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.
And by leaving the decision over whom could vote to states they knew would continue slavery, they were complicit.
They had the power, and used it to better their own lives, in the name of freedom. While allowing slavery to continue. Again, outside looking in, that’s just selfish.
They went to war for what they believed in, with the English. They didn’t believe in freedom for all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/16 13:38:50
Rosebuddy wrote: ... When anarchists want to abolish hierarchies I am quite confidently 100% certain that they are talking about hierarchies of power and wealth, not of individual ability at painting toy soldiers. They don't seek to abolish expertise.
But one inevitably leads to the other. Individuals have greater ability and succeed more, gaining power and wealth. For some people it might be painting toy soldiers, but for other people it might be more relevant areas of expertise like beating people up and taking all of their stuff. Anarchism is, at best, incredibly naive about human nature and will never work in practice.
Watch out Peregrine, you are dangerously close to throwing lobsters around here
Ouze wrote: Xenomancers, for a guy who gets defensive about people claiming you post in bad faith, these are some of your posts from the last couple of pages.
I mean - you can basically confuse people into answering a question wrong by asking really unfair questions.
You ask for a cite and then immediately declare you won't believe it anyway.
Xenomancers wrote: [Okay - that is interesting. It changes nothing though - it's literally the exact same problem.
You posted a story that you mischaracterized to the point it was a blatant lie, and when called on it, you doubled down on it by moving the goalposts to a different argument.
Xenomancers wrote: This kind of dishonesty is the absolute worst. Guy honestly claims to have never said anything hateful in a casual conversation. Then another clown calls it bait. It is an obviously true statement that shouldn't actually need to be stated. Everyone has said something hateful in their life.
You claimed 100% of people have used the N-word. When called on it, you doubled down on it by claiming everyone has"ever said anything hateful in a casual conversation", which was not the original argument, a rather lazy strawman.
You have absolutely no room to complain when you get called out on these kinds of bad-faith arguments.
I'm not going to blindly accept the results of a poll without knowing what questions were asked. That is why I want to see the poll. Blind faith = bad.
Also - if you look at my (completely unedited post) I said everyone has used that word or a "SIMILAR one" - which means you are the one that is misrepresenting here - not me.
I was going to go on and talk about hypocrisy and such but I'll just leave this here. There is nothing to be gained from this.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/16 15:26:59
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Also - if you look at my (completely unedited post) I said everyone has used that word or a "SIMILAR one" - which means you are the one of is misrepresenting here - not me.
What do you class as a similar word to the N-word?
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Also - if you look at my (completely unedited post) I said everyone has used that word or a "SIMILAR one" - which means you are the one of is misrepresenting here - not me.
What do you class as a similar word to the N-word?
All racial hate speech. With hate being the key word there.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
greatbigtree wrote: And by leaving the decision over whom could vote to states they knew would continue slavery, they were complicit.
They had the power, and used it to better their own lives, in the name of freedom. While allowing slavery to continue. Again, outside looking in, that’s just selfish.
They went to war for what they believed in, with the English. They didn’t believe in freedom for all.
Some of the people at the constitutional convention believed in abolishing slavery or giving equal representation to slaves but there weren't enough of them to codify such beliefs into the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution. That's why Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 of the constitution has the 3/5ths compromise. There were people at the convention that objected to slavery and knew that it was going to cause trouble for the nation in the future. England and France still had legal slavery at the time the USA was founded, slavery was acceptable to a large portion of Western society at the time. There were people who objected to it and there were abolitionist movements against it, Franklin wasn't ignorant of the abolitionist movement in France that saw slavery abolished there in 1794 (only to have Napolean bring it back a decade later). There just wasn't enough votes at the convention to take any abolitionist action so they compromised and slavery stayed legal. How does that phrase go? "This is what democracy looks like." Yes, there absolutely was support for slavery at the constitutional convention but it wasn't unanimous.
Culture is fluid, it changes over time. Self interest is internal, it's an intrinsic motivation for humanity. England mostly abolished slavery in 1833 and France got rid of it in 1848 and after decades of compromises the slave states seceded in 1860-1861 because everyone recognized that in the next decade or two there would be enough support in Congress to abolish slavery in the US as well. I don't fault people for not sharing my beliefs in equality, there's millions of people in the world that are raised in cultures that don't share the same values as current western society. I do fault people for reacting poorly when they are made away of different and opposing views. The US political leadership at the time knew that England and France were abolishing slavery and why they thought it was a good idea and our leaders handled that information about as poorly as they possibly could and it led to a terribly destructive war whose repercussions still affect us today.
After a contentious debate, the compromise that was finally agreed upon—of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers—reduced the representation of the slave states relative to the original proposals, but improved it over the Northern position.[6] An inducement for slave states to accept the Compromise was its tie to taxation in the same ratio, so that the burden of taxation on the slave states was also reduced.
The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which reads:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
The three-fifths ratio originated with a 1783 amendment proposed to the Articles of Confederation. The amendment was to have changed the basis for determining the wealth of each state, and hence its tax obligations, from real estate to population, as a measure of ability to produce wealth. The proposal by a committee of the Congress had suggested that taxes "shall be supplied by the several colonies in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex, and quality, except Indians not paying taxes".[7][8] The South immediately objected to this formula since it would include slaves, who were viewed primarily as property, in calculating the amount of taxes to be paid. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his notes on the debates, the southern states would be taxed "according to their numbers and their wealth conjunctly, while the northern would be taxed on numbers only".[9]
After proposed compromises of one-half by Benjamin Harrison of Virginia and three-fourths by several New Englanders failed to gain sufficient support, Congress finally settled on the three-fifths ratio proposed by James Madison.[10] But this amendment ultimately failed, falling two states short of the unanimous approval required for amending the Articles of Confederation (only New Hampshire and New York were opposed).
A contentious issue at the 1787 Constitutional Convention was whether slaves would be counted as part of the population in determining representation of the states in the Congress or would instead be considered property and, as such, not be considered for purposes of representation. Delegates from states with a large population of slaves argued that slaves should be considered persons in determining representation, but as property if the new government were to levy taxes on the states on the basis of population. Delegates from states where slavery had become rare argued that slaves should be included in taxation, but not in determining representation.
The proposed ratio was, however, a ready solution to the impasse that arose during the Constitutional Convention. In that situation, the alignment of the contending forces was the reverse of what had obtained under the Articles of Confederation. In amending the Articles, the North wanted slaves to count for more than the South did because the objective was to determine taxes paid by the states to the federal government. In the Constitutional Convention, the more important issue was representation in Congress, so the South wanted slaves to count for more than the North did.[citation needed]
Much has been said of the impropriety of representing men who have no will of their own.... They are men, though degraded to the condition of slavery. They are persons known to the municipal laws of the states which they inhabit, as well as to the laws of nature. But representation and taxation go together.... Would it be just to impose a singular burden, without conferring some adequate advantage?
— Alexander Hamilton[11]
Who is still on the fence? Why do we need to worry about that one weird guy?
But seriously, anyone who still hasn't figured out what he or she thinks about Trump is likely not to be part of the dynamic political force you need in an election.
Kilkrazy wrote: I see the US media has launched a concerted counterblast to Trump's oppressive and dangerous rhetoric.
I think this is actually a huge mistake, personally.
If you don't like Trump, this convinces you of nothing.
If you like Trump, this convinces you of nothing.
If you're on the fence, I think it feeds into the narrative Trump puts out that the media is colluding in a fixed cabal to bring him down.
So, what is the alternative? If you try to attack you lose, and if you sit on your hands you lose...... is the only option not to play?
Not at all. I think newspapers can and should write editorials and opinion pieces that better educate their customers as they see fit. They do it literally every day.
It's organizing them into this organized cartel, however temporarily, that is a mistake IMO. It now totally vindicates the the bunker, "us-vs-them" mentality the right wing embraces and it does so for no real gain I can see.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/16 15:03:10
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Also - if you look at my (completely unedited post) I said everyone has used that word or a "SIMILAR one" - which means you are the one of is misrepresenting here - not me.
What do you class as a similar word to the N-word?
Also - if you look at my (completely unedited post) I said everyone has used that word or a "SIMILAR one" - which means you are the one of is misrepresenting here - not me.
Pay more attention to what you actually say, because words and their meanings actually do matter. In the post in question, you said everybody has used that word "causally", when you probably meant "casually", but the meaning is significantly different. Just above you said "one of is" when you likely meant "one of us". In another post you accused d-usa of an ad hominem against you because he was "undermining" your intelligence, which I'm pretty sure is not what you meant to say.
Words matter, and if you make the effort to use the right words, people might understand you a bit better.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Here is the real question - why is it news that someone no longer in government and works for a news channel lost their security clearance? He shouldn't have one anyways. LOL. Luaghably stupid stuff here.
You can skip past The tucker Carlson speech - though I must admit - everything he says make sense. The Rand Paul part is the part wanted to watch - because he is pretty much one of the only reasonable people in congress. I think his opinions would be well received on both sides.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/16 15:19:08
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Kilkrazy wrote: I see the US media has launched a concerted counterblast to Trump's oppressive and dangerous rhetoric.
I think this is actually a huge mistake, personally.
If you don't like Trump, this convinces you of nothing.
If you like Trump, this convinces you of nothing.
If you're on the fence, I think it feeds into the narrative Trump puts out that the media is colluding in a fixed cabal to bring him down.
So, what is the alternative? If you try to attack you lose, and if you sit on your hands you lose...... is the only option not to play?
Not at all. I think newspapers can and should write editorials and opinion pieces that better educate their customers as they see fit. They do it literally every day.
It's organizing them into this organized cartel, however temporarily, that is a mistake IMO. It now totally vindicates the the bunker, "us-vs-them" mentality the right wing embraces and it does so for no real gain I can see.
Agreed. The media should do their job and investigate and research politicians/govt, speak truth to power and inform the public as to the actions and statements of our leaders. Being professional and exposing Trump's horribleness is enough there isn't a good reason to launch a concerted overt vendetta against a politician. Blatant personal bias doesn't make media coverage better it only makes it less effective. The vitriol needs to be toned down, there's plenty of factual negative information to report on politicians we don't need turn all our media outlets into platforms for rants of extremist exaggerate half truths, hyperbole, misrepresentations and lies about politicians that media members don't like. It was crazy when media went overboard with anti Bush rhetoric, it was crazy when media went overboard with anti Obama rhetoric and now the media is going overboard with anit Trump rhetoric. That's not a defense of Trump, he's been a terrible person for decades and there's an ever growing pile of evidence that he's still terrible. The media should report on Trump's awfulness but they don't improve their message by surrounding it with melodramatic outrage and histrionics.
Also - if you look at my (completely unedited post) I said everyone has used that word or a "SIMILAR one" - which means you are the one of is misrepresenting here - not me.
What do you class as a similar word to the N-word?
The “K-word” for Jews is a contender.
Just as a PSA I don't think we should go down this road. Let's just agree that racial epithets are bad and not try to list all of the worst ones by typing them without really typing them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/16 15:24:37
Also - if you look at my (completely unedited post) I said everyone has used that word or a "SIMILAR one" - which means you are the one that is misrepresenting here - not me.
Pay more attention to what you actually say, because words and their meanings actually do matter. In the post in question, you said everybody has used that word "causally", when you probably meant "casually", but the meaning is significantly different. Just above you said "one of is" when you likely meant "one of us". In another post you accused d-usa of an ad hominem against you because he was "undermining" your intelligence, which I'm pretty sure is not what you meant to say.
Words matter, and if you make the effort to use the right words, people might understand you a bit better.
I'm pretty Dyslexic - I didn't even realize that. Thanks for pointing that out. You were very well able to know my meaning though. Casually was obviously a typo. Undermining is exactly what I meant to say.
I fixed errors
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/16 15:26:09
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
The Quinnipiac poll had some interesting bits in regards to the media, 51% of Republicans seem to agree with Trump that the media are the enemy of the people. With 13% being on the fence. Pretty incredible.
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)
Disciple of Fate wrote: The Quinnipiac poll had some interesting bits in regards to the media, 51% of Republicans seem to agree with Trump that the media are the enemy of the people. With 13% being on the fence. Pretty incredible.
Kind of an odd question though isn't it? Enemy is a loaded word. Regardless of what trump said.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
skyth wrote: Apparently Brennan's security clearance was revoked by the dumpster fire because he was part of the probe into Russian interference.
I think history will show that Donald Trump was one of the most corrupt and unethical presidents we've ever had. I can't help but think each day when I read the news headlines "Does the rest of the free world see our president as little more than a raving lunatic with a smart phone?"
If you look at the people whose security clearance his administration is reviewing, all of them, every last one of them is a critic of his. Imagine how sad one must be to have to use their power, a power granted to them by the voters [and revoke-able at any time by the way.] to try and hurt political opponents and critics.
Look, we can argue these topics until we are all blue in the face. Bottom line is, I want to see my fellow citizens get out and vote this year. I don't care how they vote, just that they do. If turnout was above 60% a lot of things would change for the better for the average citizen in the US.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: The Quinnipiac poll had some interesting bits in regards to the media, 51% of Republicans seem to agree with Trump that the media are the enemy of the people. With 13% being on the fence. Pretty incredible.
No surprise there, he's been doing everything he can to demonize anyone who doesn't support him since he took power. He uses plays right out of Hitlers lackey's play books on propaganda and gas lighting.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The Quinnipiac poll had some interesting bits in regards to the media, 51% of Republicans seem to agree with Trump that the media are the enemy of the people. With 13% being on the fence. Pretty incredible.
Kind of an odd question though isn't it? Enemy is a loaded word. Regardless of what trump said.
An odd question if you disagree or agree?
If they thought it was loaded they could have stuck to the fence, 51% decided that not only are they fine with it they also agree with the sentiment. Some personal accountability on this is expected.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/16 15:55:59
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)
Disciple of Fate wrote: The Quinnipiac poll had some interesting bits in regards to the media, 51% of Republicans seem to agree with Trump that the media are the enemy of the people. With 13% being on the fence. Pretty incredible.
Kind of an odd question though isn't it? Enemy is a loaded word. Regardless of what trump said.
An odd question if you disagree or agree?
If they thought it was loaded they could have stuck to the fence, 51% decided that not only are they fine with it they also agree with the sentiment. Some personal accountability on this is expected.
I think a more detailed poll would show similar results in the two Parties in reference to specific media outlets. While a majority of Democrats don't think the media in general is an enemy of the state what do you think the response would be like if Democrats were asked if Fox News damages political discourse in the US and if they thought Fox News was bad for democracy in the US? I think the resultant would be similar to the result of asking Republicans if they thought MSNBC and CNN damages political discourse in the use and were bad for democracy in the US. The big difference I see is that Republicans are more inclined to consider "the media" to be biased against Republicans and conservatives whereas Democrats are inclined to believe Fox News is biased but not "the media" in general.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The Quinnipiac poll had some interesting bits in regards to the media, 51% of Republicans seem to agree with Trump that the media are the enemy of the people. With 13% being on the fence. Pretty incredible.
Kind of an odd question though isn't it? Enemy is a loaded word. Regardless of what trump said.
An odd question if you disagree or agree?
If they thought it was loaded they could have stuck to the fence, 51% decided that not only are they fine with it they also agree with the sentiment. Some personal accountability on this is expected.
There is a strong known belief among republicans of a heavily slanted media. They want that to be recognized - practically none of them believe "the media" is the enemy. Suggesting a free and honest media would also be the enemy. It is a bad question IMO because I don't believe it gives you an honest answer.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Disciple of Fate wrote: The Quinnipiac poll had some interesting bits in regards to the media, 51% of Republicans seem to agree with Trump that the media are the enemy of the people. With 13% being on the fence. Pretty incredible.
Kind of an odd question though isn't it? Enemy is a loaded word. Regardless of what trump said.
An odd question if you disagree or agree?
If they thought it was loaded they could have stuck to the fence, 51% decided that not only are they fine with it they also agree with the sentiment. Some personal accountability on this is expected.
I think a more detailed poll would show similar results in the two Parties in reference to specific media outlets. While a majority of Democrats don't think the media in general is an enemy of the state what do you think the response would be like if Democrats were asked if Fox News damages political discourse in the US and if they thought Fox News was bad for democracy in the US? I think the resultant would be similar to the result of asking Republicans if they thought MSNBC and CNN damages political discourse in the use and were bad for democracy in the US. The big difference I see is that Republicans are more inclined to consider "the media" to be biased against Republicans and conservatives whereas Democrats are inclined to believe Fox News is biased but not "the media" in general.
But this is all very different, you go from "enemy of the people" to "damaging democracy". The tone is completely different. While you're correct that Republicans in a majority versus a minority of Democrats consider the media to have a political bias, that isn't what was asked here. Ipsos did a poll on that and 80% of Republicans thought the media was biased. If you take it as a rough estimate that is still a 30% gap between bias and enemy of the people. This is trying to argue both sides do this from a significantly toned down viewpoint.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The Quinnipiac poll had some interesting bits in regards to the media, 51% of Republicans seem to agree with Trump that the media are the enemy of the people. With 13% being on the fence. Pretty incredible.
Kind of an odd question though isn't it? Enemy is a loaded word. Regardless of what trump said.
An odd question if you disagree or agree?
If they thought it was loaded they could have stuck to the fence, 51% decided that not only are they fine with it they also agree with the sentiment. Some personal accountability on this is expected.
There is a strong known belief among republicans of a heavily slanted media. They want that to be recognized - practically none of them believe "the media" is the enemy. Suggesting a free and honest media would also be the enemy. It is a bad question IMO because I don't believe it gives you an honest answer.
Is this where you link to your poll data to where the 51% explains that they didn't really think that but just said it because the media is biased? For someone that took a poll on democrats and socialism as gospel you sure protest a lot when its clearly laid out that 51% agree with a specific sentiment. Again, if they didn't really think its the enemy of the people why not go for undecided?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/16 16:27:36
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)
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Kilkrazy wrote: I see the US media has launched a concerted counterblast to Trump's oppressive and dangerous rhetoric.
I think this is actually a huge mistake, personally.
If you don't like Trump, this convinces you of nothing.
If you like Trump, this convinces you of nothing.
If you're on the fence, I think it feeds into the narrative Trump puts out that the media is colluding in a fixed cabal to bring him down.
I disagree. . . It was complicity and doing nothing that had a large impact in the ultimate rise of the Nazi party in Germany. Unlike Mussolini, Hitler did not own the major media outlets and so to a greater degree relied on his rhetoric and their friendliness to it.
I think knowing these inarguable historical facts are leading these outlets to take the stance that they will not allow us to become a truly fascist state. I don't think that US media that stands against trump is doing so to bring him down, but rather, to be vocal in their opposition and hopefully keep the populace aware, and maybe THEY will be leading the call to bring him down.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The Quinnipiac poll had some interesting bits in regards to the media, 51% of Republicans seem to agree with Trump that the media are the enemy of the people. With 13% being on the fence. Pretty incredible.
Kind of an odd question though isn't it? Enemy is a loaded word. Regardless of what trump said.
An odd question if you disagree or agree?
If they thought it was loaded they could have stuck to the fence, 51% decided that not only are they fine with it they also agree with the sentiment. Some personal accountability on this is expected.
I think a more detailed poll would show similar results in the two Parties in reference to specific media outlets. While a majority of Democrats don't think the media in general is an enemy of the state what do you think the response would be like if Democrats were asked if Fox News damages political discourse in the US and if they thought Fox News was bad for democracy in the US? I think the resultant would be similar to the result of asking Republicans if they thought MSNBC and CNN damages political discourse in the use and were bad for democracy in the US. The big difference I see is that Republicans are more inclined to consider "the media" to be biased against Republicans and conservatives whereas Democrats are inclined to believe Fox News is biased but not "the media" in general.
All media has bias. I don't think anyone would anyone otherwise. You can never have 100% bias free editorial policy (although some people are working on automated editorial decision making that reduces bias). Even the most bland and inoffensive media will still have bias. You can make an outlet as balanced and bland as you want, but unless you publish everything ever written you are at least going to end up with more positive or negative items on a subject, person or view.
The problem is when people start to dismiss media outlets as bias just because they hold a different viewpoint, and start to believe bias is the same thing as lies. This does two things. One, it dismisses and hides negative press and two it prevents people from challenging lies. Fox is a good example. They have been proven to lie and lie again, and repeat lies without checking. Yet they are held as equal to news outlets that do not do this, but do have a bias in their reporting. Ones that report facts, but do so in a politically biased way, which is normal for media.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
Disciple of Fate wrote: The Quinnipiac poll had some interesting bits in regards to the media, 51% of Republicans seem to agree with Trump that the media are the enemy of the people. With 13% being on the fence. Pretty incredible.
Kind of an odd question though isn't it? Enemy is a loaded word. Regardless of what trump said.
An odd question if you disagree or agree?
If they thought it was loaded they could have stuck to the fence, 51% decided that not only are they fine with it they also agree with the sentiment. Some personal accountability on this is expected.
I think a more detailed poll would show similar results in the two Parties in reference to specific media outlets. While a majority of Democrats don't think the media in general is an enemy of the state what do you think the response would be like if Democrats were asked if Fox News damages political discourse in the US and if they thought Fox News was bad for democracy in the US? I think the resultant would be similar to the result of asking Republicans if they thought MSNBC and CNN damages political discourse in the use and were bad for democracy in the US. The big difference I see is that Republicans are more inclined to consider "the media" to be biased against Republicans and conservatives whereas Democrats are inclined to believe Fox News is biased but not "the media" in general.
All media has bias. I don't think anyone would anyone otherwise. You can never have 100% bias free editorial policy (although some people are working on automated editorial decision making that reduces bias). Even the most bland and inoffensive media will still have bias. You can make an outlet as balanced and bland as you want, but unless you publish everything ever written you are at least going to end up with more positive or negative items on a subject, person or view.
The problem is when people start to dismiss media outlets as bias just because they hold a different viewpoint, and start to believe bias is the same thing as lies. This does two things. One, it dismisses and hides negative press and two it prevents people from challenging lies. Fox is a good example. They have been proven to lie and lie again, and repeat lies without checking. Yet they are held as equal to news outlets that do not do this, but do have a bias in their reporting. Ones that report facts, but do so in a politically biased way, which is normal for media.
Everyone has bias. The great thing about being educated is that you can absorb what is presented to you, research it on your own and form your own conclusion. Too many people try to use a system of "trust" to then use that as an excuse to not do any research and just "listen and believe."
cuda1179 wrote: I'm a gun nut, and I would LOVE to see the following:
1. Fold the FBI and ATF into one agency. They have a lot of crossover anyway. When something goes wrong (Ruby Ridge, Waco) they all point the finger at the other. As a single agency the buck can't get passed as easy.
2. If you can prove habitual negligence when it comes to NOT entering NCIS data, that person and/or agency should be held liable for any illegal acts they allowed to happen.
3. Make background checks much easier to do, if you want to. FFL dealers should not have a monopoly on this.
4. More funding to making all the databases linked, computerized, and accurate.
5. Force ALL agencies that have info on those that are banned from owning guns to submit their data. Yes, this includes immigration.
I'm on board for most of this, #1 I'm pretty ambivalent on, and can foresee some odd behavior resulting from liability issues on #2 though can appreciate the theory, but man would I *looooooooooooooove* to be able to do a transfer background check without having to drive halfway across town to pay someone else just to do data entry when it's convenient for them if they feel like it, in between selling to actual customers.
That said, background check fees are probably a critical part of many brick and mortar FFL's razor-thin profit margins these days.
Even if individuals could run their own background checks, you would still likely need to pay a transfer fee to an FFL if you ordered a gun online. You still wouldn't be able to have them ship it to your home, so that leaves the FFL holders, who would then charge their fee.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The Quinnipiac poll had some interesting bits in regards to the media, 51% of Republicans seem to agree with Trump that the media are the enemy of the people. With 13% being on the fence. Pretty incredible.
Kind of an odd question though isn't it? Enemy is a loaded word. Regardless of what trump said.
An odd question if you disagree or agree?
If they thought it was loaded they could have stuck to the fence, 51% decided that not only are they fine with it they also agree with the sentiment. Some personal accountability on this is expected.
I think a more detailed poll would show similar results in the two Parties in reference to specific media outlets. While a majority of Democrats don't think the media in general is an enemy of the state what do you think the response would be like if Democrats were asked if Fox News damages political discourse in the US and if they thought Fox News was bad for democracy in the US? I think the resultant would be similar to the result of asking Republicans if they thought MSNBC and CNN damages political discourse in the use and were bad for democracy in the US. The big difference I see is that Republicans are more inclined to consider "the media" to be biased against Republicans and conservatives whereas Democrats are inclined to believe Fox News is biased but not "the media" in general.
But this is all very different, you go from "enemy of the people" to "damaging democracy". The tone is completely different. While you're correct that Republicans in a majority versus a minority of Democrats consider the media to have a political bias, that isn't what was asked here. Ipsos did a poll on that and 80% of Republicans thought the media was biased. If you take it as a rough estimate that is still a 30% gap between bias and enemy of the people. This is trying to argue both sides do this from a significantly toned down viewpoint.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The Quinnipiac poll had some interesting bits in regards to the media, 51% of Republicans seem to agree with Trump that the media are the enemy of the people. With 13% being on the fence. Pretty incredible.
Kind of an odd question though isn't it? Enemy is a loaded word. Regardless of what trump said.
An odd question if you disagree or agree?
If they thought it was loaded they could have stuck to the fence, 51% decided that not only are they fine with it they also agree with the sentiment. Some personal accountability on this is expected.
There is a strong known belief among republicans of a heavily slanted media. They want that to be recognized - practically none of them believe "the media" is the enemy. Suggesting a free and honest media would also be the enemy. It is a bad question IMO because I don't believe it gives you an honest answer.
Is this where you link to your poll data to where the 51% explains that they didn't really think that but just said it because the media is biased? For someone that took a poll on democrats and socialism as gospel you sure protest a lot when its clearly laid out that 51% agree with a specific sentiment. Again, if they didn't really think its the enemy of the people why not go for undecided?
This is strictly my opinion. The question in the Quinnipiac poll is leading you to an answer and uses loaded language.
Starting a question out with "do you agree with president trump" is a terrible line of questioning for reasons I hope don't need to explain and the word "enemy" gives the reader of the poll the wrong information. Most republican don't have any faith in the media - they don't literally think they are at war with the media.
The question could be more direct and get better answers. I think that is obvious.
The Gallop poll I posted it asked 2 questions (in a series of other questions about the government/economy)
Do you view socialism positively?
Do you view capitalism positively?
Definitely not leading or using loaded language - It could be more direct and specify in economic terms but that is really not that bad. Most people know what these terms mean.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Disciple of Fate wrote: The Quinnipiac poll had some interesting bits in regards to the media, 51% of Republicans seem to agree with Trump that the media are the enemy of the people. With 13% being on the fence. Pretty incredible.
Kind of an odd question though isn't it? Enemy is a loaded word. Regardless of what trump said.
An odd question if you disagree or agree?
If they thought it was loaded they could have stuck to the fence, 51% decided that not only are they fine with it they also agree with the sentiment. Some personal accountability on this is expected.
I think a more detailed poll would show similar results in the two Parties in reference to specific media outlets. While a majority of Democrats don't think the media in general is an enemy of the state what do you think the response would be like if Democrats were asked if Fox News damages political discourse in the US and if they thought Fox News was bad for democracy in the US? I think the resultant would be similar to the result of asking Republicans if they thought MSNBC and CNN damages political discourse in the use and were bad for democracy in the US. The big difference I see is that Republicans are more inclined to consider "the media" to be biased against Republicans and conservatives whereas Democrats are inclined to believe Fox News is biased but not "the media" in general.
All media has bias. I don't think anyone would anyone otherwise. You can never have 100% bias free editorial policy (although some people are working on automated editorial decision making that reduces bias). Even the most bland and inoffensive media will still have bias. You can make an outlet as balanced and bland as you want, but unless you publish everything ever written you are at least going to end up with more positive or negative items on a subject, person or view.
The problem is when people start to dismiss media outlets as bias just because they hold a different viewpoint, and start to believe bias is the same thing as lies. This does two things. One, it dismisses and hides negative press and two it prevents people from challenging lies. Fox is a good example. They have been proven to lie and lie again, and repeat lies without checking. Yet they are held as equal to news outlets that do not do this, but do have a bias in their reporting. Ones that report facts, but do so in a politically biased way, which is normal for media.
I don't disagree. I don't think I made my thoughts clear in that I don't think "the media" is an enemy of the state and I don't think reasonable people should believe that the media is an enemy of the country. There's too many media outlets and platforms that treat the truth as fungible in order to generate ratings or clicks and that's bad for everybody. Sticking with the Fox News example, Fox is one piece of "the media" and the people that believe Fox News is good media are likely to see the vast majority of media, that isn't Fox, as bad and respond that way to the survey. The people that believe Fox News is bad media are likely to believe that the rest of the media that isn't Fox is good. I don't think the survey really informs us much about the quality of media it just confirms that political partisanship impacts people's world view in a manner far more extensive than just my Party is good, the other Party is bad.