Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Do you mean before or after he called a man who helped rescue children from a flooded cave a pedophile because they didn't use his Yellow Submarine?
Throw stupid tantrums in public, you're going to get a lot of people pointing out what a stupid tantrum you're throwing.
Regardless, wasn't he talking about, what, an anonymous online rating system for journalism? That seems...incredibly open to abuse. Just imagine if Snopes let the people convinced that Obama was a secret Kenyan Muslim terrorist sleeper agent rate their fact-checking.
Spinner wrote: Regardless, wasn't he talking about, what, an anonymous online rating system for journalism? That seems...incredibly open to abuse. Just imagine if Snopes let the people convinced that Obama was a secret Kenyan Muslim terrorist sleeper agent rate their fact-checking.
As opposed to... who doing the fact-checking?
He wanted it Anonymous so that Journalists weren't doing hit-pieces on the fact-checkers.
Oh no, what if fact checkers used- confirmed, authentic, actual data to substantiate their findings? *GASP* What MADNESS is this?
Hypothetical question: What do you think is worse, an actual Nazi or a Pedo?
Tread carefully, there be a landmine there.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/17 20:42:07
You still think the media at large is calling balls and strikes in good faith??? When CNN wants the names of the jurists while they're deliberating??
I mean... CNN is basically saying "We're not enemies of people! Also we want the names and addresses of jurors. No reason."
Yeeeaaaah. I'm not one to get on board the whole "The Press is the Enemy of the People" thing here (poor wording, Donnie-boy). I'd never say they were our 'enemy'. But I will say that if the Press is our Friend, they're the kind of friend that tells you part of the story and neglects some significant details that could significantly alter your position and association. The kind of friend that tells you Bubba Budrow down the block has been following him and threatening him, but leaves off that part about him slapping Betty Budrow on the ass and calling her a hoe.
Not all of them, and not one side either- the right wing's got its manufactured outrage peddlers, and I spent about 3 hours with some of my relatives explaining how a lot of these 'news' outlets have about as much credibility as a Nigerian Prince (also, I had to explain the Nigerian Prince scam, too- they're old people).
I get that Alex Jones himself has some very outlandish and very offensive (to some) content that he peddles, and he tends to go far off the deep end- the epitome of 'fake news'. But he's not the only offender out there by a long shot (although the most ludicrous and amusing), but... if you apply the same standards that shut him down to every news organization out there- we'd be short on options for online news. Very short.
But hey, that's what happens when you gotta run Infotainment networks 24/7. Someone's gotta stir the poopoo pot or spin it up to be interesting, I guess. Sort of like meeting relatives at Christmas and they have all their great vacation stories, and they look over at you and now you're trying to make "I sat out in the back yard and drink beer for 14 days in a row" into an interesting vacation story. Something's gonna get embellished and stretched and fudged.
All I'm saying is that at some point, we're gonna start putting a credibility rating on various news sources and they're gonna lose their minds over it.
Isn't that basically what Elon Musk proposed a few months back? Some website that ranked journalists based on their how accurately they have reported stories in the past?
That would be worthless when 'Fake News' is defined as anything that makes the dumpster fire look bad. So many of his supporters are fact resistant that they would not use such a rating system appropriately.
Random internet mystery people are not necessarily more qualified or less biased than any given publication's already-established fact-checkers. In many cases, I'd say it's quite the opposite.
That's why when what's-his-face hired that woman to try and make up a story about being abused by Roy Moore as a child in an effort to discredit the actual accusers, the Washington Post busted her almost immediately.
skyth wrote: That would be worthless when 'Fake News' is defined as anything that makes the dumpster fire look bad. So many of his supporters are fact resistant that they would not use such a rating system appropriately.
You know, I really hate this "Your team bad, my team good" but you're doing exactly that. So, I have to ask you- do you really, really think there is just some shortage of people who dislike the man and his political supporters who also believe every bit of absolute political drivel excreted from Occupy Democrats' Facebook page?
Trust me, if you think 'Fake News' is exactly as you said, you're sorely mistaken. Very, very sorely. Both sides have an abundance of it. Even 'centrists' have their own flavors of fake news. So, don't get up on your high horse to start thinking that Your Team Good because your Politics Man say so, and tell you that you're smart and better for supporting that particular Politics Man.
Psst.
Down here.
Hey, you- yeah, skyth... I gotta secret...
You ready?
Both sides of the political spectrum and contaminated with extremists, liars, frauds, hucksters, swindlers, and downright scummy people. One of the key reasons people are dissociating themselves from both 'Liberalism' and 'Conservatism' at this point is because neither side has collectively done enough to squash and disavow the idiots.
So you've got some there on your side too, buddy. Maybe ah.. just, hear me out here, we're gonna get crazy, so hang on.
Maybe if all sides of the spectrum took a bit more time to disavow and chase off their village idiots, the remaining majority of us could all get together and have some productive political chatter, yeah? Maybe even take some friendly jabs at each other, "Oh, woo-hoo, you silly hippie!" "Oh, is that right, Redneck?"
Spinner wrote: Random internet mystery people are not necessarily more qualified or less biased than any given publication's already-established fact-checkers. In many cases, I'd say it's quite the opposite.
That's why when what's-his-face hired that woman to try and make up a story about being abused by Roy Moore as a child in an effort to discredit the actual accusers, the Washington Post busted her almost immediately.
He's wealthy enough to hire people to conduct a red-team blue team exercise where the sourced information is published along side with each team's conclusions.
Spinner wrote: Random internet mystery people are not necessarily more qualified or less biased than any given publication's already-established fact-checkers. In many cases, I'd say it's quite the opposite.
Here's a fun idea, and just... hang on to your seat, okay?
What if...
A random person, that you couldn't see or know who they were, could produce data and references to support a statement that something is either true or false.
Like, now- hold on...
What if we let that evidence speak for itself, rather than wanting a name brand slapped on that? Hm?
Just evidence, bottom line, only the facts, Jack.
CRAZY, isn't it?
Now, I know you can say 'but what about the Journalists, why can't they get the same treatement?' Well, when they start presenting data and facts as evidence, then maybe we'll talk. But until then, let the liars' trousers be an inferno!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: He's wealthy enough to hire people to conduct a red-team blue team exercise where the sourced information is published along side with each team's conclusions.
My Goodness, this fellow seems to be on to something.
But did you hear he called some hero a PEDOPHILE?
Can you believe that?
Meanwhile someone's calling actual war veterans with apolitical positions a 'Nazi' and a 'racist' or whatever, but hey! We only have to worry about people throwing around disgusting labels when it works to our advantage, right?
WOOOO FELLAS!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/17 20:56:06
Adeptus Doritos wrote: One of the key reasons people are dissociating themselves from both 'Liberalism' and 'Conservatism' at this point is because neither side has collectively done enough to squash and disavow the idiots.
I would say that doesn't matter nearly as much as that the material conditions under which liberalism achieved dominance have deteroriated.
A random person, that you couldn't see or know who they were, could produce data and references to support a statement that something is either true or false.
Like, now- hold on...
What if we let that evidence speak for itself, rather than wanting a name brand slapped on that? Hm?
skyth wrote: That would be worthless when 'Fake News' is defined as anything that makes the dumpster fire look bad. So many of his supporters are fact resistant that they would not use such a rating system appropriately.
You know, I really hate this "Your team bad, my team good" but you're doing exactly that. So, I have to ask you- do you really, really think there is just some shortage of people who dislike the man and his political supporters who also believe every bit of absolute political drivel excreted from Occupy Democrats' Facebook page?
Trust me, if you think 'Fake News' is exactly as you said, you're sorely mistaken. Very, very sorely. Both sides have an abundance of it. Even 'centrists' have their own flavors of fake news. So, don't get up on your high horse to start thinking that Your Team Good because your Politics Man say so, and tell you that you're smart and better for supporting that particular Politics Man.
Psst.
Down here.
Hey, you- yeah, skyth... I gotta secret...
You ready?
Both sides of the political spectrum and contaminated with extremists, liars, frauds, hucksters, swindlers, and downright scummy people. One of the key reasons people are dissociating themselves from both 'Liberalism' and 'Conservatism' at this point is because neither side has collectively done enough to squash and disavow the idiots.
So you've got some there on your side too, buddy. Maybe ah.. just, hear me out here, we're gonna get crazy, so hang on.
Maybe if all sides of the spectrum took a bit more time to disavow and chase off their village idiots, the remaining majority of us could all get together and have some productive political chatter, yeah? Maybe even take some friendly jabs at each other, "Oh, woo-hoo, you silly hippie!" "Oh, is that right, Redneck?"
Just a radical thought. Take it or leave it.
Love you.
Hey look everyone. We have another person trying the 'both sides are bad' argument that has been thouroughly debunked multiple times.
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Rosebuddy wrote: I would say that doesn't matter nearly as much as that the material conditions under which liberalism achieved dominance have deteroriated.
An interesting proposition, but this is just me thinking here- based on a few observations, but hear me out.
So, people aren't just flip-flopping and abandoning their principles. Left or right. But, both sides have these little... well, 'village idiots'. Loud village idiots. And those village idiots are everyone's favorite television freakshow attractions, they're basically ratings magnets and people will feed on the stupid for MONTHS. We both know this.
See, I think both sides are dissociating themselves from very vocal outliers and fringe elements. Slowly. More slowly than I'd like. But, you gotta understand that for every jabbering idiot going on about how God and Prayer and Creationism needs to be back in school with a White History month... well, you've got someone that is screaming about ten thousand genders just kafkatrapping away and finding some way to make literally everyone somehow a bigot.
...not many people are like that, you see. Most of us all think those folks are idiots. But, I don't know what happened- call it being negligent, blame the media for fueling peoples' outrage cravings, whatever... the point is that we didn't do what we've somehow done in the past and tell them to speed down the bumpy road to Hell on a unicycle with no seat and no lube. And so they got bigger and louder and... yeah, it's almost becoming what their opposition sees.
And funky thing about us people, man... we aren't all bad. We even all agree that there's problems we wanna fix, and we just see different ways of fixing them. It's not an evil world, y'know. Think about it- most of our arguments are because we're really passionate about making the world a better place and we just can't agree on the tools to use for it. That's pretty awesome, when you think on it.
And can be edited by any random person. But, I do like the idea of something built like a wiki and updated by analysts and data-miners- and only using actual information that can be confirmed through data sources (not other articles), collecting information and posting it in that format. Those analysts are the only ones that can edit the information.
And the red/blue drills mentioned? That'd work.
We can't sit here and pretend it's not feasible, dude. Come on.
If you're going to sit there and say that's flawed, I just hope you're not listening to the equally-if-not-more-flawed Journalists out there that are terrified this'll bury them. Because believe me, some of them need to be reduced to scribbling conspiracies on a napkin for a living.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: Hey look everyone. We have another person trying the 'both sides are bad' argument that has been thouroughly debunked multiple times.
Show me where 'both sides of the news media has lacking credibility in various sources' has been debunked. Show me where I can see something that says that one side over the other is factually correct and without flaw. Because this, good sir, is either a statement of umbrage, a fabrication, or a side effect of too much propaganda and confirmation bias.
By all means, please. Prove to me that you have an actual argument and something other than umbrage because the political cult you follow has had their honor slighted by some random dude on the internet.
I await your data, good sir.
Oh, let me help you out. I'm really trying to be a better person these days, so let me give you something to work with here: Finding a majority of people on a message board that agree with what you think about something isn't 'debunking' anything.
There you go, practically did half the work for you.
Or almost the entire free press, almost the entire intelligence community, and the majority of the government of this country are involved in a deep seated conspiracy to sabotage the president of the United States.
d-usa wrote: I mean, it’s truly a difficult scenario.
Either Trump really is that horrible.
Or almost the entire free press, almost the entire intelligence community, and the majority of the government of this country are involved in a deep seated conspiracy to sabotage the president of the United States.
Hold on, partner. Let me put this to you: He's not perfect. He's not even 'great'. He's a very, very flawed person and he's probably the most flawed guy we've had in a while. Fortunately, there's a degree of checks and balances that I sent MANY years through at least 4 Presidents... thanking the Founding Fathers for.
That, and he's basically openly said they're full of hot garbage, and a lot of people agree. The ratings, if what I'm hearing is correct, are dropping. The News Media industry is bothered right now, and rightfully so- this day and age, independent journalism (whether credible or not) is seeming to generate quite the following and a lot of people don't trust mainstream 'Infotainment' news. Understandable. It's a business and it has its audience, it's not a public service and their loyalty isn't always to 'inform the public'. It's practically reality television.
I know a guy that's an actual 'journalist'. He leaves his house once a week for groceries, and somehow he is considered to be, and paid as, an actual journalist. Holy crap, they're paying bloggers to collect 'news' and LARP as actual journalists. (Spoiler: He's quite lacking in credibility, but that's what his employer wants to hire and produce, so....)
But, this whole "Russia" thing, let me say what I've taken from the whole fiasco.
Somehow, after more than two centuries of actors both foreign and domestic exposing political corruption to the voting population through both ethical and unethical means... that we now suddenly have a significant crisis on our hands because one specific side was exposed for their skullduggery- and that this is also somehow 'unfair' because "maybe probably it's possible the other side is bad, too"? That I am to believe our democracy and national security is teetering on the edge of oblivion because this time in particular more so than anything, it was 'that blue team' that got their dirty laundry aired to the public?
The very core of this issue is some discomforting little putz with some weird artistic preferences and some rather odd email linguistics considered 'pa$$word1234' an adequate security measure to protect confidential material- the Information Security equivalent of using sausage links as a dog leash.
You'll have to pardon me if I see 'incompetence' as a recurring theme in Mrs. Clinton's political record, at least two major incidents relating to such in the last 3 years that tie directly back to either being incompetent or hiring the incompetent- if we're to believe it isn't malic. And incompetence is just as destructive as malice, it's just got a different facial expression when the defecation makes contact with the oscillation.
Yeah, this whole Russia and Trump thing isn't really a... thing. It's just theatrics because, well... I guess we're bored. Wars are winding down and nothing too crazy is happening. No one put the LGBT's in death camps and abortion's still legal, everyone's still got their rights intact so... gotta find something to spin into a crisis.
Buy Pepsi products.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/17 21:35:21
d-usa wrote: That’s a lot of text for not really saying much.
That's the usual response that I can assume means you have absolutely no argument, no relevant information to bring to the table, or anything like that.
I challenge you to show me something to make me reconsider. Please, by all means- work with me here.
Or I'll take that as your subtle refusal to challenge the statement.
Two individuals incapable of making a counter-argument, claiming that someone has said nothing.
Seems to be your MO as well, I've seen nothing but umbrage and "lol why should I read ur statement" from you, good sir.
Produce information to the contrary, or something to challenge or-
Just another forum equivalent of a discomforted grunt.
Grunt.
I'll spoil it for both of you: I think you both have difficulty arguing the point, because I'm not really diving into the game. You might not agree with me, but you can't really find a way to disagree. That's fine, I'll pretend you both are brilliant people if that'll satisfy you.
An interesting proposition, but this is just me thinking here- based on a few observations, but hear me out.
The material conditions under which society operates are still a vastly greater influence on why people abandon the labels of liberal and conservative than anything else.
And can be edited by any random person. But, I do like the idea of something built like a wiki and updated by analysts and data-miners- and only using actual information that can be confirmed through data sources (not other articles), collecting information and posting it in that format. Those analysts are the only ones that can edit the information.
Wikipedia is edited by amateurs and plagued with problems like no real common standards of layout, editing wars and the fundamental ideological differences and biases of those who write the articles.
Even if you've got professionals there is the problem of by which metrics they are evaluated and the fact that their employer has beliefs of their own and is unlikely to pay them to disagree.
d-usa wrote: That’s a lot of text for not really saying much.
That's the usual response that I can assume means you have absolutely no argument, no relevant information to bring to the table, or anything like that.
I challenge you to show me something to make me reconsider. Please, by all means- work with me here.
Or I'll take that as your subtle refusal to challenge the statement.
Mountain Dew and Vanilla Coke are beverages of equal splendor.
No I have just learned to not fully engage people like you, soon enough you will have a timeout from OT and or Dakka and we will forget you, happens quite often
Ustrello wrote: No I have just learned to not fully engage people like you, soon enough you will have a timeout from OT and or Dakka and we will forget you, happens quite often
I'd love to know what rule I've broken.
And I would tell you that unless you can bring a rational thought to the table, you're making the wise choice by not engaging. Because all I'm going to want is to see an actual argument, not your insults and complaints.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote: Even if you've got professionals there is the problem of by which metrics they are evaluated and the fact that their employer has beliefs of their own and is unlikely to pay them to disagree.
And that's fair as a concern.
Could we both agree that there is no perfect solution, but there's certainly a better one?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/17 21:47:55
Sure, there's no perfect solution. But I do think that the focus in "fact-checking" is undeserved. Facts don't really move people. Stories and explanations that hook into their lived experiences do.
Temporary lock until one of us can check out all the alerts this thread has generated...
Update now that I've looked through everything - Unfortunately, the posts from the last several pages have become needlessly combative and resorted to personal insults - one of the few things we very clearly disallow on Dakka.
I'm going to leave this locked over the weekend, and follow up with some of you via PM. Please remember, we just ask that you "be polite" when posting on Dakka - even when talking about politics, as difficult as that is. The rules are the same! No personal insults, no flamebaiting, and just mash that yellow triangle if there is a problem and we'll take care of it.
Thanks all...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/18 05:56:20
Alright, I'm re-opening the thread. I would ask that no one reply to a post from before this warning and start discussing current political issues fresh from here on.
It is interesting to me how Twitter has to figure out what to allow and disallow, without wading into hot button issues themselves. This one seems pretty easy (he posted inciting violence, a clear violation of their terms). But others are a Lot more grey...
It seems, in some ways, easier to handle in true, physical "public squares" (what social media is often compared to). There was a white supremacist rally in D.C. last week, and the police managed it smoothly and without incident (I think there was one arrest). I wonder if it's because everyone sees the consequences of possible actions - the people rallying are somewhat tempered by having to say horrible things in-person, rather than anonymously behind a screen, and counter-protestors are tempered by seeing that it is contained by public officials, and that free speech (even for horrible views) doesn't merit violence in return.
Online, all that goes out the window it seems . There are little consequences to anyone, and it quickly escalates...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/21 02:31:59
It is interesting to me how Twitter has to figure out what to allow and disallow, without wading into hot button issues themselves. This one seems pretty easy (he posted inciting violence, a clear violation of their terms). But others are a Lot more grey...
I'd like to say I'm surprised that people have jumped to his defense so much but then I remember him raving that Sandy Hook was a conspiracy and all the grieving parents were paid actors and that literally none of the people who eat up his shtick (which is a disturbingly large number of people) cared and then I feel sad inside
But. Yes in this same vein, who else finds it kind of hilarious that Melina Trump has finally gotten around to launching her anti cyberbullying campaign, while Donald is twitting (as she's giving her speech) a series of his patented twitter dumps that if they came out of the mouth of a 10 year old would be called cyberbulling? I'm torn between laughing my ass off at the absurdity, and kind of respecting the first lady a bit because people asked her about the issue and she basically said "don't care I'm doing this cause I care" and I think she really does care so I guess props to her.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/21 02:32:54
I like Melania's attitude about things like that a lot - she did similarly when Trump mocked LeBron right after he opened a school for kids in his hometown. The same day, she said she'd be happy to visit it if invited. Good for her
Yeah. Kind of a shame she isn't making herself as visible as the last few First Ladies (what is the story with taking two years to get her main initiative off the ground anyway?). She manages herself a hell of a lot better than her husband, disregarding how low a bar that is.
I don't mind the low profile / visibility... I like that she seems to be doing it how she feels comfortable. Honestly the best thing about this white house
Another interesting NPR story I heard over the weekend (I drive a lot ) was about movies shown in the white house. Apparently, you can find out almost all of them through Freedom of Information requests, after a certain amount of time has passed (Obama's movie selections aren't released yet).
"@realDonaldTrump tells @Reuters he has chosen not to be involved in Mueller probe but is "totally allowed" to be if he wanted to. "I've decided to stay out. Now, I don't have to stay out, as you know. I can go in and I could... do whatever, I could run it if I want.""
While Jon Oliver of course was on fire as usual!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/21 03:10:10
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
It is interesting to me how Twitter has to figure out what to allow and disallow, without wading into hot button issues themselves. This one seems pretty easy (he posted inciting violence, a clear violation of their terms). But others are a Lot more grey...
It seems, in some ways, easier to handle in true, physical "public squares" (what social media is often compared to). There was a white supremacist rally in D.C. last week, and the police managed it smoothly and without incident (I think there was one arrest). I wonder if it's because everyone sees the consequences of possible actions - the people rallying are somewhat tempered by having to say horrible things in-person, rather than anonymously behind a screen, and counter-protestors are tempered by seeing that it is contained by public officials, and that free speech (even for horrible views) doesn't merit violence in return.
Online, all that goes out the window it seems . There are little consequences to anyone, and it quickly escalates...
Twittah, Facebook, et. el. needs to decide if they're publishers, which enjoys wide latitudes in censoring certain contents... or if they're a platform, which can get dicey.
Regardless... they need to pull what the broadband companies did back in the '90s and impose some rational self rules and regulations before the government decides to step in.
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
. There are little consequences to anyone, and it quickly escalates...
) was about movies shown in the white house. Apparently, you can find out almost all of them through Freedom of Information requests, after a certain amount of time has passed (Obama's movie selections aren't released yet).
