US Politics Thread

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

I'm not poorly informed. I just don't spend an inordinate amount of time trying to convince myself a protest is an act of insurrection.

It isn't.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that Jan 6 was any less an attack on American democracy than pearl harbour and 9/11?

 

[KS55]

The problem the BBC have is that unless some people just have a constant diet of their own viewpoint reflected back at them they scream bias as they want it to be like their social media pages where by 'blocking' and 'following' according to their views a false reality is created.
Ask most of these people to name an unbiased media source and they will name one that reflects their views.

Complete nonsense. There is an editing process in which there have to be values and criteria against which the incoming stories have to be appraised. The BBC’s problem is that they fail to do this properly. Reflecting the viewers opinions should not be one of these criteria. If Trump were standing in Britain, do you really think the BBC should reflect Maga values? If so, why?

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Complete nonsense. There is an editing process in which there have to be values and criteria against which the incoming stories have to be appraised. The BBC’s problem is that they fail to do this properly. Reflecting the viewers opinions should not be one of these criteria. If Trump were standing in Britain, do you really think the BBC should reflect Maga values? If so, why?

I think maga should be reflected as it it about 50% of the us vote and the BBC are reporting on the us election. For that principle to change I think maga would have to be a proscribed terrorist group etc.

 

[KS55]

I think maga should be reflected as it it about 50% of the us vote and the BBC are reporting on the us election. For that principle to change I think maga would have to be a proscribed terrorist group etc.

No editing then? What principal? “ If Trump was standing in Britain” was the question. Try answering that.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

No editing then? What principal?

Not really no, unless it's hate speech / illegal content perhaps. I'd prefer the BBC to give me an un-sanitised view of both sides if possible. I suppose editorial decisions have to be made and will always risk accusations of bias.

 

[SebastianBlue]

There is no harm in exposing people to all sorts of views as long as you equip them to think for themselves through education. Once you find yourself wanting to filter or police views it suggests either a weakness in the opposing arguments or in that education. Probably a bit of both.

You always tend to find it is folk whose own viewpoint looks unlikely to prevail that cry about it. If Kamala was racing ahead in the polls I don't think anyone would care (in regard to US politics).

Merely “exposing people to all sorts of views” is completely different to what I have just described, which is the continual platforming and implicit endorsement of views and ideas as having at least some validity and merit on the basis of providing “balance”.

It isn’t simple hearing a nonsensical, reality-rejecting, ignorant, malicious, or bad faith viewpoint once or twice—it is the pathological need to always present it alongside earnest, well-informed, fact-based, good faith viewpoints. No entity is under any moral or ethical obligation to platform every possible viewpoint or idea, regardless of how completely broken from reality it is.

You wouldn’t say “you know, I think they should have pedophiles on every night to advocate for abusing children” or “we need more perspectives about how the lizard people are really running the world before the football every Saturday” or “I don’t think Kahanists are given an adequate platform on the BBC to advocate for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians—they should have their own segment each evening” or “why doesn’t Putin have his own show that leads in to Eurovision where he can explain in detail his reasoning behind invading Ukraine and why Europe and the US, and NATO more broadly, are threats that must be put down for the good of the world” or “we really need more segments from people that advocate for violence against immigrants for destroying Britain!”

Your apparent stance fundamentally misunderstands human psychology, behavioural economics, journalistic rigour, theories of information and propaganda, and the ways in which people’s perspectives and actions—even those that many would consider well-educated—can be shaped and distorted through continual and irresponsible platforming of lies, half-truths, malicious views, and reality-rejecting nonsense, especially over years or decades. And is also seemingly inconsistent with many of the other positions I have seen you take on the forum. Which I think itself is indicative of how you choose to participate in this and other political threads.

As I said, even otherwise intelligent, thoughtful people have been taken in by the “both sides” nonsense, to the detriment of society as a whole.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Merely “exposing people to all sorts of views” is completely different to what I have just described, which is the continual platforming and implicit endorsement of views and ideas as having at least some validity and merit on the basis of providing “balance”.

It isn’t simple hearing a nonsensical, reality-rejecting, ignorant, malicious, or bad faith viewpoint once or twice—it is the pathological need to always present it alongside earnest, well-informed, fact-based, good faith viewpoints. No entity is under any moral or ethical obligation to platform every possible viewpoint or idea, regardless of how completely broken from reality it is.

You wouldn’t say “you know, I think they should have pedophiles on every night to advocate for abusing children” or “we need more perspectives about how the lizard people are really running the world before the football every Saturday” or “I don’t think Kahanists are given an adequate platform on the BBC to advocate for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians—they should have their own segment each evening” or “why doesn’t Putin have his own show that leads in to Eurovision where he can explain in detail his reasoning behind invading Ukraine and why Europe and the US, and NATO more broadly, are threats that must be put down for the good of the world” or “we really need more segments from people that advocate for violence against immigrants for destroying Britain!”

Your apparent stance fundamentally misunderstands human psychology, behavioural economics, journalistic rigour, theories of information and propaganda, and the ways in which people’s perspectives and actions—even those that many would consider well-educated—can be shaped and distorted through continual and irresponsible platforming of lies, half-truths, malicious views, and reality-rejecting nonsense, especially over years or decades. And is also seemingly inconsistent with many of the other positions I have seen you take on the forum. Which I think itself is indicative of how you choose to participate in this and other political threads.

As I said, even otherwise intelligent, thoughtful people have been taken in by the “both sides” nonsense, to the detriment of society as a whole.

I think sometimes (at the same time as being aware of media bias) we also have to try and retain the perspective and humility to recognise that we all as individuals have our own bias and inherent values and prejudice.

For instance I come on here with my own bias against the rags and have this warmly confirmed for me by many other like minded souls. No harm in that - it's only football. I think when we seek to apply a similar lens to politics or news that is probably dodgy.

I've said it before but it bears repeating. Extremism and radicalisation doesn't come about because people are exposed to extremist views, but when they are exposed to only one extremist view. Both posters in the Russia Ukraine thread where the Ukrainians are winning the war can confirm this ;-)

 

[SebastianBlue]

I've said it before but it bears repeating. Extremism and radicalisation doesn't come about because people are exposed to extremist view, but when they are exposed to only one extremist view.

This statement is again evidence that you have a very poor understanding of human psychology, behavioural economics, journalistic rigour, theories of information and propaganda, and the ways in which people’s perspectives and actions—even those that many would consider well-educated—can be shaped and distorted through continual and irresponsible platforming of lies, half-truths, malicious views, and reality-rejecting nonsense, especially over years or decades. It has been rejected by essentially all credible study of human behaviour (especially in the era of the internet).

And is, ironically, also inconsistent with many of the other positions I have seen you take on the forum.

Which, again, I think is itself indicative of how you choose to participate in this and other political threads.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

This statement is again evidence that you have a very poor understanding of human psychology, behavioural economics, journalistic rigour, theories of information and propaganda, and the ways in which people’s perspectives and actions—even those that many would consider well-educated—can be shaped and distorted through continual and irresponsible platforming of lies, half-truths, malicious views, and reality-rejecting nonsense, especially over years or decades. It has been rejected by essentially all credible study of human behaviour (especially in the era of the internet).

And is, ironically, also inconsistent with many of the other positions I have seen you take on the forum.

Which, again, I think is itself indicative of how you choose to participate in this and other political threads.

Yes, but that is all about me and not the subject at hand, as I think even you realise you are advocating a form of censorship used in Russia or north korea. You are experiencing a sensation which is known as not agreeing. It's not the end of the world, but you either need to accept that your own opinions are your own cherished opinions but I don't agree and move on, or take it to PM's
Your constant railing to close down media reporting, posters on here and heaven knows what else that doesn't fit your cosy view is poor adulting at best. Suggest you continue your discussion with me via pm's, pop me on ignore or report me for trolling/wumming or some other imagined offence.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Yes, but that is all about me and not the subject at hand, as I think even you realise you are advocating a form of censorship used in Russia or north korea. You are experiencing a sensation which is known as not agreeing. It's not the end of the world, but you either need to accept that your own opinions are your own cherished opinions but I don't agree and move on, or take it to PM's
Your constant railing to close down media reporting, posters on here and heaven knows what else that doesn't fit your cosy view is poor adulting at best. Suggest you continue your discussion with me via pm's, pop me on ignore or report me for trolling/wumming or some other imagined offence.

I had put you on ignore but you responded to one of my posts and I chose to look at your post quoting mine and respond to it. If you don’t want me to respond to you at all, don’t reply to my posts.

And I am not advocating for Russian-style censorship—that is a wholly false mischaracterisation of my position and posts.

Your response is juvenile, at best. What you are experiencing is the sensation of someone pointing out that your opinion is inconsistent with reality. And you are responding by, ironically given the topic of our exchange, trying to act is if doing so should not be allowed.

Either you believe every person should be able to share their opinion, as you have said, or you don’t. At least be consistent.

I spoke about both the topic and my opinion that you continually illustrate that you don’t have a particularly good grasp of the complexity and implications of it (again, ironic for the topic). I wasn’t closing you down, but I can see how it might feel that way to you, specifically.

But you are right about one thing: we should stop interacting with one another or take it to PMs.

So, with this in mind, I offer a solution: put me on ignore, as I have with you, and we won’t respond to each other’s posts and we won’t indirectly reference each other. No interaction, direct or indirect.

Is that acceptable?