Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I can see exactly why people would perceive it as preening. To an extent, it is, because it necessarily includes the argument, "You're being manipulated." People find that assertion a bit insulting.

But I think if you read that book, which is highly entertaining in terms of style alone, you'll see that he's not engaging in mere both-sidesism. He's careful to assert that the right has less interest in facts, and is more cynical. But he also notes that the left is starting to follow suit, and starting to catch up with the right in that regard.

His best critique is the one I cited - the swarm-of-screamers-on-speed mentality of modern media - which is more the fault of social media than anything else. As part of that, he argues news should never be a business. It's a public service element of traditional media. And it's becoming a business has turned it into a pusher. It can't let you off the hook for a second to formulate your own views, or to think "This isn't all that important." It feeds you constantly repackaged information designed to trigger anger or delight and get you locked into the next dopamine hit, or cortisol-and-adrenaline-fueled rage.

Both sides may not be equally dishonest in the content they push, but both equally seek to monopolize your eyeballs regardless of damage to your mental health and the social fabric of the country.

It's not his most organized and coherent book (The Divide is), but it's probably his most important. There are stretches of text where he dismantles the modern media business so well you wonder how he ever gets airtime anymore.

I admire your ability to throw some Both sidesism into an exchange where we weren't even talking about political parties. Well done!

My point was that he paints with too broad a brush. So you slopped on some more paint. Don't mind the windows or the molding -- just throw that paint on everywhere.

My point about the preening is that you are doing what you would call virtue-signaling, dumping on the media generally (and both sides!) to signal your own superiority. They may be manipulating both sides, but you are certainly above that. (When is it time to do horserace journalism again?)

As you would know if you ever read my posts on the subject, I have plenty of issues with the media. But you (and Taibbi, if he has the nuance you attribute to him) are not interested in distinguishing better from worse in the media -- you're dumping on everyone to say that you're above it all.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I admire your ability to throw some Both sidesism into an exchange where we weren't even talking about political parties. Well done!

My point was that he paints with too broad a brush. So you slopped on some more paint. Don't mind the windows or the molding -- just throw that paint on everywhere.

My point about the preening is that you are doing what you would call virtue-signaling, dumping on the media generally (and both sides!) to signal your own superiority. They may be manipulating both sides, but you are certainly above that. (When is it time to do horserace journalism again?)

As you would know if you ever read my posts on the subject, I have plenty of issues with the media. But you (and Taibbi, if he has the nuance you attribute to him) are not interested in distinguishing better from worse in the media -- you're dumping on everyone to say that you're above it all.

Have a Midol and a Xanax, Karen.

Taibbi is acknowledging the better and worse. (Which I stated, but nevermind that.)

What brush would you prefer be used in an assessment of the media? Should Taibbi write discrete chapters on each pundit of note and accord them a credibility rating of some sort? That'd be a riveting book. All 7,482 pages of it.

Some things have to be assessed in aggregate. Particularly when, as Taibbi notes, our modern media, whatever brand you choose - right, left, or center - runs a similar playbook.

Here's what I think you mean to say but won't:

I like criticizing the media for giving too much attention to Trump. I think that's a valid indictment. But I do not like when I hear criticism of the media for focusing on false narratives that I have adopted, such as bigotry or dumb rubes reactively rejecting their 'betters' (who I think think like me) being the main reasons Trump won, as opposed to economic issues. I don't care for that criticism because it tanks my sense of superiority. That's a media narrative that I don't want to see dismantled.

I also don't like criticism of the media that doesn't lay most of the blame at the feet of right wing media and corporate media that puts profits above all else. If one attacks the right and the left and suggests any similarity, that challenges the credibility of the notion that we are seeing a conflict between ideologies and political movements in which my side is better. If it's all a bit of a charade, if it's largely made up stuff - entertainment - then it's not a contest. I can't take a side and blame an 'other' for being the bad guy. I have to live in the deepest of grey areas. I don't like that kind of relativism, or cynicism, because I think I know what's best, but if I hear that I'm manipulated as well, I'm on a continuum with the Fox News sorts. And that bugs me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Here's what I think you mean to say but won't:

I like criticizing the media for giving too much attention to Trump. I think that's a valid indictment. But I do not like when I hear criticism of the media for focusing on false narratives that I have adopted, such as bigotry or dumb rubes reactively rejecting their 'betters' (who I think think like me) being the main reasons Trump won, as opposed to economic issues. I don't care for that criticism because it tanks my sense of superiority. That's a media narrative that I don't want to see dismantled.

I also don't like criticism of the media that doesn't lay most of the blame at the feet of right wing media and corporate media that puts profits above all else. If one attacks the right and the left and suggests any similarity, that challenges the credibility of the notion that we are seeing a conflict between ideologies and political movements in which my side is better. If it's all a bit of a charade, if it's largely made up stuff - entertainment - then it's not a contest. I can't take a side and blame an 'other' for being the bad guy. I have to live in the deepest of grey areas. I don't like that kind of relativism, or cynicism, because I think I know what's best, but if I hear that I'm manipulated as well, I'm on a continuum with the Fox News sorts. And that bugs me.

Why don't you just respond to what I actually say, instead of posting stupid shit like this? It's not like I conceal my views.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Why don't you just respond to what I actually say, instead of posting stupid shit like this? It's not like I conceal my views.

Because you don't say anything. You just repeat that media criticism is too broad. What does that even mean? I could say the same thing about your criticism. What does failing to separate the worse from the better mean?

You conceal your views on this quite well. Which compelled me to make an educated guess at them. I'm probably wrong about some of it, but like the Steele Dossier, I'm probably right about a good bit of it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Because you don't say anything. You just repeat that media criticism is too broad.

I posted something about the Steele dossier. Not about the media in general, or any particular media. You used that as a springboard to start riffing on how the media covered the story and on what Taibbi says about how the media behave. I wasn't interested in that, so I responded with a single sentence. I don't see any particular point in engaging with you about what Taibbi says, for the reasons I've said. It's not that he's all wrong, it's that he's not a very sharp critic, at least in what you say he says.

You conceal your views on this quite well. Which compelled me to make an educated guess at them. I'm probably wrong about some of it, but like the Steele Dossier, I'm probably right about a good bit of it.

If you'd like to know what I think, just ask. It's not hard.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I posted something about the Steele dossier. Not about the media in general, or any particular media. You used that as a springboard to start riffing on how the media covered the story and on what Taibbi says about how the media behave. I wasn't interested in that, so I responded with a single sentence. I don't see any particular point in engaging with you about what Taibbi says, for the reasons I've said. It's not that he's all wrong, it's that he's not a very sharp critic, at least in what you say he says.



If you'd like to know what I think, just ask. It's not hard.

Dude, you posted four paragraphs about me preening.

I pivoted to the Taibbi reference because the article you offered on the Steele Dossier was a “no shit, really?” piece. Who ever believed the whole thing, or even most of it, was BS? The only people who’d believe that are credulous sorts who’d take the reporting on the dossier seriously in either direction. Unless you’d shit for brains, it was obviously a mixed bag both sides would spin. From the left, it’d be defended; from the right, it’d be shredded. The reality was obvious from the start: Some of it is accurate and some isn’t. Did anyone need 1000 words on that?

It’s a hell of a lot more enlightening to consider how it was spun. That same type of spinning is going on with the impeachment right now. And while I know you know everything, so this will be no surprise, perhaps the media’s culpability and laziness being the biggest problem we have in modern politics is an area worth exploring. It’s certainly more enlightening than that article you posted.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I pivoted to the Taibbi reference because the article you offered on the Steele Dossier was a “no shit, really?” piece. Who ever believed the whole thing, or even most of it, was BS? The only people who’d believe that are credulous sorts who’d take the reporting on the dossier seriously in either direction. Unless you’d shit for brains, it was obviously a mixed bag both sides would spin. From the left, it’d be defended; from the right, it’d be shredded. The reality was obvious from the start: Some of it is accurate and some isn’t. Did anyone need 1000 words on that?

Perhaps you didn't notice that my post was a response to Slave mentioning a "fake dossier"?

It’s a hell of a lot more enlightening to consider how it was spun. That same type of spinning is going on with the impeachment right now. And while I know you know everything, so this will be no surprise, perhaps the media’s culpability and laziness being the biggest problem we have in modern politics is an area worth exploring. It’s certainly more enlightening than that article you posted.

I agree with you that the media is lazy. But that has always been true. But it seems like a bigger problem that conservatives have constructed an alternate reality which is impervious to facts that the rest of us get. You engage in a little both-sideism here, as you are wired to do, but I don't know of a single person who thinks that everything in the Steele dossier is right, but there are plenty of people like Slave who reject it as fake.

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Perhaps you didn't notice that my post was a response to Slave mentioning a "fake dossier"?

Triangulate back to an old enemy.

SlaveNo(Rather well done. Tips cap)More

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Perhaps you didn't notice that my post was a response to Slave mentioning a "fake dossier"?



I agree with you that the media is lazy. But that has always been true. But it seems like a bigger problem that conservatives have constructed an alternate reality which is impervious to facts that the rest of us get. You engage in a little both-sideism here, as you are wired to do, but I don't know of a single person who thinks that everything in the Steele dossier is right, but there are plenty of people like Slave who reject it as fake.

Slave never posts entirely earnestly. If he used “fake,” he was writing quickly and part ironically. He knows damn well the whole thing isn’t fiction. You’re pretending you don’t understand that so you can offer this silly argument.

But now we get to the serious stupidity of what you actually believe: That it’s only conservatives who have magical realities. Many progressives still believe Trumpkins are all bigots. They believe in this crazy world where the only people who disagree with them are hopelessly backward and full of hate. They’re deluded in exactly the same way their conservative counterparts are. The only difference is they aren’t as cynical as the right. A lot of the right views disinformation as a form of political strategy. Most progressives actually believe - ludicrously - that they know the truth.

It’s the credulous and the cynical on the right vs. the merely credulous on the left. And their respective media sources feed their delusions.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore

Triangulate back to an old enemy.

SlaveNo(Rather well done. Tips cap)More

You’d love Taibbi’s new book. It’s a supremely satisfying laugh at almost everyone fighting about politics. Including me.

I suspect Ty dislikes it because it effectively argues that our establishment media is a joke which should be ignored, and the politicians who dance on it for the audience’s titillation a mix of jesters and propagandists. A lot of the left is scared about what happens when the media is no longer respected. How will we control people? You know who else worries about that for the same reason? The right... most notably those the left calls, quite amusingly, authoritarians.

As always, there are no truth tellers versus liars. At least not in any way that matters. Just two groups of people who want to control everything in different ways.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Slave never posts entirely earnestly. If he used “fake,” he was writing quickly and part ironically. He knows damn well the whole thing isn’t fiction. You’re pretending you don’t understand that so you can offer this silly argument.

Dude, I know Slave and I know how he posts. He posted "fake dossier" and so I shared a link to a tab I had open about the Steele dossier. I know that he knows that Steele dossier isn't really fake, and he knows that I know that he says stuff like that here to trigger the libs, like a conservative should. I didn't trade short posts with Slave so that you could regurgitate Taibbi, but if that's what you want to do, go nuts.

But now we get to the serious stupidity of what you actually believe: That it’s only conservatives who have magical realities. Many progressives still believe Trumpkins are all bigots. They believe in this crazy world where the only people who disagree with them are hopelessly backward and full of hate. They’re deluded in exactly the same way their conservative counterparts are. The only difference is they aren’t as cynical as the right. A lot of the right views disinformation as a form of political strategy. Most progressives actually believe - ludicrously - that they know the truth.

It’s the credulous and the cynical on the right vs. the merely credulous on the left. And their respective media sources feed their delusions.

You are comparing apples and oranges, and you're doing it to be provocative.

The argument about whether, as you put it, Trumpkins are all bigots is not an argument about facts. It's basically a question of how you define concepts like bigotry and racism. I think we all understand very well that you are hostile to the assumptions of the people who say those things. At any rate, they are getting their news from the same mainstream sources as the rest of us. There is no alternative media ecosystem to serve the Woke left. You're killing yourself to find equivalence, but it's not there.

You are right that a lot of the right views disinformation as a form of political strategy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You’d love Taibbi’s new book. It’s a supremely satisfying laugh at almost everyone fighting about politics. Including me.

I suspect Ty dislikes it because it effectively argues that our establishment media is a joke which should be ignored, and the politicians who dance on it for the audience’s titillation a mix of jesters and propagandists. A lot of the left is scared about what happens when the media is no longer respected. How will we control people? You know who else worries about that for the same reason? The right... most notably those the left calls, quite amusingly, authoritarians.

As always, there are no truth tellers versus liars. At least not in any way that matters. Just two groups of people who want to control everything in different ways.

Yes, if there is anything that the left stands for, it is controlling people through the mass media. It's uncanny how well you understand us. I shall have to report on this to my comrades.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You’d love Taibbi’s new book. It’s a supremely satisfying laugh at almost everyone fighting about politics. Including me.

I suspect Ty dislikes it because it effectively argues that our establishment media is a joke which should be ignored, and the politicians who dance on it for the audience’s titillation a mix of jesters and propagandists. A lot of the left is scared about what happens when the media is no longer respected. How will we control people? You know who else worries about that for the same reason? The right... most notably those the left calls, quite amusingly, authoritarians.

As always, there are no truth tellers versus liars. At least not in any way that matters. Just two groups of people who want to control everything in different ways.

Tinfoil hat.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Tinfoil hat.

Of course you'd say that. And of course you'd never read the book.

But I assume you've read some Chomsky. You might say Chomsky is crazy as well, but Manufacturing Consent, which Taibbi wrote Hate Inc. to update (and to which Hate Inc. is a bit of an homage), is pretty lucid stuff.

We're all manipulated to some extent. But I suspect you a bit more than most. But don't take my word for it. Read the book. Or I'd say just look up Bernays and McLuhan and read their bios. But I kinda think you want to stay in your silo. That's cool. Whatever floats your boat.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Dude, I know Slave and I know how he posts. He posted "fake dossier" and so I shared a link to a tab I had open about the Steele dossier. I know that he knows that Steele dossier isn't really fake, and he knows that I know that he says stuff like that here to trigger the libs, like a conservative should.

Then why did you write that he views the dossier as fake as though it was true?

The argument about whether, as you put it, Trumpkins are all bigots is not an argument about facts. It's basically a question of how you define concepts like bigotry and racism.

Nice try. No. I'm saying exactly what I wrote: The majority of Trumpkins are not bigots or racists. Most are economically fucked. Or greedy.

I think we all understand very well that you are hostile to the assumptions of the people who say those things.

Yeah, except I wasn't doing that. And this attempt to steer the conversation in another direction is lame.

At any rate, they are getting their news from the same mainstream sources as the rest of us. There is no alternative media ecosystem to serve the Woke left. You're killing yourself to find equivalence, but it's not there.

Get out of your silo. There are five or six left leaning news sources for every one conservative or right news source. The left's hair is on fire about conservative media because, for some bizarre reason, Fox somehow retains a position as the most watched of all cable news networks. I wonder if the people on the left who flip out about Fox's influence have ever considered this basic rule of marketing:

If you have ten varieties of Cola A, but only one variety of Cola B, that one variety of Cola B will outsell on a one to one basis each variety of Cola A. But all of the varieties of Cola A taken together will outsell Cola B by 10:1.