|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 28 2015 10:21 notesfromunderground wrote:
I don't understand what you mean by "strawmanning." You just claimed that it's not a problem because all judges would see the grey area the same way as you do, as opposed to the way somebody else sees it. You are failing to understand the problem.
Whether or not something is political speech is a more complicated question than whether or not 2+2=5, surely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
you are simply wrong. I did not claim all judges would see the grey area the same as I do. You're the one who is failing to understand. You need to read what I wrote more carefully or something.
next step for you: CITE wherein you believe I said that.
|
That's what I did. You wrote: "a judge wouldn't rule that way because it's not so." This translates pretty much to "all judges would see the grey area the same as I do." I rendered it "Judges are smart and never make bad decisions". These all say the same thing
|
On October 28 2015 10:05 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2015 09:47 notesfromunderground wrote:On October 28 2015 09:38 zlefin wrote:
one of the issues in question for the case was whether or not The Movie was clearly intended to exhort people to vote against the candidate. This is a question of fact, that is admittedly quite difficult: Is it simply covering information and historical events to tell people what happened, or is it really trying to say someone is bad and should not be elected? Such questions inevitably yield a grey area where it's hard to tell which it is. . I would submit that this problem is entirely undecidable. Most of what passes for journalism in this county is, to my eyes, nothing but naked propaganda. But would a judge ever rule that the New York Times is therefore advocacy and not journalism? I doubt it a judge wouldn't rule that way because it's not so. If you call that naked propaganda then you haven't been exposed to some of the more extreme forms of propaganda in the world. Most people in the world wouldn't make good judges, no shame in that, that's why we have different jobs for different people  there will certainly be cases where it's undecidable, but there will be cases where it is.
So you are drawing a line between "naked propaganda" and (veiled) propaganda, of which the NYT may be a part, and the judges know the difference.
|
On October 28 2015 10:46 notesfromunderground wrote:
That's what I did. You wrote: "a judge wouldn't rule that way because it's not so." This translates pretty much to "all judges would see the grey area the same as I do." I rendered it "Judges are smart and never make bad decisions". These all say the same thing
"a judge wouldn't rule that way because it's not so."
is a pretty clear response to:
"But would a judge ever rule that the New York Times is therefore advocacy and not journalism? I doubt it"
that does not imply, nor is it equal to, the statement:
"all judges would see the grey area the same as I do."
It means that the notion that NYT is NAKED propaganda is absurd. It might be veiled propaganda, or no propaganda at all, one could make reasonable arguments for either I think. But naked propaganda it is not. Naked would imply a degree of blatantness which does not fit here.
there are grey areas, which means BY DEFINITION, that people would reasonably disagree about how stuff in there should be dealt with.
Also, neither of those statements can reasonably be said to be the same statement as:
"Judges are smart and never make bad decisions"
as it is clearly different from "a judge wouldn't rule that way because it's not so." in that this clearly refers to a specific case, not a general rule.
Nor does it match
"all judges would see the grey area the same as I do." because well, for one it's possible for me (or judges) to make bad decisions, and nothing about it can really justify ignoring that key difference.
Mostly imho, you need to work on reading comprehension if you think those three statements all say the same thing.
|
N***a, I *teach* reading comprehension :p
|
On October 28 2015 11:31 notesfromunderground wrote:
N***a, I *teach* reading comprehension :p
Haha, zlefin's biting off a little more than he can chew here.
|
On October 28 2015 11:31 notesfromunderground wrote:
N***a, I *teach* reading comprehension :p
I hope not to American education standards.
|
It's hopeless. My students are all illiterate. Our educational system is really a total failure. I think we should abolish it maybe
|
On October 28 2015 15:03 notesfromunderground wrote:
It's hopeless. My students are all illiterate. Our educational system is really a total failure. I think we should abolish it maybe
Don't worry, my students are the same.
|
On October 28 2015 11:30 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2015 10:46 notesfromunderground wrote:
That's what I did. You wrote: "a judge wouldn't rule that way because it's not so." This translates pretty much to "all judges would see the grey area the same as I do." I rendered it "Judges are smart and never make bad decisions". These all say the same thing "a judge wouldn't rule that way because it's not so." is a pretty clear response to: "But would a judge ever rule that the New York Times is therefore advocacy and not journalism? I doubt it" that does not imply, nor is it equal to, the statement: "all judges would see the grey area the same as I do." It means that the notion that NYT is NAKED propaganda is absurd. It might be veiled propaganda, or no propaganda at all, one could make reasonable arguments for either I think. But naked propaganda it is not. Naked would imply a degree of blatantness which does not fit here. there are grey areas, which means BY DEFINITION, that people would reasonably disagree about how stuff in there should be dealt with. Also, neither of those statements can reasonably be said to be the same statement as: "Judges are smart and never make bad decisions" as it is clearly different from "a judge wouldn't rule that way because it's not so." in that this clearly refers to a specific case, not a general rule. Nor does it match "all judges would see the grey area the same as I do." because well, for one it's possible for me (or judges) to make bad decisions, and nothing about it can really justify ignoring that key difference. Mostly imho, you need to work on reading comprehension if you think those three statements all say the same thing.
You are kind of splitting hairs here. Aside from the fact that many intelligent people can see that a lot of the NYT articles are in fact blatant propaganda, the differences in the three statements are not as large as you are making them; the gist of them is the same. To mean exactly the same thing they would need exactly the same words, as English words are at least supposed to have different gradations of meaning and nuance, but still, the gist is the same. Maybe we can move back to the real issue and leave the hair-splitting behind us?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 28 2015 09:27 notesfromunderground wrote:
I'm in favor of taxing anything we can get our hands on, pretty much. (which is to say, we should also abolish all sales taxes, most user fees, and other regressive taxation). The trouble is getting your hands on it. Economic elites have a certain felicity for hiding their wealth. For example, in classical Athens the rich families hid their money with private bankers and pretended like they didn't have any, so they wouldn't be liable for the liturgeia (public fundraising). Tax havens are nothing new, I'm afraid. Wealth has a way of circulating in hidden places.
(It's an attempt to understand this hidden circulation of wealth that motivates my interest in the discourse on conspiracies.)
if you are taxing wealth there is the additional problem of a tax that requires payment in currency having liquidity impact. let's say we want to tax donald at 10% of his real estate holdings. he's gonna have to sell something. when this goes on with equity in stocks there can be real harm to the underlying company.
also the stuff about monetizing editorials etc in the press. yes, the effects are real, but the concern is obviously limiting the expression of 'the press,' and how to define that. if in a world where NYT etc are chilled to not publish political editorials, you are looking at formats like social media that are even harder to account.
obviously the existence of 'free' media that influence elections is not an argument against reining in campaign financing, but when you really get down to it, the so called Main Stream Media and for that matter the Party system is still decent at filtering out pure lunacy. like it or not there are a great number of loonies on either left and right in this country and yet advocates of the ideal money free public financed campaign system (assuming no official corruption, which means less gating power for govt and thus more or less free entry system of ideas) tend to imagine a well ordered public sphere of ideas as a result.
you already see the results of introducing to politics a group of people who do not understand how the fed or the u.s. currency system works. the eat the rich types are not that much better when it comes to understanding economics.
|
On October 28 2015 21:42 LaughingTulkas wrote:
Aside from the fact that many intelligent people can see that a lot of the NYT articles are in fact blatant propaganda
Outside of the editorial pages, on what do you justify this statement?
Are you taking a Chomsky position that NYT supports the American establishment and its focus and choice of words with respect to foreign affairs supports American imperialism argument?
Or is a right-wing "NYT is pro-Democrat" argument?
I think the Chomsky argument has been well documented in his books but is somewhat irrelevant with respect to internal US politics. I mean, Chomsky reads the NYT to get the news still.
The right-winger argument is way more specious and seems grounded in the same reasoning that leads so many on the right now to call Paul Ryan and John Boehner, two guys who 10 years ago were considered pretty much the right-est of the right, RINOs. Basically, if your story doesn't read like a tea party chain email, then you are Democrat propaganda.
The NYT is pretty much the gold-standard in journalism right now. Do you need to read it with a skeptical mindset? Of course. Any writer could wittingly or unwittingly be writing with a subtle slant or bias. The choice between "A hospital was bombed by..." vs "The US bombed a..." matters for slant and bias, but it is subtle and a far cry from an Anti-Hilary Clinton documentary funded by a PAC.
|
On October 28 2015 22:05 frazzle wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2015 21:42 LaughingTulkas wrote:
Aside from the fact that many intelligent people can see that a lot of the NYT articles are in fact blatant propaganda
The NYT is pretty much the gold-standard in journalism right now. Do you need to read it with a skeptical mindset? Of course. Any writer could wittingly or unwittingly be writing with a subtle slant or bias. The choice between "A hospital was bombed by..." vs "The US bombed a..." matters for slant and bias, but it is subtle and a far cry from an Anti-Hilary Clinton documentary funded by a PAC.
Yeah, but everybody knows the gold standard of journalism nowadays is pretty low.
|
On October 28 2015 22:45 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2015 22:05 frazzle wrote:On October 28 2015 21:42 LaughingTulkas wrote:
Aside from the fact that many intelligent people can see that a lot of the NYT articles are in fact blatant propaganda
The NYT is pretty much the gold-standard in journalism right now. Do you need to read it with a skeptical mindset? Of course. Any writer could wittingly or unwittingly be writing with a subtle slant or bias. The choice between "A hospital was bombed by..." vs "The US bombed a..." matters for slant and bias, but it is subtle and a far cry from an Anti-Hilary Clinton documentary funded by a PAC. Yeah, but everybody knows the gold standard of journalism nowadays is pretty low.
Well admittedly, they had big failures in the last 15 years with the whole Judy Miller thing and Jayson Blair.
The Judy Miller debacle highlighted if anything a willingness to lean right. But more generally a willingness to unquestioningly advocate for US military interventionism, which goes along with the Chomsky line of reasoning.
The Jayson Blair thing wasn't so much political, but just a guy who got away with making crap up. (Edit: which on the right is admittedly portrayed as the NYT succumbing to a sort of affirmative action lowering of standards. Maybe there is an argument there but it seems to have been addressed)
But how exactly do you justify the gold-standard lowering assumption? I know that in news in general during the internet era that money devoted to journalism has decreased, particularly in the local/regional markets, and much of what we now call the news cycle is a circle-jerk of opinion recitations and general partisan blowhardery. But I have never seen anyone quantify this with respect to the NYT. As far as I can tell NYT hasn't devolved like the cable news has. As far as I can tell it has maintained roughly the same spending and journalistic standards that it had 20-30 years ago. But I would love to see some actual studies showing the numbers and proving my assumptions wrong for the NYT. There easily could be a quantifiable drop in quality, but so far I just see people positing this assumption as if it were fact.
|
The giant debt ceiling increase rolled together with a budget deal was introduced at 11:36 p.m. Monday, in the dead of night, several congressional sources confirm to Breitbart News.
The text is 144 pages long and increases the debt ceiling beyond when President Barack Obama leaves office, all the way until March 2017. It also, according to Politico, increases spending by $50 billion this year and $30 billion more the following year.
As AP reports, House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)
is pushing for a Wednesday vote, this would be yet another instance in which he has broken his promise to give members and the public three full days—72 hours—to read legislation before voting on it. [...]
The Associated Press captured in its piece on Tuesday just how high stakes this game is for Ryan’s chances.
“The House budget vote slated for Wednesday would come on the same day as the GOP caucus nominates its candidate, widely expected to be Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan,” the Associated Press wrote.
Breitbart+ Show Spoiler +Source chosen in deference to StealthBlue's love of TPW
High stakes with Boehner's last big act as speaker and Ryan's vote same day. Webster is still in race, marginally more conservative, but enough establishment figures will back Ryan that it's probably a lost cause.
Still waiting on the savings details. If it's x billion over 10 years saved for 50 billion this year, it's unlikely those cuts will last in law that long. Same rhetoric on cutting vital government services and programs; they'll be reversed. Republicans are looking good to lose several seats by giving Obama all he wants in a budget despite having a majority in the House.
|
On October 28 2015 22:05 frazzle wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2015 21:42 LaughingTulkas wrote:
Aside from the fact that many intelligent people can see that a lot of the NYT articles are in fact blatant propaganda
Outside of the editorial pages, on what do you justify this statement? Are you taking a Chomsky position that NYT supports the American establishment and its focus and choice of words with respect to foreign affairs supports American imperialism argument? Or is a right-wing "NYT is pro-Democrat" argument? I think the Chomsky argument has been well documented in his books but is somewhat irrelevant with respect to internal US politics. I mean, Chomsky reads the NYT to get the news still. The right-winger argument is way more specious and seems grounded in the same reasoning that leads so many on the right now to call Paul Ryan and John Boehner, two guys who 10 years ago were considered pretty much the right-est of the right, RINOs. Basically, if your story doesn't read like a tea party chain email, then you are Democrat propaganda. The NYT is pretty much the gold-standard in journalism right now. Do you need to read it with a skeptical mindset? Of course. Any writer could wittingly or unwittingly be writing with a subtle slant or bias. The choice between "A hospital was bombed by..." vs "The US bombed a..." matters for slant and bias, but it is subtle and a far cry from an Anti-Hilary Clinton documentary funded by a PAC.
Nyt bias, outside of the editorial section (obvious to all), is in article selection, which shows about a D+25 bias. Also the words used in news articles skew liberal. So while each article may be quality, the paper as a whole is wildly partisan, even in its news division.
|
On October 28 2015 23:37 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2015 22:05 frazzle wrote:On October 28 2015 21:42 LaughingTulkas wrote:
Aside from the fact that many intelligent people can see that a lot of the NYT articles are in fact blatant propaganda
Outside of the editorial pages, on what do you justify this statement? Are you taking a Chomsky position that NYT supports the American establishment and its focus and choice of words with respect to foreign affairs supports American imperialism argument? Or is a right-wing "NYT is pro-Democrat" argument? I think the Chomsky argument has been well documented in his books but is somewhat irrelevant with respect to internal US politics. I mean, Chomsky reads the NYT to get the news still. The right-winger argument is way more specious and seems grounded in the same reasoning that leads so many on the right now to call Paul Ryan and John Boehner, two guys who 10 years ago were considered pretty much the right-est of the right, RINOs. Basically, if your story doesn't read like a tea party chain email, then you are Democrat propaganda. The NYT is pretty much the gold-standard in journalism right now. Do you need to read it with a skeptical mindset? Of course. Any writer could wittingly or unwittingly be writing with a subtle slant or bias. The choice between "A hospital was bombed by..." vs "The US bombed a..." matters for slant and bias, but it is subtle and a far cry from an Anti-Hilary Clinton documentary funded by a PAC. Nyt bias, outside of the editorial section (obvious to all), is in article selection, which shows about a D+25 bias. Also the words used in news articles skew liberal. So while each article may be quality, the paper as a whole is wildly partisan, even in its news division.
So, it is D+25 bias because... you say so? Oh I get it. And Paul Ryan is a RINO liberal cuckservative. Thanks for the info.
|
^It's true, though we can trot out "reality has a liberal bias".
One thing I dislike about a lot of journalism in "mainstream" media is that it has no balls. They present both sides of the issue like they're equal (or something like that), but for things like climate change... I'm sorry one argument is better than the other.
|
On second thought, not opening that can of worms.
|
On October 29 2015 00:02 ticklishmusic wrote:
^It's true, though we can trot out "reality has a liberal bias".
One thing I dislike about a lot of journalism in "mainstream" media is that it has no balls. They present both sides of the issue like they're equal (or something like that), but for things like climate change... I'm sorry one argument is better than the other.
The Times has always had a cosmopolitan slant, particularly on social issues. The public editors have copped to that in the past. If I read Rolling Stone I expect a certain selection of focus too. But to suggest that the NYT is pro-Democrat in its writing and reporting is a stronger claim to make.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
