As an aside, what is this board’s position on public inscriptions of the Nine Commandments?
George Carlin (I think) had a routine that rendered the Ten Commandments down to two. The gist of the two was “don’t be a dick”.
Personally I have no problem with displaying this sentiment on public buildings.
Here’s the thing, CNN on occasion has made errors in their reporting. When it’s found out they had made an error they apologize and do a retraction story.
How often does this happen on Fox news?
MtM
Please refer to Post #58.
I attempted to explain that my objection to the comment was about bigotry and not about the quality or morality of a particular news organization’s presentations.
I apologize if I did not succeed, but the anger has more or less worn off and I have kind of moved on
Getting back to the OP, I think people develop a personal morale code and usually, more or less stick to it.
In the case of Mr. Trump’s supporters, I am a loss (usually) to figure out how these guys reconcile this support with other, contradictory beliefs. My opinion is that while the basics of religion outline (generally) a morale compass that is peaceful, in practice the behavior I see or that are recorded by history seems to go astray of that compass.
I was trained and practiced as a behaviorist, so I try to avoid trying to figure out what someone is thinking.
So all I can offer is that there is no way to get people out of the dissonance when their reported morale code conflicts with their reported beliefs about one politician or another Communicating on a personal level can sometimes be useful but I gave up talking to religionists a good while ago.
I just don’t know.
What do you think of Carlin’s idea for condensing the Ten Commandments?
Would you have objected in the same way if someone asked how we can protect old people from scammers, or young people from binge drinking or the bad influence of pornography? (Maybe you’d still object to the ‘little’ part?) Some problems really do affect one age group more than another. It seems to me you just don’t think Fox news is something people need to be protected from.
@ ohiomstr2 — I’m disappointed that you were unable to answer my questions in #52, e.g.
“Do you agree that Fake News, with Fox News as one of the most egregious evil-doers, is a very serious threat to American democracy?” Can you name who you think are two or three of the largest purveyors of “Fake News”? A list of “Breitbart, Sean Hannity and Fox News” is one thing, but a list of “BBC, New York Times and Fox News” might get a totally different response.
Ok, one last time, and I apologize to the OP for the hijack, but i didn’t start this.
My objection to the original post regarding little old white folks was the apparent assumption that this “class” of individuals is too ignorant and stupid to understand that watching a particular news broadcast is dangerous. It was not about the accuracy, bent or morality of a particular broadcaster. It is my opinion that pretty much any broadcaster can say what they want, it is up to me to decide what to accept.
Accusing and attempting to “protect” someone from themselves because they are too stupid and ignorant to make valid choices is, in my view, no different than attempts to protect "those poor misguided (insert ethnic group here) " from voting the “wrong way” were 60 years ago. Doing so is no less arrogant, no less bigoted and no less wrong. Bigotry and discrimination is a two way street Perhaps, as suggested by this thread’s OP, it might be wise to examine your personal morale code before you go marching down that road.
The folks I have talked to, and occasionally persuaded, were overwhelmingly against “liberal” ideas because they did not see the benefits offered to them, personally. Democans have been making this error for decades. Assuming, possibly incorrectly, that a group of is too ignorant to understand the message, instead of explaining the benefits, might be the tool that is missing.
Of course I am not talking about stopping criminal activity, I am talking about what appears to be an attempt to restrict access to a broadcaster whose opinions you disagree with. As far as I can tell the news broadcasters I pay attention too, with the possible exception of the BBC, are owned, operated and\or heavily funded by corporate interests and it seems likely that the editorial stance may be influenced by these interests. Frankly I miss the days when broadcast news organizations were a separate entity with, you know, actual journalists reporting and separate from the profit centers of the corporations that owned them. Alas, capitalism marches on and those days seem to be behind us.
I believe I made my opinion of Fox News clear. The reporting and opinion pieces I see there are indeed prejudiced and frequently ignorant and just plain propaganda. But that does not lead me to stop paying attention and certainly does not lead me to advocate that they should be banned
I am still waiting to hear about how I am to be protected from Fox News.
Instead of attacking your political “enemies” try showing them how you are right. It might work.
So stop and think about the assumptions you may make about folks who disagree with you. Assuming and telling folks they are too dumb and stupid is going to piss them off and possibly reach for the bat.
Now, please just stop with the bigoted labels.
What do you think of the idea of having you Congress person advertise their Corporate sponsors and rendering the Ten Commandments down to “don’t be a dick”?
Call me stupid but I think ohiomstr2 is saying is what a lot of conservatives say - “I don’t need the government protecting me. I can handle it myself” Its a pillar of conservative beliefs. People do not want to be told, “You don’t know any better. We do and we’ll handle this for you”. Just because some unknown number of a class that I am a part of believes differently than you (even if the bases for those beliefs are demonstrably/factually incorrect), doesn’t give you the right to limit their access to those bases.
If you really believe that old white people are that influenced by Fox and the vote a certain way because of that, just wait a while. They won’t be old forever.
Personally, I think Fox is a bad joke and watch it only rarely. Even then, its just to see what they are saying or not saying as opposed to the rest of the media.
Binge drinking and pornography aren’t illegal, and I didn’t see anyone suggesting banning Fox news. (Though come to think, you **have **banned young people from drinking. Do you consider that patronising too?) You see a news broadcaster, they see harmful propaganda, but it really depends what is meant by ‘protect’. People have a right to watch whatever TV they want, so probably all anyone can do is try to expose these friends and family members to other sources of information to maintain a balance, something you say you do anyway.
What happened to doing things because it’s right, rather than because they benefit you?
Don’t they already have to report who their donors are? And I think your ten commandments plan would probably piss off everybody, the Christians because you’re taking it upon yourself to alter god’s word, other religions because you’re neglecting them, and the non-religious because it would mix government and religion.
Finally getting away from dangerous news, however this discussion seems fitting for a new thread. Likely will get around to this as time and enthusiasm permits. Trying to type on this crappy keyboard that Amazon foisted on me is frustrating.
Perhaps a moderator can suggest an appropriate forum.
Seriously, I was not aware that my advocates in Congress reported their contributors, please provide a link for this if possible. Until recently I tended toward paying attention to local politicians so I truly don’t know about this.
As for the Ten Commandments, it was sarcastic, as was Mr. Carlin’s routine (well maybe not from him). My personal opinion is that religiosity does not belong on public buildings. I personally oppose religionists in any form but I gave up on converting them along time ago. However I don’t usually assume they are automatically stupid, no matter how misguided I believe they are.
I was hoping an American would answer, but some googling suggests the answer is yes, kinda:
"US federal election law requires all candidates to report each campaign donation to the Federal Election Committee (FEC). These filings offer insight into who is willing to put their money where their vote is.
“These reports do not include the large sums going to independent-expenditure only committees (super PACs) and other party and outside group spending. Super PACs must maintain a separation from the campaign.”
It doesn’t seem easy to get this information on the FEC website, though.
Not surprising that a large chunk of the sources of funds is hidden but thanks for the link. It would not have occurred to me to look at BBC. I still think (with tongue not so firmly planted in cheek) that Congress people should be required to wear a special garment that displays their sponsors decals. Similar to race drivers with the placement and size of the logos indicating the size of the donation. Way more fun than slogging through an obscure website that only gives partial information.
This does lead me to a question, how are the districts outlined for MP’s laid out? Here in the USA the districts are typically defined by the various state legislatures and are frequently set up to favor one major party or another. This naturally leads to attempts to disenfranchise voters I assume the UK uses a more civilized system but I genuinely don’t know how it is done there.
@ ohiomstr2 — Your posts are quite long, yet you continue to avoid the question I posed in #52 and #66. As I’ve explained already, the answer to this question is the key to your entire debate.
It’s just a yes/no question. I’ll make it easy for you:
___ Yes.
___ No.
What makes Fox News evil?
There is at least one thread dedicated to that topic if your desire to educate yourself is sincere. If you need to hijack this thread instead, start by explaining why you think Fake News and Lies are good for American democracy.
Asking for elaboration on a statement you made is not me hijacking. :rolleyes:
I doubt that it really has much to do with isolation. My older brother and my uncle both tend to consume right wing media almost exclusively and are convinced that mainstream media such as CNN, MSNBC, and the other major networks are biased. They’re both socially-involved with others.
I think the real issue is that the traditional media are trained to be critical - we can debate the degree to which that’s really true these days, but what I mean is that traditionally, journalists report news, they report facts, and they purport to do so without an overt political bias. However, if certain facts inherently destructive to a particular argument, then that can be perceived as bias.
Moreover, the kinds of issues we’re talking about matter - a lot. It’s one thing if Fox News reports that wine is healthier than beer and CNN reports that beer is healthier than wine. But the kinds of issues that are talked about in the modern media end up being characterized as commentaries on culture and identity. Perceptions of what’s fair and what’s accurate are influenced a lot by one’s own life experiences. When some commentator gets on CNN talking about the need for gun control laws after the latest mass shooting, some 70 year-old white guy in Indiana sits at home trying to recall a time in his life before the age of 50 when there were any mass shootings.
The issue is that much of what CNN and the mainstream media talk about seems to be at odds with the life experience of Fox News viewers, and it seems to be at odds with how they view themselves and members of their communities. Fox News viewers don’t see a lot of discrimination; they see a world in which minorities can vote and even hold management-level positions. Fox News viewers don’t see a glass ceiling; they see women holding all kinds of jobs. Fox News viewers see mass shootings only on TV and don’t see guns as inherently dangerous; they have a closet or two full of guns. They don’t see Trump as endangering the country; they see him saying things that previous politicians were afraid to talk about, and the country (for now) doesn’t seem to be any different than it was in 2016. They don’t understand all of the hyperventilation over climate change; they still have four seasons. People who don’t watch Fox News and people who are progressive generally tend to trust a variety of sources and then triangulate between those sources and their life experiences, whereas Fox News viewers and conservatives seem to function more based on the degree to which information aligns with their life experiences and sense of who they are. Progressives tend to trust information from people they don’t know or can’t easily identify; conservatives, not so much.
I don’t think anything is going to change until Fox News viewers begin feeling the effects of right-wing oligarchy and start to experience the consequences of their voting behavior. Those Trump voters who are now sitting with tons of rotting crops because they can’t sell it to global consumers? Maybe they’re starting to understand the price tag of making America great again - maybe. But I wouldn’t count on it, and it’s probably going to have much deeper consequences before a solid majority in this country begin fundamentally reassessing their worldview.
:smack: If we’re going to make progress in these debates, let us please address substance rather than rhetorical flourishes.
So do you think Fake News and Lies are good for American democracy or not? (Or should we spend another round of rejoinders on one-liners to avoid debating substance?)
Don’t feel confined to a Yes/No answer. You might choose among:
(a) CNN accidentally made a factual error and, although they retracted it some viewers missed the retraction. Therefore FoxNews is entitled to harp over and over on all the lies it wants. What about ___? Tu Quoque.
(b) The lame-stream media strives for ordinary facts, but America needs more enlightened sources, like Fox, with the gumption to go beyond mere rationalist or scientific truth, and use alternate facts to support a higher truth.
(c) ____________
But don’t let me put words in your mouth. Tell us what you really think about fake news in today’s America. Tell us if you’re proud that Republican speech teems with deliberate lies. Just skip the useless one-line non sequiturs, OK?
I wasn’t specifically searching the BBC, but that was one of the clearer explanations google found, and also has a link to the official website. Sponsorship logos is a funny idea, but more practically, the information could be made available in a more user friendly format and the Super PACs forced to list their donors, too.
There are boundary commissions to do the job:
Although the commissions are supposed to be independent and there are no bizarre salamander-shaped districts, that hasn’t stopped accusations of gerrymandering. Recently the party in power decided to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600, and just coincidentally, the change would have given them a majority of 16 in the last election instead of the hung parliament we ended up with in reality.
Also, the guidelines say constituencies should be of similar population and follow local authority boundaries, take account of local ties, etc, but there is nothing about making them competitive, and over half the seats in the Commons are considered safe. The one I live in now has always been very strongly inclined towards one party, so none of them bother to campaign here or address local concerns, and there is really no point in voting.