Objectively intelligent.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If FB sways you, you deserve to be swayed.

I’m sure meth is delightful. I shall not intentionally do meth.

You're not troubled by people not voting or going 3rd party because they believe false things?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

You're not troubled by people not voting or going 3rd party because they believe false things?

This would be unlike any other election how? Putin's effective, but he's hardly an innovator. There has never been an election in history in which politicians were not lying about one another, or interested third parties weren't interfering.

Also, it's generally a wash. I listen to the Left and hear a form of delusional thinking, naivete, considerable idiocy, and lack of concrete plans. Biden's a senile old man whose platform boils down to, "I'm not Trump. I'm going to raise taxes. But I'm also going to cozy up to all the corporations, so on almost any policy, their interests will come first. I will serve my neo-liberal owners."

OK. Fine.

From Trump you hear most of the same shit. He's similarly bought and paid for, and unlike Biden, he'll offer lower taxes. The problem with Trump is he's nuts, and I'm exhausted with the imbecile. The layer of crazy and stupid shit he piles on top of everything he does makes it impossible for me to vote for him. I also get creeped out by Barr. I suspect he may try to restart the war on drugs in earnest.

No good choice.

People on the left believe tons of dumb shit. People here admit that every day. They argue for silly policies that could never really work. They believe delusional things. Too much of the left is simply really fucking stupid.

The right is delusional and possibly psychotic. It lives in reality of its own and is filled with illiterate jackasses. It's almost entirely stupid, and the portion of it that isn't is craven and malevolent.

So you have credulous morons who ought to know better on the left and credulous morons who are pitiably dumb on the right. Either way, you have credulous morons believing a whole lot of seriously idiotic shit. I should be upset that there are so many fools in the voting public? Is that what you're suggesting? I am. But it seems to be Our National Condition. I find it hard to remain truly angry at something so prevalent there's almost no chance of it changing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Are you worried for the country that 50% of the people that should vote Biden might be swayed by Russian nonsense? That People that should have Hil were swayed? My whole entire point is that people that have graduated college accept a FB meme if it meets with their preconceived notions. That is a very big problem. That FB will let it happen, I mean, how do you fix that?

Yes. Very big problem. Not sure how you fix it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

1. The names would fill volumes. But also, he does name names. And when he does, you assert he’s bringing too many disparate sources together.

But that’s how it works. A person like like PLF is peppered from various angles, like his counterpart Fox viewer.

2. The media has devolved. Right and left. It’s garbage all around. The right is just dumber. You seem to value the credulous who think they’re smart above the generally credulous. That’s understandable when they’re driving your Uber, but here?

I'm glad you found media criticism that makes you happy.

3. Taibbi almost never uses the passive. He’s been driven to it.

Well played.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Read Henry’s In Defense of Elitism. I don’t disagree with the concept of lack of objectivity. I disagree with who should be considered elite.

Trump should certainly not, and nor should his staunchest detractors.

The media holds a candle for a competing idiocy. If you give me two idiocies and demand I pick, I pick a drink, and not voting.

You were talking about objectivity, so I responded about objectivity. If you are going to change subjects and talk about elitism, go nuts.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about, or what crazy ideas you attribute to me.

He says you are elite, he is not, and he resents you for it. Objectively.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You were talking about objectivity, so I responded about objectivity. If you are going to change subjects and talk about elitism, go nuts.

Your argument is an attack on objectivity. Essentially, you are saying that we must "make choices" about what is allowed to be stated on the OpEd pages.

But who makes those choices? Ah, yes -- someone whose views and sensibilities mirror yours.

This is an argument for laddering the quality of views. Hence, I leapt to Henry. (Sorry about expecting you to be a bit faster, but whatevs.) If we must ladder views, his book struck me as a great analysis of whose views are more worthy than others'.

Henry's "choices," were he allowed to rank what was worthy and what was not, would eliminate a lot of the pieces you favor, and a lot of the views you hold. (He'd be very much with you on trade and laissez faire economics.) He'd eliminate almost all of the right wing voices save Never-Trumpers.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

He says you are elite, he is not, and he resents you for it. Objectively.

I was saying he's the left wing analogue of a Fox News viewer. His politics are straight out of my sophomore year Poli Sci course. Almost universally in step with whatever the left holds as a sacred cow of the day.

He probably thinks Trump is responsible significantly for the racism that led to George Floyd's death. And if he understood even a shred of the economic causes behind that racism, he'd be left politically rootless, having found that the Democrats are as much if not more responsible than the GOP, or our current populist buffoon.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Are you worried for the country that 50% of the people that should vote Biden might be swayed by Russian nonsense? That People that should have Hil were swayed? My whole entire point is that people that have graduated college accept a FB meme if it meets with their preconceived notions. That is a very big problem. That FB will let it happen, I mean, how do you fix that?

Why do you think this only cuts one way? Are you suggesting FB only deludes to the right?

You don't fix that. That's called advertising, persuading. If I can lie to you on FB to get your vote, shame on you. If the left or right thinks the other side does it too effectively, then they need to find ways to counter it or do it better themselves. Or they can try to game the refs, as both seem to prefer to do.

You seem to want to ban political lies on social media. Do you realize how absurd, how utterly silly, that notion is?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This would be unlike any other election how? Putin's effective, but he's hardly an innovator. There has never been an election in history in which politicians were not lying about one another, or interested third parties weren't interfering.

Also, it's generally a wash. I listen to the Left and hear a form of delusional thinking, naivete, considerable idiocy, and lack of concrete plans. Biden's a senile old man whose platform boils down to, "I'm not Trump. I'm going to raise taxes. But I'm also going to cozy up to all the corporations, so on almost any policy, their interests will come first. I will serve my neo-liberal owners."

OK. Fine.

From Trump you hear most of the same shit. He's similarly bought and paid for, and unlike Biden, he'll offer lower taxes. The problem with Trump is he's nuts, and I'm exhausted with the imbecile. The layer of crazy and stupid shit he piles on top of everything he does makes it impossible for me to vote for him. I also get creeped out by Barr. I suspect he may try to restart the war on drugs in earnest.

No good choice.

People on the left believe tons of dumb shit. People here admit that every day. They argue for silly policies that could never really work. They believe delusional things. Too much of the left is simply really fucking stupid.

The right is delusional and possibly psychotic. It lives in reality of its own and is filled with illiterate jackasses. It's almost entirely stupid, and the portion of it that isn't is craven and malevolent.

So you have credulous morons who ought to know better on the left and credulous morons who are pitiably dumb on the right. Either way, you have credulous morons believing a whole lot of seriously idiotic shit. I should be upset that there are so many fools in the voting public? Is that what you're suggesting? I am. But it seems to be Our National Condition. I find it hard to remain truly angry at something so prevalent there's almost no chance of it changing.

Taibbi hates the US security national security and intelligence apparatus and is likely compromised by the Russians (two things that are likely interrelated). What’s your excuse?

Right now is the absolute dumbest time for this false equivalence nonsense. As just the easiest example, who on the left is doing the equivalent of trying to suppress testing to pretend the pandemic is no big deal?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Why do you think this only cuts one way? Are you suggesting FB only deludes to the right?

You don't fix that. That's called advertising, persuading. If I can lie to you on FB to get your vote, shame on you. If the left or right thinks the other side does it too effectively, then they need to find ways to counter it or do it better themselves. Or they can try to game the refs, as both seem to prefer to do.

You seem to want to ban political lies on social media. Do you realize how absurd, how utterly silly, that notion is?

It can't delude to the right. If anyone is not disgusted by Trump by now, they will vote for Trump. What was proven to have happened is that Dems were moved to believe 1) why bother voting Hil is really no different than trump, or 2) this is a great time to make a statement to the establishment by voting third party, both points bolstered by "she will win anyway."

I don't want to ban anything. I'm trying to educate what people I can to at least think, so that when they see crap that moves them to either point 1) or 2) they at least question the "facts."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Your argument is an attack on objectivity.

I'm not "attacking" objectivity. I'm saying your notion of press objectivity is myth. It does not exist.

Essentially, you are saying that we must "make choices" about what is allowed to be stated on the OpEd pages.

Are you familiar with the NYT op-ed page? On paper, it takes up two pages. That's enough room for, say, three editorials, some letters to the editor, two columns by regular columnists, and two guest pieces. It's hardly a brainstorm to point out that someone has to "make choices" about what will appear in that limited space. There has always been someone whose job it is to "make choices" about what appears in a newspaper. That person is typically called an "editor" because they "edit" the pieces before they appear, in the process, "making choices" about what is said. None of this is particular controversial to anyone who has, say, ever picked up a newspaper.

But who makes those choices? Ah, yes -- someone whose views and sensibilities mirror yours.

If you are trying to describe the world as it is, this is obviously wrong. If you are trying to describe the world as it should be, I don't really care about the personal views and sensibilities of the editor of the NYT op-ed page. I'd rather not need to know who that person is. A good editor elevates the voices of the authors she is editing. A good editor of an op-ed page curates interesting views. Do I want an op-ed page that simply tells me what I already believe? No, I do not. For that, I could have Facebook, as I was just saying. Pass, thanks.

The New York Times has never, ever chosen to use its op-ed page to reflect the wide range of political views. It does not publish pieces calling for things like communism, racism, man-boy love, or ethnic cleansing, even though all have their adherents. It has always had editors who have edited its pages to reflect a certain set of views. Please don't be shocked to learn that there has been gambling in this casino.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I was saying he's the left wing analogue of a Fox News viewer.

Your insistence that there is some left-wing counterpart of Fox News viewers is a willful blindness. It must be really important to your self-image.

His politics are straight out of my sophomore year Poli Sci course. Almost universally in step with whatever the left holds as a sacred cow of the day.

Ah, yes, the monolithic left, and its sacred cow of the day. It used to be that you could just read the New York Times op-ed page to know what to think, but then they screwed things up by including other views and we were all confused. Fortunately, along came Facebook, and we can all just send each other memes there so that we know what to think.

I don't really know what Flower thinks about a lot of stuff, so it's impressive that you do.

He probably thinks Trump is responsible significantly for the racism that led to George Floyd's death.

Flower has actually said a lot about George Floyd's death, mostly grounded in living the place where it happened, and none of it (as I recall) having anything to do with Trump. It must be easier to explain what he probably thinks if you don't actually read his posts.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't really know what Flower thinks about a lot of stuff, so it's impressive that you do.

A lot of us have flower on ignore, so when you speak about his content you are forcing us to see and read things we have already decided not to look at.

Flower has actually said a lot about George Floyd's death, mostly grounded in living the place where it happened, and none of it (as I recall) having anything to do with Trump. It must be easier to explain what he probably thinks if you don't actually read his posts.

Who is flower?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Your insistence that there is some left-wing counterpart of Fox News viewers is a willful blindness. It must be really important to your self-image.

Shall I just reverse this? I hate saying "Your insistence to the contrary shows that you reside in a bubble." But I don't know how else to put it.

If you think there aren't left wing media sources that traffic in Fox-like behavior, you aren't living in reality.

Ah, yes, the monolithic left, and its sacred cow of the day. It used to be that you could just read the New York Times op-ed page to know what to think, but then they screwed things up by including other views and we were all confused. Fortunately, along came Facebook, and we can all just send each other memes there so that we know what to think.

His views tend to nearly lockstep with a demographic profile of a center/progressive who thinks Mother Jones is a source of serious commentary and news.

Flower has actually said a lot about George Floyd's death, mostly grounded in living the place where it happened, and none of it (as I recall) having anything to do with Trump. It must be easier to explain what he probably thinks if you don't actually read his posts.

He's very clearly of the opinion Trump is some form of existential threat. That puts one in the deluded bucket for two reasons. First, it's a rather extreme and paranoid view of the power of politics. (Kinda like people who believe the President controls the economy.) Second, it shows a bird bath deep understanding of the issues. Decades of economic policies that our government has followed caused the circumstances in which Trump emerged as a symptom.

He is not the cause. He's the metastatic tumor that finally results after decades of disease.

What he's said about Floyd in regard to living through the riots is worth reading. The connection he routinely makes between Trump being the cause of much racism, and a significant driver of the classism and racism that splits the country, is naive. The split is caused by a number of aligned actors who seek to divide the disenfranchised, white and black. Trump is simply the opportunist capitalizing on it.

The doomsday most of the top 20% of the country fears most is one in which the groups which are being marginalized stop squabbling, realize they're being divided and conquered, and get behind a candidate like Sanders. The affluent and educated who actually understand the American class structure will pay lip service to curing racism, or uniting people, but they don't really want that. They need to have the poor split along class, regional, and racial lines, so their votes can be neutralized, never congealing en masse behind any real transformative candidate.

That's why people here freaked about Bernie in roughly the same way Republicans did. "Holy shit... That guy's going to gore our ox!"

If you don't see the world thru the lens I just described... If you buy into the bickering, if you focus on party, if you allow the media to whip Trump into some massively scary would-be despot, rather than the hapless PT Barnum he is, your views can only be described as unlettered. Highly unlettered.

And yet that's so much of the country, on both sides of the argument. Including many people here, who should know better.