKA just a nuisance settlement.

The amount is undisclosed, but Sandmann's net worth is estimated at $2M

Long term record of being right.

The record of corroboration by other reputable sources.

Do you really believe FOS LIES is morally superior? Why? 

Leaving aside the settlement value, do you believe it's morally repugnant to do what they did to a child? 

Posted
13 minutes ago, godzilla said:

Because they aren't scaring people enough.

Everyone Who Hates America (According To Fox News)

Very interesting video. Thanks for sharing. Fox's obsession with people who hate America of course support Trump's fascist tendencies, which at their core consists of the "us vs. them" mentality.

 

3 hours ago, West said:

here's how I would develop opinion.

For me, it's reading. I read a lot, and try to always go to primary sources when I can. For example, in another thread, there is a discussion centered on Jack Smith's recently released report on Trump's attempt to steal the 2020 election. It's clear that some opinions are based on biases and what they have been told, but it doesn't occur to them to read the report and find out for themselves.

I would never rely on Fox or CNN for my information. 

 

Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, West said:

Fox is definitely right of center especially in their prime time. However, there's also Fox Business, and their weekend programming which is more information based. Many of their articles are Associated Press as well. 

I think you honestly need to watch CNN and MSNBC with a bit more of a critical lense. There's a lot of things they do or say on there that is hateful toward different groups of people. They've labelled half the country as racist degenerates and have run multiple hit pieces on people. 

Do Democrats hate America? I would say their party has become significantly more radicalized since probably Obama's second term than they were under lets say Al Gore or Bill Clinton of the late 90s early 2000s. Hence why you've seen some splinter off such as RFK, or even Joe Manchin who left the party to sit as an independent. 

 

i agree with all of what you say here. CNN and MSNBC do represent what they believe to be a socially conscious viewpoint. and that just reflects liberalism.

you didn't actually answer my question though. do Democrats hate America? of course not.

as far as radical... that is exactly what a Fox News viewer is tailored to believe. i would call promoting fascist concepts pretty far right radicalism.

"Fascism is a cult of the leader, who promises national restoration in the face of supposed humiliation by immigrants, leftists, liberals, minorities, homosexuals, women, in the face of what the fascist leader says is a takeover of the country's media, cultural institutions, schools by these forces. And that's why you need a really macho, powerful, violent response. The fascist leader says he will solve the problem. Fascism is right-wing by nature. It's based on ultra-nationalism... the fascist mythic past. In the past, we were great. Wherein did our greatness consist? In our military. And in the past, the dominant racial group ruled over others. And then the fascist leader says, "That has been taken from you by the leftists and communists. They wanna weaken our military. They wanna weaken our greatness." "

sound familiar?

is the "left" radical? are they calling for the nationalization of the means of production? of course not. are they getting pushy about inclusion. yes.

 

Edited by godzilla
  • Like 1
Posted
28 minutes ago, West said:

Leaving aside the settlement value, do you believe it's morally repugnant to do what they did to a child? 

He was a teenager, hardly a "child."

And his smirk showed he was an a-hole.

Posted
15 minutes ago, godzilla said:

i agree with all of what you say here. CNN and MSNBC do represent what they believe to be a socially conscious viewpoint. and that just reflects liberalism.

you didn't actually answer my question though. do Democrats hate America? of course not.

as far as radical... that is exactly what a Fox News viewer is tailored to believe. i would call promoting fascist concepts pretty far right radicalism.

"Fascism is a cult of the leader, who promises national restoration in the face of supposed humiliation by immigrants, leftists, liberals, minorities, homosexuals, women, in the face of what the fascist leader says is a takeover of the country's media, cultural institutions, schools by these forces. And that's why you need a really macho, powerful, violent response. The fascist leader says he will solve the problem. Fascism is right-wing by nature. It's based on ultra-nationalism... the fascist mythic past. In the past, we were great. Wherein did our greatness consist? In our military. And in the past, the dominant racial group ruled over others. And then the fascist leader says, "That has been taken from you by the leftists and communists. They wanna weaken our military. They wanna weaken our greatness." "

sound familiar?

is the "left" radical? are they calling for the nationalization of the means of production? of course not. are they getting pushy about inclusion. yes.

 

It's not really a "Fox News" view. In the case of Nick Sandmann, a 16 or 17 year old kid who was smeared in the press, I would consider that to be a radicalized view point that grown ass adults would find this to be okay. 

I also see this nonstop predatory behavior in the justice system to be fairly radical. There was a bit of a push especially when the Supreme court was left leaning to ram everything through the Supreme Court instead of through the act of persusion. 

I also consider many other things radical such as the Democrat lockdowns during covid, villianization of the unvaccinated, etc as being radical. 

5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

He was a teenager, hardly a "child."

And his smirk showed he was an a-hole.

He was a minor smeared by grown ass adults. Pretty radical and disgraceful 

Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

Very interesting video. Thanks for sharing. Fox's obsession with people who hate America of course support Trump's fascist tendencies, which at their core consists of the "us vs. them" mentality.

 

For me, it's reading. I read a lot, and try to always go to primary sources when I can. For example, in another thread, there is a discussion centered on Jack Smith's recently released report on Trump's attempt to steal the 2020 election. It's clear that some opinions are based on biases and what they have been told, but it doesn't occur to them to read the report and find out for themselves.

I would never rely on Fox or CNN for my information. 

 

The issue with the Jack Smith case is many well respected people, tenured professors at prestigious law schools in the US etc, were raising alarms about the case.

The Supreme Court then dealt it a major blow furthering the evidence that it's not just a "bias" but rather the case itself was faulty and as a result warranted criticism. 

I read the report and there really wasn't much in there that hadn't already been talked about in the press over the passed few years and was already criticized. Likely because the experts critiquing the case already had access to the information. 

Really what this comes down to is people who are probably more left leaning will not accept others points of views that do not confirm their bias that Trump is like Adolf Hitler. 

Edited by West
Posted
Just now, robosmith said:

Really? How was he "smeared" that wasn't true?

There's many sources that you can look for yourself seeing as you claim you take information from multiple places. 

Posted
7 minutes ago, West said:

The issue with the Jack Smith case is many well respected people, tenured professors at prestigious law schools in the US etc, were raising alarms about the case.

The Supreme Court then dealt it a major blow furthering the evidence that it's not just a "bias" but rather the case itself was faulty and as a result warranted criticism. 

And what decision was that? Smith easily sidestepped the "immunity" decision.

7 minutes ago, West said:

I read the report and there really wasn't much in there that hadn't already been talked about in the press over the passed few years and was already criticized. Likely because the experts critiquing the case already had access to the information. 

Really what this comes down to is people who are probably more left leaning will not accept others points of views that do not confirm their bias that Trump is like Adolf Hitler. 

Do you not know the historical parallels between Trump and Hitler (to this point in time)?

It remains to be seen whether Trump proceeds along the same path that Hitler took.

It's not looking good for you with Trump talking about a Canadian ANNEXATION. Do you want that? LMAO

3 minutes ago, West said:

There's many sources that you can look for yourself seeing as you claim you take information from multiple places. 

You're the one who made the claim here. It's your job to substantiate it IF you want to be taken seriously.

Posted
8 minutes ago, West said:

The issue with the Jack Smith case is many well respected people, tenured professors at prestigious law schools in the US etc, were raising alarms about the case.

Like what? Please provide evidence and sources.

 

9 minutes ago, West said:

The Supreme Court then dealt it a major blow furthering the evidence that it's not just a "bias" but rather the case itself was faulty and as a result warranted criticism. 

This is inaccurate. the only thing the Supreme Court ruled on is immunity for presidents.

10 minutes ago, West said:

I read the report and there really wasn't much in there that hadn't already been talked about in the press over the passed few years and was already criticized.

I have doubt that the press talked about the laws that Trump contravened. 

Did the press make specific reference to the laws that Trump broke? re: conspiring against rights

 

From Page 49 of the report:

Conspiracy Against Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241) Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to "conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States." A violation of Section 241 requires proof of three elements: (1) Mr. Trump entered into a conspiracy, (2) to willfully injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate a person in the United States, (3) in the exercise or enjoyment of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law. 18 U.S.C. § 241; see, e.g., United States v. Epley, 52 F.3d 571, 575-576 (6th Cir. 1995).

You can read the supporting evidence in the report, as well as Smith’s immunity filing from last October.

Again, you are making broad claims without substantiation.

11 minutes ago, West said:

Really what this comes down to is people who are probably more left leaning will not accept others points of views that do not confirm their bias that Trump is like Adolf Hitler. 

The report is not a point-of-view. And it sure has nothing to do with Hitler. 

Left-leaning, right-leaning, doesn't matter. The truth is the truth.

 

 

Posted
6 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

Like what? Please provide evidence and sources.

 

This is inaccurate. the only thing the Supreme Court ruled on is immunity for presidents.

I have doubt that the press talked about the laws that Trump contravened. 

Did the press make specific reference to the laws that Trump broke? re: conspiring against rights

 

From Page 49 of the report:

Conspiracy Against Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241) Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to "conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States." A violation of Section 241 requires proof of three elements: (1) Mr. Trump entered into a conspiracy, (2) to willfully injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate a person in the United States, (3) in the exercise or enjoyment of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law. 18 U.S.C. § 241; see, e.g., United States v. Epley, 52 F.3d 571, 575-576 (6th Cir. 1995).

You can read the supporting evidence in the report, as well as Smith’s immunity filing from last October.

Again, you are making broad claims without substantiation.

The report is not a point-of-view. And it sure has nothing to do with Hitler. 

Left-leaning, right-leaning, doesn't matter. The truth is the truth.

 

 

Judge Eileen Cannon for starters who tossed the case. 

Posted
18 minutes ago, West said:

The issue with the Jack Smith case is many well respected people, tenured professors at prestigious law schools in the US etc, were raising alarms about the case.

The Supreme Court then dealt it a major blow furthering the evidence that it's not just a "bias" but rather the case itself was faulty and as a result warranted criticism. 

I read the report and there really wasn't much in there that hadn't already been talked about in the press over the passed few years and was already criticized. Likely because the experts critiquing the case already had access to the information. 

Really what this comes down to is people who are probably more left leaning will not accept others points of views that do not confirm their bias that Trump is like Adolf Hitler. 

Trump fake electors plot

"The Trump fake electors plot was a scheme to submit illegitimate certificates of ascertainment to falsely claim U.S. president Donald Trump had won the Electoral College vote in certain states, following Trump's loss in the 2020 United States presidential election. After the results of the 2020 election determined Trump had lost, the scheme was devised by him, his associates, and Republican Party officials in seven states,[1] and it formed a part of Trump and his associates' attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election.

The intent of the scheme was to pass the illegitimate certificates to then-vice president Mike Pence in the hope he would count them, rather than the authentic certificates, and thus overturn Joe Biden's victory. This scheme was defended by a fringe legal theory developed by Trump attorneys Kenneth Chesebro and John Eastman, detailed in the Eastman memos, which claimed a vice president has the constitutional discretion to swap official electors with an alternate slate during the certification process, thus changing the outcome of the electoral college vote and the overall winner of the presidential race. The scheme came to be known as the Pence Card."

What are your "other points of view" about these matters?

  • Like 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,858
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    onegroupholiday
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Barquentine went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Scott75 earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • A Freeman went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Tony Eveland earned a badge
      First Post
    • Dick Green earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...