What were you THINKING?

The BBQ Pit
3176

This has come up on the board several times, but it bears repeating: if your news if free, you’re the product. There’s going to be slant or bias, which isn’t to say you should only “do your own research” but to dig into as much direct factual information as possible, and carefully evaluate the bias of all your sources.

Now, in most US based news, what they’re selling is -clicks- first, then any political lean a distant second (well get to Fox and ilk in a sec, generalities now), and lastly an emphasis on factual information.

The problem is, how do your sources, whatever they are, handle when their reporting is WRONG?

A reputable company posts a retraction, and when the issue returns in later news cycles, includes a mention of the prior reporting but confirms the correction.

An untrustworthy company doubles down on the false information, or goes for the classic “Well, people are saying…” or similar, disingenuous tactics.

And of course, there are more neutral sources that are out there, such as BBC news, which isn’t funded by clicks and internet outrage.

Back to posters.

People, we like and are expected to keep an open mind. And I have no problems with people who go with a “Trust but verify” with both their news sources and governments. But don’t keep your mind so open your brains fall out.

Too many conspiracy theories boil down to “I DON’T trust my Government / Party / Politicians / MSM so I WILL trust some internet rando!” while you have zero opportunities to verify said rando’s professional knowledge, sources, or anything else.

Don’t be like Ms. Sidney “Kraken” Powell - where trumpet (word chosen for emphasis) your conspiracies to the world, and demand to be taken seriously, when you can’t even be bothered to check if the ‘source’ is gathering information from semi-conscious mental time travel - IE a whackadoodle.

Of course, if you’re instead just trying to go for a sheer power grab, or a “hey, look at me moment” you’ll just loose all respect, albeit for a somewhat different reason.

3177

Yeah, we should have just laughed Loach off immediately when he revealed that his concern trolling was based on “stuff he read on the internet” from acquaintances who “aren’t going to vote for the ticket anyway”.

3178

Zero surprise that this board’s dumbest poster SuntanLotion believes 9/11 conspiracy theories.

3179

Oh come now, I can think of a few posters far in the lead for that title - at least SuntanLotion rarely doubles, triples, and quadruple downs on some half assed self-based genius assertation that others (with their own pit threads) manage on a regular basis.

Okay, I’m talking about HoneybadgerDC. Then again, I’m about 90+% convinced they’re not just proudly stupid in their own brilliance, but actively trolling.

3180

Velocity’s armchair bloodthirstiness re:the Russo-Ukrainian War really works on my nerves sometimes. I don’t think he is a particularly bad actor most of the time. But on that one topic he too often reads like a twenty-something (I don’t know that he is a twenty-something, he just reads like one) obsessed by the neato-keen aspects of modern warfare. And goddamn does he have an IMHO black and white, generally entirely unrealistic view of what works and what doesn’t. I kinda get some of it - I was fascinated by stuff like modern combat aircraft from a young age myself. But his seeming glee at imagined destruction (including civilian destruction) just fills me with a certain amount of grrr.

I’m not a big fan of his current irrational election exuberance either, but, eh - that’s a very tiny sin. However the Ukraine shit annoys me probably more than it should for a meaningless internet conversation.

3181

You’re not alone. It’s comic book hero / villain level thinking.

3182

I recently replayed Portal 2. One of the characters in it is Wheatley, an artificial intelligence who was created as an “intelligence dampening sphere,” a module designed to cripple a super-genius, super-villainous AI by feeding it a constant stream of terrible advice and bad ideas.

I keep thinking about Wheatley when I read Phillyguy’s advice to Kamala Harris. Don’t campaign so much! Stop fundraising! Don’t call Trump weird!

The advice is so bonkers bad that I wonder if it’s an attempt to slow her roll, if he imagines himself the Wheatley to Harris’s GladOS.

In any case, I read his posts in Stephen Merchant’s voice.

3183

Given their performance in the last eight years, taking election advice from a moderate Republican is like taking swimming lessons from a rock.

3184

PG is like a guy from my work. He’s conservative but does not like Trump. So, he asking why Democrats keep doing things he doesn’t like and how they should be more conservative. And even says the Dems should have gone with a conservative candidate.

Even when pointed out, it never really hits home that maybe it’s not the Democrats job to ignore their own base to satisfy some displaced Republicans and maybe the Pubbies need to do their own housecleaning before complaining about how other people should ruin their home by doing the same shitty things they did.

3185

Some previous opinions:

(There were a handful of posts after that one.)

Then later:

And most recently:

And then in this thread, I said:

So yeah, eyebrows are frequently raised.

3186

As I said in a different thread,

3187

I’m probably late on it, but I’ve started noticing that too. It might just be the parts of the board I read, I know there’s Ukraine threads in IMHO and/or MPSIMS, but I never read those parts of the board. Nothing against them, it’s just not my bag. And to be fair, the level of bloodthirstiness Ukraine has brought out in people everywhere on the internet can be fairly disgusting. I made the mistake of reading, and worse, interacting with the comments section of some very pro-Ukrainian channels I watch on YouTube. I guess in hindsight not surprisingly, I was accused of being a Putin bot account for the sin of pointing out that the attack on the satellite control center in Crimea had nothing to do with Russia’s early warning network to detect a nuclear first strike against it.

3188

Yeah.

What they want is a ballot with a Bush I or Romney as the (R) candidate, and a trump or trump-clone as the (M) candidate, and no (D) candidate anywhere on the ballot.

That’s their idea of a good election featuring the full range of (legitimate) American political opinion.

PG is a total shill for the Rs. Or for an imaginary party that he would label center-left that is still to the right of the actual 1980s Rs. Fuck that noise.

3189

Classic concern troll, tl;dr. I am always amazed when other Dopers try to psychoanalyse such, make excuses for them, tell just-so stories, and etc., when all the “I don’t like Trump/I’m a moderate, honest!” almost certainly is an act. These types know a True Unapologetic DFT Believer no longer can get off the ground on this board anymore.

3190

Nah, I think it’s for real. I know a few such. People who seriously think the Democrats should have run Joe Manchin or even a Bush so they can vote for their own preferred candidate, never mind that it makes absolutely no fucking sense.

It’s the same problem we see in Congress. When the Republicans are unreachable and can’t be shamed, it’s easier for some people to blame the Democrats for failing to stop them. PG is one of those.

They’ve lost their home in the Republican Party. They know that group has been taken over by Trump and will never listen to anyone else while he’s around. They also know 3rd parties are a lost cause. They also know the Democratic Party is still open to opinions.

So, they decide it would be better to go Monster Mother in Law, move in with the Dems thinking they might get more traction, and act aggrieved when throwing their weight around doesn’t work.

PG wants things to be like they were in the 80s. Well, too bad. The current situation is the result of people like him spending decades thinking accepting a few face eating leopards wasn’t a big deal and never figuring on having his own face eaten.

3191

Yep. “You should run a normal conservative as the Dem candidate so all the voters like me will join your party.”

So, you guys let the Tea Party take over, then caved to the MAGAs, and now don’t have the balls to walk away from the party that abandoned you. Yet you think we should give up our ideals to give you a new home. How about you suck it up and let that party fail? Then maybe there will be room to form a party that fits your bill.

Meanwhile, we’ll be over here doing our thing. Come join us or don’t, but don’t expect us to change. We’ll welcome you in, but not if you want to remake the party into '80s republicans.

3192

The only way in which it would make sense would be if they’re accepting the current “Republican” attitude in which the only thing that matters is winning the election; and it doesn’t matter if it’s won by electing somebody antithetical to the party they’re running on, and abandoning that party’s principles.

Except, of course, that it doesn’t make sense even then; because that wouldn’t cause Democrats to win the election, but to lose it.

3193

Agree w @Great_Antibob & @Irishman: folks like PG are sincere in the sense they want a moderate rightist to vote for. And since they can’t get one from the current Rs, they’re hoping to drag the Ds over there. I do not buy @John_DiFool’s contention that PG is essentially a con man playing a long game.

Turning to @thorny_locust’s quite logical exception to this thinking, the thought of these folks is that if the D’s could be persuaded to move rightward by the same amount the MAGAs have dragged the Rs, well …

There would still be one party to the left of the other and one party to the right of the other. So 100% of leftists would vote for the more-left party, even though in fact it’s become merely the less-right party. After all where else could they go?

Remembering that even in the 1980s, US Ds would score as moderately right by European standards while 1980s Rs would score as far-right bordering on wacko.

3194

What point were you trying to make by saying this? Were you trying to to imply that Ukraine striking this facility was an improper thing to do?

The Russian space control center in question was a military facility used by an invading army on occupied Ukranian soil. Whether or not it is part of a nuclear first strike early warning network, it is a valid target.

If you were trying to paint Ukraine as bloodthirsty for striking a military target, I would call you a Russian bot (or perhaps a useful idiot) as well.

3195

That’s part of what irks me about the attitude. There’s so much barely concealed entitlement there. What matters to them is they of course deserve to have a political party listen to their grievances and give them their own candidate to root for. It’s just the natural order of things. No need to listen to anybody else.