|
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 June 15 2017 03:55 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2017 03:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 15 2017 03:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 15 2017 03:28 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 15 2017 03:25 KwarK wrote:
It'd help if you guys had something like the BBC. Cable news and political talk radio never really took off in the UK. We have extreme partisan tabloids but we're all watching the same news every night and both sides insist that it is biased against them. I know Americans don't tend to trust anything publicly run and maybe that's fair because it could potentially be vulnerable to government intervention but it's an institution that is worth cultivating. I trust the BBC in a way that I wouldn't ever trust CNN because I believe that it is run by people who are loyal to the ideals on which it was founded.
There's value in that. NPR and PBS, but their credibility with a large segment of the population has been undermined by other media networks who have largely successfully usurped them. I get most of my news from NPR. I'll scan MSN or CNN for the BREAKING, but I go to NPR for the integrity. If you want to know about a story you need to check at least 3 sources, NPR is pretty good about not putting out outright false information, but they, like practically every source, tend to leave important details or context out. Yeah I ran into that with NPR just a few days ago. When there was that anti-shria protest thing going on NPR was covering it but never did any sort of crowd estimates nor had any shots of the crowd from far away. Basically the story was clearly trying to make the crowd appear larger than it probably actually was to make the event more newsworthy (and justify why they were covering it more heavily than say the March for Science). These: http://www.npr.org/2017/06/10/532254891/march-against-sharia-planned-across-the-u-shttp://www.npr.org/2017/06/10/532400356/march-against-sharia-meets-opposition-in-syracuse-new-yorkwere basically an advertisement for the rally and something that made it seem normal/mainstream without any actual details. Relevant bit: Show nested quote +MANN: Battle lines really drawn here. I saw people on both sides of the street actually wearing uniforms, a lot of military militia-style fatigues on the pro-Trump anti-Sharia side of the street. And on the other side of the street, dozens of protesters wearing face masks and carrying red and black protest flags. The organizer of the main event here was Lisa Joseph.
She describes herself as a Jewish woman who believes that Muslim Sharia practices could be a real threat to American society, though, she couldn't point to any examples of it actually being implemented in the country right now. This makes no mention of the size of the rally. It could literally have been 10 people or 100,000 (+dozens of anti-fa protestors).
Doesn’t that all come down to how much you trust the publication though? I know NPR would call out a protest that is only 10 people. They have in the past, like the “Support pulling out of the Paris Accord” protest. It is nice information to have, but I also think listeners can trust NPR to pick stories they feel are relevant.
|
On June 15 2017 04:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2017 03:55 Logo wrote:On June 15 2017 03:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 15 2017 03:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 15 2017 03:28 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 15 2017 03:25 KwarK wrote:
It'd help if you guys had something like the BBC. Cable news and political talk radio never really took off in the UK. We have extreme partisan tabloids but we're all watching the same news every night and both sides insist that it is biased against them. I know Americans don't tend to trust anything publicly run and maybe that's fair because it could potentially be vulnerable to government intervention but it's an institution that is worth cultivating. I trust the BBC in a way that I wouldn't ever trust CNN because I believe that it is run by people who are loyal to the ideals on which it was founded.
There's value in that. NPR and PBS, but their credibility with a large segment of the population has been undermined by other media networks who have largely successfully usurped them. I get most of my news from NPR. I'll scan MSN or CNN for the BREAKING, but I go to NPR for the integrity. If you want to know about a story you need to check at least 3 sources, NPR is pretty good about not putting out outright false information, but they, like practically every source, tend to leave important details or context out. Yeah I ran into that with NPR just a few days ago. When there was that anti-shria protest thing going on NPR was covering it but never did any sort of crowd estimates nor had any shots of the crowd from far away. Basically the story was clearly trying to make the crowd appear larger than it probably actually was to make the event more newsworthy (and justify why they were covering it more heavily than say the March for Science). These: http://www.npr.org/2017/06/10/532254891/march-against-sharia-planned-across-the-u-shttp://www.npr.org/2017/06/10/532400356/march-against-sharia-meets-opposition-in-syracuse-new-yorkwere basically an advertisement for the rally and something that made it seem normal/mainstream without any actual details. Relevant bit: MANN: Battle lines really drawn here. I saw people on both sides of the street actually wearing uniforms, a lot of military militia-style fatigues on the pro-Trump anti-Sharia side of the street. And on the other side of the street, dozens of protesters wearing face masks and carrying red and black protest flags. The organizer of the main event here was Lisa Joseph.
She describes herself as a Jewish woman who believes that Muslim Sharia practices could be a real threat to American society, though, she couldn't point to any examples of it actually being implemented in the country right now. This makes no mention of the size of the rally. It could literally have been 10 people or 100,000 (+dozens of anti-fa protestors). Doesn’t that all come down to how much you trust the publication though? I know NPR would call out a protest that is only 10 people. They have in the past, like the “Support pulling out of the Paris Accord” protest. It is nice information to have, but I also think listeners can trust NPR to pick stories they feel are relevant.
Yeah but the problem is when you don't discuss the size of the protest readers can't put it in context. How widespread was support for this rally? Is this a common view, or a fringe one that 50 people showed up for?
Like if I'm going to compare this rally to the public support against the travel ban... well how can I? I don't know how large this one was even after reading the article.
|
|
|
On June 14 2017 01:19 Buckyman wrote:How can you tell the difference between 1 and 3? A good way is to ask them why they believe what they believe, and apply Miller's Law. We did that with climate change upthread. I think I know where the difference is now; I'll post it later today because I don't want to derail this meta-discussion.
The main difference seems to be over "should we trust the people that tell us climate change is a problem?"
It encompasses vocal climate scientists, journalists and politicians.
As should be clear, no amount of evidence can convince someone either way on a climate action if they don't trust the source of the evidence.
In particular, a lot of the information we hear on the subject doesn't actually come from the scientists. Politicians as a category have a known tendency to bend the facts around their pre-existing positions. And, among the scientifically literate, journalists have a known tendency to simplify and exaggerate scientific results. Also, very few laypeople in the debate look directly at the scientific publications. So it's very easy to hold a position of "Nobody I trust on the subject has explained why climate change is a problem" and conclude "therefore it probably isn't".
Meanwhile the pro-climate-action people have a tendency to trust the journalists because of the perceived backing of a lot of scientists. They also don't tend to look at the scientific results.
|
so basically, there was/is effectively no waiver. not even an improperly executed waiver. just a draft of a waiver.
|
On June 15 2017 04:22 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2017 01:19 Buckyman wrote:How can you tell the difference between 1 and 3? A good way is to ask them why they believe what they believe, and apply Miller's Law. We did that with climate change upthread. I think I know where the difference is now; I'll post it later today because I don't want to derail this meta-discussion. The main difference seems to be over "should we trust the people that tell us climate change is a problem?" It encompasses vocal climate scientists, journalists and politicians. As should be clear, no amount of evidence can convince someone either way on a climate action if they don't trust the source of the evidence. In particular, a lot of the information we hear on the subject doesn't actually come from the scientists. Politicians as a category have a known tendency to bend the facts around their pre-existing positions. And, among the scientifically literate, journalists have a known tendency to simplify and exaggerate scientific results. Also, very few laypeople in the debate look directly at the scientific publications. So it's very easy to hold a position of "Nobody I trust on the subject has explained why climate change is a problem" and conclude "therefore it probably isn't". Meanwhile the pro-climate-action people have a tendency to trust the journalists because of the perceived backing of a lot of scientists. They also don't tend to look at the scientific results.
I don’t look at scientific results because I am not a scientist. I am not qualified to make a determination on scientific data. Instead I trust in creditable professionals to break down the relevant facts for me. If I need to know more, I will seek out other assessments of the scientific discovery. Most professional fields are like this. Scientist to not test every single physical law themselves to make sure the math is right. Experts in history do not work with purely primary sources.
|
On June 15 2017 04:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2017 04:22 Buckyman wrote:On June 14 2017 01:19 Buckyman wrote:How can you tell the difference between 1 and 3? A good way is to ask them why they believe what they believe, and apply Miller's Law. We did that with climate change upthread. I think I know where the difference is now; I'll post it later today because I don't want to derail this meta-discussion. The main difference seems to be over "should we trust the people that tell us climate change is a problem?" It encompasses vocal climate scientists, journalists and politicians. As should be clear, no amount of evidence can convince someone either way on a climate action if they don't trust the source of the evidence. In particular, a lot of the information we hear on the subject doesn't actually come from the scientists. Politicians as a category have a known tendency to bend the facts around their pre-existing positions. And, among the scientifically literate, journalists have a known tendency to simplify and exaggerate scientific results. Also, very few laypeople in the debate look directly at the scientific publications. So it's very easy to hold a position of "Nobody I trust on the subject has explained why climate change is a problem" and conclude "therefore it probably isn't". Meanwhile the pro-climate-action people have a tendency to trust the journalists because of the perceived backing of a lot of scientists. They also don't tend to look at the scientific results. I don’t look at scientific results because I am not a scientist. I am not qualified to make a determination on scientific data. Instead I trust in creditable professionals to break down the relevant facts for me. If I need to know more, I will seek out other assessments of the scientific discovery. Most professional fields are like this. Scientist to not test every single physical law themselves to make sure the math is right. Experts in history do not work with purely primary sources.
Just reading papers isn't really that great anyways, you really would want to steep yourself in the field to understand the context of the papers, the reputation of the labs the papers are coming from, and that sort of thing. Reading the occasional paper is only giving you a small slice of the picture.
|
|
|
On June 15 2017 04:32 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2017 04:29 Plansix wrote:On June 15 2017 04:22 Buckyman wrote:On June 14 2017 01:19 Buckyman wrote:How can you tell the difference between 1 and 3? A good way is to ask them why they believe what they believe, and apply Miller's Law. We did that with climate change upthread. I think I know where the difference is now; I'll post it later today because I don't want to derail this meta-discussion. The main difference seems to be over "should we trust the people that tell us climate change is a problem?" It encompasses vocal climate scientists, journalists and politicians. As should be clear, no amount of evidence can convince someone either way on a climate action if they don't trust the source of the evidence. In particular, a lot of the information we hear on the subject doesn't actually come from the scientists. Politicians as a category have a known tendency to bend the facts around their pre-existing positions. And, among the scientifically literate, journalists have a known tendency to simplify and exaggerate scientific results. Also, very few laypeople in the debate look directly at the scientific publications. So it's very easy to hold a position of "Nobody I trust on the subject has explained why climate change is a problem" and conclude "therefore it probably isn't". Meanwhile the pro-climate-action people have a tendency to trust the journalists because of the perceived backing of a lot of scientists. They also don't tend to look at the scientific results. I don’t look at scientific results because I am not a scientist. I am not qualified to make a determination on scientific data. Instead I trust in creditable professionals to break down the relevant facts for me. If I need to know more, I will seek out other assessments of the scientific discovery. Most professional fields are like this. Scientist to not test every single physical law themselves to make sure the math is right. Experts in history do not work with purely primary sources. Just reading papers isn't really that great anyways, you really would want to steep yourself in the field to understand the context of the papers, the reputation of the labs the papers are coming from, and that sort of thing. Reading the occasional paper is only giving you a small slice of the picture.
Agreed, but that is also the point of the news paper. They provide snapshots into what is happening in the world. Deep dive investigative reporting is the rare exception. But most articles are something that is going to make me aware of something I would want to read about in more depth.
|
On June 15 2017 04:42 pmh wrote:
Edit due to pmh removing his post.
You should read up on when we got rid of the US National Bank and the economic struggles for the next 70 years after that. The fear of printing money was one of the reasons we got rid of it. Americans of that generation were shorter than the previous due to malnutrition caused by the crisis of 1837.
In short, we created the Fed for a reason and its to avoid the purely free market you are talking about.
|
I hope you got my response,i wont come back to this subject.
|
On June 15 2017 04:50 pmh wrote:
I removed my post,people just don't care nor want to know or understand. There do not seem to be many economy students at this forum anyway. I am not saying to let the banks fail,what they did during the great depression was very bad policy. But what they did here went way and way to far and was very unfair towards 99% of the population. There are many alternatives that would have achieved the same,without handing over 3-4 trillion to a relatively small group of rich people. The financial system is corrupt to the bone.
ima remove this post as well soon,not interested in trying to stir up anything.
Just a question: Are you sure you are mad at the Fed for trying to manage the economy in a responsible manner and assure it keeps moving? Or are you mad a congress for not punishing and regulating the banks that created the crisis that the tax payers paid for? Because slapping the banks for behaving poorly is congresses job.
|
Guillotines are the answer.
|
On June 15 2017 05:07 a_flayer wrote:
Guillotines are the answer.
Indiscriminate shooting is bad and we shouldn't try to murder our politicians, but I can't say that it hasn't sobered them up a tiny bit.
Rather than create a less hateful atmosphere I suspect they'll go the more guns and guards route in the long run.
|
On June 15 2017 05:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Indiscriminate shooting is bad and we shouldn't try to murder our politicians, but I can't say that it hasn't sobered them up a tiny bit. Rather than create a less hateful atmosphere I suspect they'll go the more guns and guards route in the long run.
Guillotines also don’t have a great historical track record for solving economic disparity. But they are crowd pleasers, that is for sure.
|
On June 15 2017 04:22 Buckyman wrote:
So it's very easy to hold a position of "Nobody I trust on the subject has explained why climate change is a problem" and conclude "therefore it probably isn't".
No actually that's a logical fallacy.
|
The two captains of the congressional baseball team just gave a press conference and discussed the climate in the House. How they don’t travel together any more, they barely interact with the other party. If anyone can find a link of C-SPAN, a couple reporters are saying it is worth watching(getting this all from twitter). Also a lot of congress members brought their kids to the game.
Edit: NPR is now reporting that Scalise is still in critical condition, but stable.
|
On June 15 2017 01:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2017 01:13 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 00:19 xDaunt wrote:On June 15 2017 00:04 Plansix wrote:
I’m straight up nervous about how Trump’s crew will spin this. They could really ratchet up the tension if they say “look it was a democrat”. Funny you mention that: The gunman who opened fire this morning on Republican congressmen and staffers recently declared in a Facebook post that, “It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.”
The accused shooter, James T. Hodgkinson, 66, posted a link to a Change.org petition in late March that included the notation that, “Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It's Time to Destroy Trump & Co.”
Hodgkinson’s Facebook page includes numerous photos of Senator Bernie Sanders, whom Hodgkinson appears to have supported during the 2016 Democratic presidential primary. In posts last August, Hodgkinson wrote, “I want Bernie to Win the White House” and “Bernie is a Progressive, while Hillary is Republican Lite.”
Hodgkinson, a Belleville, Illinois resident, has worked as a home inspector. Source. I can't really say that I am surprised given what the media has been pumping into the American public since Trump's election. I'm sure that a disturbingly large number of Americans actually believe that Trump is a traitor despite having zero basis to believe so. His motivations will forever remain a mystery. Sick and disturbing. Also reported that the shooter asked if the people practicing were Republicans or Democrats. Gone are the days I might have thought the same crowd on the record that Trump encourages violence would apply the same standards to assassination porn, traitor talk, and all the rest. I'm not exactly sure what people thought would happen when the media has been openly fomenting quasi-revolutionary sentiment against Trump. Fake news has a cost, which I have been arguing all along. My only surprise is that it took this long for some lunatic to act on it. And the whataboutism appeal to liken this to birtherism is pathetic, both intellectually and in practicality. Birtherism never had the scope and size of this Russia collusion nonsense. It didn't have nearly the same permeation into public and cultural consciousness. Not even close. There was never the equivalent of a late night TV show host calling the president Putin's cock holster.
It's very easy to see the cost this time. You call Trump & allies Nazis for long enough, and some looney will get the idea he's he's the 101st airborne. Will it stop? Definitely not. HuffPo last week was all about it with "A violent response to Trump is as logical as any. You might even catch the odd writer saying the problem wasn't the violence, but the poor organization.
Rewind to Gianforte. That time you could say Trump’s words were behind physical attacks on journalists.
Rewind to blaming Palin for the Giffords shooting. Right-wingers are easier targets in double-standard land: NYT editorials proclaimed "But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge." Krugman added in his Climate of Hate that "Something about the current state of America has been causing more people than before to act out their illness by engaging in violence." and "That doesn’t mean his act should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate."
Those were the standards of the left, but these standards shift to political considerations, the latest confirmation that the only two acceptable stories are "A right-winger did this" and "we must not rush to politicize this story." I really wish I could say post-Trump will cool things down, everybody mends fences and meets their neighbors again. But people will remember the visceral hate incited by Dems not getting their woman made President, and remember all standards were abandoned to quell the political backlash they initially generated.
|
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/14/politics/alexandria-virginia-shooting/index.html
At least five people including Scalise, the third ranking member of House Republican leadership as the majority whip, were hospitalized.
Scalise was in critical condition after surgery, according to So Young Pak, spokeswoman for MedStar Washington Hospital Center. Scalise is out of his first surgery, according to a Scalise aide. It is not clear if he will have a second surgery. His wife Jennifer and their two young children are traveling up from New Orleans to Washington now to be with him.
A congressional staffer, Zach Barth, was also injured. Matt Mika, a lobbyist for Tyson Foods who sometimes practices with the team, was also identified as one of the victims. As of Wednesday afternoon, Mika was in surgery and in critical condition, according to a statement from his family.
House Speaker Paul Ryan also identified two members of the Capitol Police who were injured, Crystal Griner and David Bailey. In a statement, Capitol Police said Griner was in "good condition in the hospital having been shot in the ankle," and that Bailey "was treated and released having sustained a minor injury during the incident."
As of Wednesday afternoon, Mika was in surgery and in critical condition, according to a statement from his family.
This morning I'd heard that everyone who was a victim of this was in stable condition. Dismayed to read of a couple in critical condition - hoping everyone pulls through.
Re: P6 edit - critical but stable, didn't realize they weren't mutually exclusive
|
On June 15 2017 05:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2017 01:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 15 2017 01:13 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 00:19 xDaunt wrote:On June 15 2017 00:04 Plansix wrote:
I’m straight up nervous about how Trump’s crew will spin this. They could really ratchet up the tension if they say “look it was a democrat”. Funny you mention that: The gunman who opened fire this morning on Republican congressmen and staffers recently declared in a Facebook post that, “It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.”
The accused shooter, James T. Hodgkinson, 66, posted a link to a Change.org petition in late March that included the notation that, “Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It's Time to Destroy Trump & Co.”
Hodgkinson’s Facebook page includes numerous photos of Senator Bernie Sanders, whom Hodgkinson appears to have supported during the 2016 Democratic presidential primary. In posts last August, Hodgkinson wrote, “I want Bernie to Win the White House” and “Bernie is a Progressive, while Hillary is Republican Lite.”
Hodgkinson, a Belleville, Illinois resident, has worked as a home inspector. Source. I can't really say that I am surprised given what the media has been pumping into the American public since Trump's election. I'm sure that a disturbingly large number of Americans actually believe that Trump is a traitor despite having zero basis to believe so. His motivations will forever remain a mystery. Sick and disturbing. Also reported that the shooter asked if the people practicing were Republicans or Democrats. https://twitter.com/BigMeanInternet/status/874972869150859265Gone are the days I might have thought the same crowd on the record that Trump encourages violence would apply the same standards to assassination porn, traitor talk, and all the rest. https://twitter.com/bdomenech/status/875007676291444736 I'm not exactly sure what people thought would happen when the media has been openly fomenting quasi-revolutionary sentiment against Trump. Fake news has a cost, which I have been arguing all along. My only surprise is that it took this long for some lunatic to act on it. And the whataboutism appeal to liken this to birtherism is pathetic, both intellectually and in practicality. Birtherism never had the scope and size of this Russia collusion nonsense. It didn't have nearly the same permeation into public and cultural consciousness. Not even close. There was never the equivalent of a late night TV show host calling the president Putin's cock holster. It's very easy to see the cost this time. You call Trump & allies Nazis for long enough, and some looney will get the idea he's he's the 101st airborne. Will it stop? Definitely not. HuffPo last week was all about it with " A violent response to Trump is as logical as any. You might even catch the odd writer saying the problem wasn't the violence, but the poor organization. https://twitter.com/jessebenn/status/875049629167079425Rewind to Gianforte. That time you could say Trump’s words were behind physical attacks on journalists. Rewind to blaming Palin for the Giffords shooting. Right-wingers are easier targets in double-standard land: NYT editorials proclaimed "But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge." Krugman added in his Climate of Hate that "Something about the current state of America has been causing more people than before to act out their illness by engaging in violence." and "That doesn’t mean his act should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate." Those were the standards of the left, but these standards shift to political considerations, the latest confirmation that the only two acceptable stories are "A right-winger did this" and "we must not rush to politicize this story." I really wish I could say post-Trump will cool things down, everybody mends fences and meets their neighbors again. But people will remember the visceral hate incited by Dems not getting their woman made President, and remember all standards were abandoned to quell the political backlash they initially generated.
If you're talking about national climate without mentioning Trump as a cause, it doesn't make any sense. And I would like to see an example of you uttering a peep about Trump's "second amendment people" comment. And Trump saying the election was rigged, and there being armed group in Georgia practicing in case Hillary won. There's abundant double standards on your side here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
