Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
It's not that individual police agencies or whatever may be incapable of solving the problem (that responsible authorities are handicapped in some way is indeed a Necessary Weasel of heroic fiction), but that in more modern film-making, the basic concept of laws that the heroes adhere to (even if only nominally) and that apply to everyone in the end seems to be falling by the wayside.
edited 23rd Sep '16 9:39:37 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
That IS true, though I think part of why is because of said necessary weasel.
Having said that, it's certainly a cultural shift. I'm not entirely sure where it started-maybe with displeasure with Bush?
On a side note, we should probably discuss this in the culture thread.
Leviticus 19:34This possibly goes in the culture thread but my two cents anyway; I've seen arguments for the opposite as well, that there is an increasing trend toward positive portrayals of authoritarianism. Some of it's unintentional, some of it is a side-effect of trying to sell more movies to China, some of it is the lucrative subsidies you can get from the military by playing by their guidelines to have them in your movie.
edited 23rd Sep '16 9:46:51 AM by Elle
Why trolls are good for the left.
First, they force us to examine our own weaknesses when it comes to respecting the basic rights and freedoms of those who disagree with us. Yiannopoulos demonstrated this when he embarked on a speaking tour of college campuses last year, one that led to frequent incidents when he was shouted down, de-platformed and even physically bullied by progressive students who opposed his views.
Because some campus leftists support suppressing opinions they personally dislike, the actions of these protesters perfectly illustrate the point any professional provocateur wants to make: Their enemies’ lack of respect for dissenting opinions is precisely the reason why they need to be exposed to them. Not only can this serve to shake progressives out of the intellectual complacency that comes from hearing only amenable views; it also presents us with an important test regarding our willingness to behave honorably toward those whose opinions offend us. Whenever we try to silence them, we fail that test; whenever we respond by encouraging debate and reasoned argument, we rise to the challenge.
Just as important, trolls reinforce why we have established certain boundaries in the first place. Take the reports that Trump’s anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant rhetoric has caused an increase of bigoted bullying among children. While this doesn’t mean that Trump should be censored, it illustrates why the claims that he’s simply “telling it like it is” ring so hollow.
Adults may be able to delude themselves into thinking that accusing Mexico of sending rapists into this country or supporting an outright ban on Muslim immigration aren’t inherently hateful actions. 'Children see right through that baloney and reflect in a more pure form the prejudices being promoted all around them. While Trump, Yiannopoulos and individuals like them may denounce criticisms of their language as “politically correct,” it’s impossible to touch the raw nerves of racism and sexism without eventually causing real-world harm. It is valuable to have people out there who remind us of that.
RE: String-of-numbers
He was still trying to use the Cuba thing? Jeez. How many times does it have to be pointed out to him that Cuba's still there and that America hasn't invaded them since the end of the Cold War? You can't claim "America does unto Cuba as Russia does unto Ukraine therefore Americans are hypocrites" when the American president who objects to Russia's actions in Ukraine has reopened relations with Cuba for the first time in history.
@Fighteer
Your bit about the faux balance thing regarding climate change etc made me think of this Dara O'Briain sketch
.
"There's this notion that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who's a professor of dentistry for forty years does not get into a debate with some ijit who removes his teeth with string and a door."
Colbert talks about the State of Emergency in Charlotte.
Highlights:
- During another speech set In a black church full of white people, when asked what he's going to do to prevent further racially-charged violence, Trump endorses the return of Stop-and-Frisk policies.
- One spokeswoman for the campaign explains that there was no racism until Obama got elected.
- Also, apparently the violence is a consequence of, quote, "unwed babies". Colbert had a field day with that one.
edited 23rd Sep '16 9:58:40 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.@Fighteer: Okay then, to give a layperson's explanation of why I am skeptical of the assumption that democrats' reasoning for distrusting mass media differs from republicans' (and to reference an old argument, that democrats' and republicans' reasons for liking a particular policy more when it is attached to one of their own party's politicians) without data to support that notion: it runs contrary to some of the core principles of the modern scientific process.
When you get down to it, all scientific inquiry (and all human experience really) is ultimately built upon inductive reasoning; we observe the present state of a system, and postulate that these observations are predictive of the future state of the system.
Particularly when interpeting with quantitative data, we use statistics to come to conclusions so as to minimize personal biases on the part of a researcher. Any statistical hypothesis starts with a "null hypothesis", which in essence states that any difference between samples is due to random variation. We test this hypothesis against our data using statistical math, and either reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis. While it isn't as formalized when dealing with qualitative data, the underlying process is similar. When data is proven to be in conflict with the current model of a system, that model is revised to accommodate the data.
By repeating this process innumerable times, provided the underlying assumption of inductive reasoning holds true (see the Problem of Induction), a researcher will develop an increasingly accurate model of a particular system. Much like an ideal jury, an ideal researcher remains skeptical until proven incorrect by new evidence, hence my position here.
edited 23rd Sep '16 10:21:37 AM by CaptainCapsase
You know who else believes that? The right-wingers. The only difference between a leftist who thinks this and a right-winger who thinks this is what opinions they think are worth hearing. Stifling valid debate is a hallmark of authoritarianism and exemplify the horseshoe. Note that I say valid debate as an anti-vaxxer's opinions should be treated the same as a climate change denier's... laughed out of the debate as being totally stupid.
Wizard Needs Food BadlyNot all opinions deserve equal weight, but if you don't hear the person out you really shouldn't be making that call. Though, at some point you can probably reasonable guess I person's thoughts on something and whether or not it's worth going down that road is on you.
edited 23rd Sep '16 10:44:24 AM by LSBK
![]()
![]()
Nice explanation of methodology, but that doesn't say anything about what your actual position is. There are demonstrated cognitive differences between liberals and conservatives: specifically, that the latter place greater cognitive weight on fear-based reasoning.
That said, I'm not going to debate you on whether the Democratic or Republican platform is more closely aligned with real facts. The difference is patent and obvious. I don't give a hot sweaty damn about whether a Democratic voter is motivated by rational scientific analysis or terror of Donald Trump as long as it gets them to the polls. There are other considerations, of course, but here and now we are facing a political catastrophe of unprecedented proportions and there's just no time left to engage in long programs of gentle persuasion.
What I care most about, therefore, is when Democrats engage in fallacies and disinformation, such as the idea that Clinton must be corrupt because, if she weren't, why's the media so busy worrying about it?
![]()
As you say, not all opinions are equal. If someone tries to persuade me that the Earth is flat, I'm not going to grant them the benefit of a hearing. I will either laugh at them or kick them out. It is possible to have reasoned debates only when the parties can agree on the basic ground rules for how facts work.
edited 23rd Sep '16 10:52:27 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Problem is that the children have an equal lack of filtering in how they act on that disinformation. For example, a child who hears racist messages is likely to act with hostility towards peers of the target race. This is not a positive thing, even if it helps expose the messages for what they are.
I should also point out, particularly to you, nervmeister, that self-enlightenment is not a wholly laudable practice if it leads one towards nihilism and/or misanthropy.
edited 23rd Sep '16 11:00:40 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Lmfao. What a spineless coward
New Survey coming this weekend!"You know who else believes that? The right-wingers. The only difference between a leftist who thinks this and a right-winger who thinks this is what opinions they think are worth hearing. Stifling valid debate is a hallmark of authoritarianism and exemplify the horseshoe. Note that I say valid debate as an anti-vaxxer's opinions should be treated the same as a climate change denier's... laughed out of the debate as being totally stupid."
It's not a valid debate unless a climate change scientist has ninety other people supporting their claims, onscreen, against the one climate change denier. I know this has been hashed endlessly, but what the news media has been doing isn't facilitating debate, but creating it wholesale by promoting competing viewpoints as being of equal weight as the opinion or theory supporting by a vast majority of the evidence.
At this point, who the hell cares? He's just as much of an asshole as Trump.
edited 23rd Sep '16 11:13:09 AM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."![]()
If Cruz does support Trump, it'll cost him any chance of realizing his dream of being a future Republican presidential candidate, especially if Trump loses.
There's also the fact that the media, by giving apparently equal weight to the sides in such ridiculous debates as climate science and vaccinations, sabotages the credibility of debates in which the sides have genuine merit. For example, the degree to which the U.S. should intervene in foreign crises like the Syrian civil war is an issue that bears substantial thought and is not as simple as "the facts are on one side, period". But by treating them as equivalent, the media creates the message that all issues are matters of opinion, and that facts are not only subject to debate, but should be ignored entirely when they are inconvenient to one's position.
The only correct response to, "45 percent of people polled think climate change is not real or is not a man-made phenomenon," is, "45 percent of people are wrong." There is no entitlement to believe false things, nor to have your false beliefs given credence.
edited 23rd Sep '16 11:31:48 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Under ordinary circumstances, I'd love it if Cruz were primaried, but unfortunately not if the new candidate is even worse than he is. Going into the GOP presidential primary, I thought that would be impossible. Then there was Trump.
edited 23rd Sep '16 11:32:22 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I never said the media didn't have its hand in the making of the post-facts world, but there isn't a lot that can be done about that without going into authoritarianism nor do I think it is even possible to even do in the current environment where everyone can both live in their bubble and said bubble can be seen by everyone on the outside of it. Even when a bubble is dismantled from the outside by businesses or the government, people make a stronger, more resilient bubble in its place.
edited 23rd Sep '16 11:52:36 AM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food Badly
So we're doomed to live in information bubbles that are increasingly separated from each other until our society Balkanizes into warring factions? I think that's unlikely, not least because it's fundamentally untenable. I expect that facts will inevitably intrude into our lives and make themselves incontrovertible.
Moreover, I am unable to accept such a state intellectually. It denies my basic belief in the ability of humanity to solve problems. If I'm wrong, then I will at least have tried to make a difference. If you believe otherwise, then why are you even here trying to debate?
edited 23rd Sep '16 11:54:29 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

To be fair, I think a major part of this is a necessary weasel-stories tend to focus on a small group saving the day. If the police aren't corrupt or stupid then why do you need Batman?
In fact, I'm making an RPG where the protagonist is a law enforcement agent fighting rebels (who were astroturfed by a regime of Dirty Communists whose operatives later become the Elite Mooks). A major problem I've been running into is justifying why there's the player character is the one constantly saving the day when his teammates are not particularly incompetent.
Leviticus 19:34