EPTIt's just a stupid attempt to rank something that doesn't lend itself to being ranked. Nothing to see here.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6578
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
It's just a stupid attempt to rank something that doesn't lend itself to being ranked. Nothing to see here. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7944 Posts
On January 18 2017 00:11 LegalLord wrote: That chart is so symmetric that it's almost as if they tried to draw a bunch of equivalencies here ("Right wingers have Infowars, left wingers have Natural News"). Truth is that there is no reason to believe that is the case - and furthermore it's telling what is included in their ranking as much as what isn't. Many very useful (even if inconsistently so) news sites are not here). It's just a stupid attempt to rank something that doesn't lend itself to being ranked. Nothing to see here. Well i think telling and explaining people why The Wall Street Journal, The Economist and The Guardian are better sources of information than Breitbart and Infowars has never been more urgent than now. That's what this chart contributes too, even if it's simplistic and of course a bit arbitrary. It's really not meant to be scientific. Don't read junk, and be aware of the partisanship of what you are reading are two piece of advice everyone should get. Every quality newspaper is a good source of information if you have a critical mind. I can sincerely survive very well and stay informed with Le Figaro, a firmly right wing paper, because they are a quality paper, and i know i can trust them on facts. I just don't align ever, at all, with their analysis, so it doesn't provide me with much food for thought, and i get a bit bored. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On January 18 2017 00:20 Biff The Understudy wrote: Well i think telling and explaining people why The Wall Street Journal, The Economist and The Guardian are better sources of information than Breitbart and Infowars has never been more urgent than now. That's what this chart contributes too, even if it's simplistic and of course a bit arbitrary. It's really not meant to be scientific. Don't read junk, and be aware of the partisanship of what you are reading are two piece of advice everyone should get. I've read plenty of unjournalistic bullshit from WSJ, The Economist, The Guardian, and the like. Yes, it's probably more common on Breitbart and especially Infowars, but at the same time it isn't true that the former are good sources and the latter are just trash. Even Infowars has, at times, given some really good and effective insights into certain matters - though it isn't unfair to criticize it for lack of credibility. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 17 2017 21:05 DickMcFanny wrote: Well, with capitalism, not with globalism. Religious extremism in Islam finds so much breeding ground because of oil wars and US support of extremists. It's actually a strategy the US has been using for a while now, manipulate votes, kill a popular leader, destroy an economy in a socialist / Islamic country and then point at that country to say: ''See, socialism doesn't work''. I hear non-stop this thread saying capitalist when they really mean greed. Capitalism is not a "thing" you don't *do* capitalism since idealized Capitalism is allowing the market to do what it wants. The assumption of Capitalism is that people, when allowed to pursue their base natures, will naturally form a capitalist system. That there are greedy people in a Capitalist system is not because Capitalism needs it, but because people are naturally greedy. Most of the problems of this world comes from Resource scarcity. Back in a more feudal/monarchical era, that meant that nations were at war with each other constantly for those resources. Now that we are in a more peaceful era, the war becomes more economic; price gouging, emigration, immigration, tax reforms, tax shelters, etc... which creates the feel that "globalization" is killing people. But the truth is that its still the same people in power fighting the same wars over the same resources just in different battlefields. It will happen no matter what economic, governmental, or social systems will be in place because it is just in humanity's base nature to do so. When one person gets ahead, he does what he can to get more ahead, and it snowballs into class inequality, social inequality, which leads to race inequality, gender inequality, so on and so forth. The issue is not what systems are in place--people are the issue. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 18 2017 00:24 LegalLord wrote: I've read plenty of unjournalistic bullshit from WSJ, The Economist, The Guardian, and the like. Yes, it's probably more common on Breitbart and especially Infowars, but at the same time it isn't true that the former are good sources and the latter are just trash. Even Infowars has, at times, given some really good and effective insights into certain matters - though it isn't unfair to criticize it for lack of credibility. Its about statistical relevance right? A person can read X news sources of the Y available Of the Y news sources, some are fantastic A% of the time, others are fantastic (A+B)% of the time. Even if neither are close to fantastic 100% of the time--why waste time on the one that's fantastic less often? | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7944 Posts
On January 18 2017 00:24 LegalLord wrote: I've read plenty of unjournalistic bullshit from WSJ, The Economist, The Guardian, and the like. Yes, it's probably more common on Breitbart and especially Infowars, but at the same time it isn't true that the former are good sources and the latter are just trash. Even Infowars has, at times, given some really good and effective insights into certain matters - though it isn't unfair to criticize it for lack of credibility. And once Hitler saved a kitten. Of course you will find shit on the Guardian, occasionally. Of course you will find a decent article on Breitbart. Occasionally. Yet Breitbart is a fucking junk of a media with a sub 0 standard, no integrity whatsoever and an agenda of systematic propaganda, and the Guardian is one of the most respected paper on the planet with a fantastic record and a very strong sense of journalistic ethics. You know that a fact stated in the Guardian is very probably accurate, and that none of what you read in Infowar should be trusted blindly because it's written by liars. That's what this graph is about. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On January 17 2017 22:02 mustaju wrote: Because global instability will definitely bite everyone in the ass, and relationships are not turned on and off like faucets? If you don't have good relationships with these billions of people, it becomes that much harder to stop them from say, gaining nuclear weapons and blowing the entire planet up. And that is not even addressing climate change and the global economy you are also dependent on. Did you put any thought at all in your argument? I wouldn't make that argument directly - my own opinion would be something along the lines of "help our own people first, but be willing to help those abroad." It further helps that I'm not really one of the "losers of globalization" to be desperately looking for a solution, but it's hard not to notice how people's lives have been slowly but surely uprooted by the trend. You really think that people who perceive a pervasive decline in their way of life are going to be convinced by, "but think of all the poor billions around the world who live better because of your plight!" ? I think not - their response would be more akin to "fuck them." Which nations do you think are most likely to get nukes? Those tend not to be backwards radical states, but relatively stable nations with strong enough science to develop nuclear technology and rocketry. Indeed, it's probably the states with powerful elites but rather fragile civilian populations that are most likely to do that. And in that situation it isn't the peasants whose opinion matters, but the moneyed elite. Though what is most notable is that perceived rapid decline, more so than persistent poverty, is likely to lend itself to instability. As was mentioned slightly earlier, that global poverty decreased may not necessarily be due to globalization. One of the more important developments on that front may simply be the improvements in crop yields as a result of new scientific discoveries and improvement in technology for other necessities such as clean water. If the dependence really is on sweatshop labor for cheap goods, then tell me this: what happens when said goods become cheaper to automate than outsource, or the customers run out? Sweatshop laborers are probably not in the position to care to buy the shit they make, and sooner or later, neither will the people who lose their jobs to outsourcing. Are you going to start lending more money to make people buy more the way Germany does to keep their exports rolling? That might explain the rather fragile situation a lot of nations are in with regards to financing then. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 18 2017 00:35 LegalLord wrote: I wouldn't make that argument directly - my own opinion would be something along the lines of "help our own people first, but be willing to help those abroad." It further helps that I'm not really one of the "losers of globalization" to be desperately looking for a solution, but it's hard not to notice how people's lives have been slowly but surely uprooted by the trend. You really think that people who perceive a pervasive decline in their way of life are going to be convinced by, "but think of all the poor billions around the world who live better because of your plight!" ? I think not - their response would be more akin to "fuck them." Which nations do you think are most likely to get nukes? Those tend not to be backwards radical states, but relatively stable nations with strong enough science to develop nuclear technology and rocketry. Indeed, it's probably the states with powerful elites but rather fragile civilian populations that are most likely to do that. And in that situation it isn't the peasants whose opinion matters, but the moneyed elite. Though what is most notable is that perceived rapid decline, more so than persistent poverty, is likely to lend itself to instability. As was mentioned slightly earlier, that global poverty decreased may not necessarily be due to globalization. One of the more important developments on that front may simply be the improvements in crop yields as a result of new scientific discoveries and improvement in technology for other necessities such as clean water. If the dependence really is on sweatshop labor for cheap goods, then tell me this: what happens when said goods become cheaper to automate than outsource, or the customers run out? Sweatshop laborers are probably not in the position to care to buy the shit they make, and sooner or later, neither will the people who lose their jobs to outsourcing. Are you going to start lending more money to make people buy more the way Germany does to keep their exports rolling? That might explain the rather fragile situation a lot of nations are in with regards to financing then. Globalization only hurts one social class; manufacturing. Service industries will be where the rich are. Farming will be where the people are, in range of where the rich are. Manufacturing can be in bum fuck nowhere getting paid shit. If you don't want to be in the service industry, rich, or have a good enough education to work in a recent-tech company (right now its software, but this will always evolve as tech evolves)--then you are fucked by globalization. Otherwise you are not really impacted by it all that much. Globalization helped my hometown in the Philippines for example. They have thrived the past decade as customer support centers for midnight calls in the US have grown. That's globalization, it helps the poorest of the poor move up in the world. If you live in a rich country and don't want to do shit jobs--then globalization fucks you. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1955 Posts
It's also very important to read The Intercept to get stories that aren't reported elsewhere, although sometimes their editors veer into inappropriate editorializing. | ||
|
CatharsisUT
United States487 Posts
On January 18 2017 00:11 LegalLord wrote: That chart is so symmetric that it's almost as if they tried to draw a bunch of equivalencies here ("Right wingers have Infowars, left wingers have Natural News"). Truth is that there is no reason to believe that is the case - and furthermore it's telling what is included in their ranking as much as what isn't. Many very useful (even if inconsistently so) news sites are not here). It's just a stupid attempt to rank something that doesn't lend itself to being ranked. Nothing to see here. The positioning of the rankings might be wrong, but it does raise a crucially important point. Many people just view news sources as spots on a left/right line. As a result, I see people (not here, but elsewhere) argue "well the left has MSNBC, it's biased, so Infowars is fine too." That is obviously wrong; National Review and Infowars are both on the right, but they aren't equivalent sources of information. One of them cares about facts. Evaluating news sources requires at least two dimensions, bias and factual content. The posted image makes that point fairly effectively. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On January 18 2017 00:35 LegalLord wrote: Which nations do you think are most likely to get nukes? Those tend not to be backwards radical states, but relatively stable nations with strong enough science to develop nuclear technology and rocketry. Indeed, it's probably the states with powerful elites but rather fragile civilian populations that are most likely to do that. And in that situation it isn't the peasants whose opinion matters, but the moneyed elite. Though what is most notable is that perceived rapid decline, more so than persistent poverty, is likely to lend itself to instability. Nuclear weapons are a 75 year old technology. Any country can develop nuclear weaponry as long as they are organised enough. It's just a question of availability and intent and time (about 5 years if not a country with pre existing infrastructure assuming non-interference). Even North korea despite difficulties can develop nuclear weaponry given time. That's why it is important to prevent non proliferation with good relationships. | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On January 18 2017 00:46 Thieving Magpie wrote: Globalization only hurts one social class; manufacturing. Service industries will be where the rich are. Farming will be where the people are, in range of where the rich are. Manufacturing can be in bum fuck nowhere getting paid shit. If you don't want to be in the service industry, rich, or have a good enough education to work in a recent-tech company (right now its software, but this will always evolve as tech evolves)--then you are fucked by globalization. Otherwise you are not really impacted by it all that much. Globalization helped my hometown in the Philippines for example. They have thrived the past decade as customer support centers for midnight calls in the US have grown. That's globalization, it helps the poorest of the poor move up in the world. If you live in a rich country and don't want to do shit jobs--then globalization fucks you. Except as you point out many Service industries (call center..I don't think you were manufacturing anything there) can also be in middle of nowhere. Not to mention farming doesn't have to be in range of the rich people, farming is where the soil and weather and cheap labor is...unless the country is protectionist (anti-globalization) about its farming... which most rich countries (especially Europe) are to a large extent. Also while most people don't want a shit job, many of them would rather have that than no job. Basically globalization helps the rich in all countries and the poorest of the poor... those in the middle run into trouble, unless they are one of the few well paid jobs that actually require physical proximity to the rich. In sum it is good, but it doesn't work unless -countries manage the process or -the free trade area is united under one empire that regularly eliminates all dissenting cultures. (see US) | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On January 18 2017 00:46 Thieving Magpie wrote: Service industries will be where the rich are. ... Globalization helped my hometown in the Philippines for example. They have thrived the past decade as customer support centers for midnight calls in the US have grown. That's globalization, it helps the poorest of the poor move up in the world. Curious how you reconcile these two statements. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On January 18 2017 00:11 LegalLord wrote: That chart is so symmetric that it's almost as if they tried to draw a bunch of equivalencies here ("Right wingers have Infowars, left wingers have Natural News"). Truth is that there is no reason to believe that is the case - and furthermore it's telling what is included in their ranking as much as what isn't. Many very useful (even if inconsistently so) news sites are not here). It's just a stupid attempt to rank something that doesn't lend itself to being ranked. Nothing to see here. I haven't bothered commenting on the chart because it is patently garbage. My favorite is sticking CNN right in the middle as having "no partisan bias." Yeah, okay. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
mustaju
Estonia4504 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 18 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote: Curious how you reconcile these two statements. Call centers on the other side of the globe are made so a company can provide 24 hour service. India was most popular because of the 12 hour time zone difference allowing a non-night shift crew to manage the night time calls of Americans. The Philippines got a chance when it was found that the country's grasp of English meshed better with Americans than India's. The trend to foreign call centers came about mainly because Americans kept quitting call center jobs and were rude to the customers. The island of Cebu jumped at the opportunity and has been working hard to find night shift workers to fill the void left by American workers who don't want the job. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 18 2017 01:04 xDaunt wrote: I haven't bothered commenting on the chart because it is patently garbage. My favorite is sticking CNN right in the middle as having "no partisan bias." Yeah, okay. The only bias CNN has is desperation and trying to not be Fox News. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On January 18 2017 01:15 Thieving Magpie wrote: Call centers on the other side of the globe are made so a company can provide 24 hour service. India was most popular because of the 12 hour time zone difference allowing a non-night shift crew to manage the night time calls of Americans. The Philippines got a chance when it was found that the country's grasp of English meshed better with Americans than India's. The trend to foreign call centers came about mainly because Americans kept quitting call center jobs and were rude to the customers. The island of Cebu jumped at the opportunity and has been working hard to find night shift workers to fill the void left by American workers who don't want the job. So you do agree that peasants from the other side of the world can take up service jobs as well? | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7944 Posts
On January 18 2017 01:16 Thieving Magpie wrote: The only bias CNN has is desperation and trying to not be Fox News. They put CNN super low in quality which is frankly deserved too. The graph is not about partisanship, it's about quality. And it says rightfully so that if you go fir a heavy partisan media (and there is nothing wrong with that) it needs to be really good. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ourworldindata_world-poverty-since-1820-in-absolute-numbers.png)
