We are all Slave now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Regarding institutions, shining a negative light on federal law enforcement, which enjoys outrageous leverage over those it (often selectively) seeks to prosecute, and an often all-but-fixed forum in which to present its cases, is not a bad thing.

Trump is generating a lot of heat but no light.

Nor is it a bad thing to call out political prosecutions and investigations (Trump's hasn't been entirely political, but Menendez, McDonnell, and Bernie's wife have recently faced silly political witch hunts, and many others will continue to do so).

The investigation of Trump has been the opposite of political. Thanks particularly to Mitch McConnell, it was downplayed initially because of politics (HRC got the opposite). You now have the Republican #2 at the DOJ overseeing a Republican prosecutor. Any politics have been injected by Trump and congressional Republicans.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

However, creating general skepticism of media is a good thing. Media outlets slant stories, and selectively report. Sometimes it's subtle (Times), sometimes not (Fox). People should read every news story, from every source, with some skepticism. They should think, and develop the capacity to spot and separate the narrative from the facts.

given that most people's news is now the crap posted on FaceBook that echoes what they want to hear,do you really think this is true of media that at least wants to publish truth?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

In the context of the piece, this was as wry as it was earnest. I don't think anyone seriously thinks this Presidency is going to stamp a boot on the face of democracy.

Most of the criticisms of Trump address his undermining of the press and the "institutions." This is a mixed bag that needs to be broken down a bit.

It amazes me that you can write these two sentences given the lies Trump spreads about illegal voting, his suggestion that we should have a lifetime Presidency, the DOJ's lack of interest in chasing jurisdictions who violate people's voting rights, the move of the entire Republican Party (aided by the stolen Supreme Court seat) to approve ridiculous voting suppression laws, plus the Supreme Court's effective removal of the preclearance requirement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act because racism is over.

The boot is already coming down on democracy. You're only concerned if we get to the point where Trump actually refuses to leave office?

I mean, what the fuck?

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

given that most people's news is now the crap posted on FaceBook that echoes what they want to hear,do you really think this is true of media that at least wants to publish truth?

Facebook is only as good as you and your friends. I have a lot of friends who post interesting, insightful articles and opinions (not very different than my experience here except way more diverse). I don't click on any article from a source I wouldn't read on my own.

If your friends are fucking stupid and you're stupid, then you're experience on Facebook is going to be filled with stupidity.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

It amazes me that you can write these two sentences given the lies Trump spreads about illegal voting, his suggestion that we should have a lifetime Presidency, the DOJ's lack of interest in chasing jurisdictions who violate people's voting rights, the move of the entire Republican Party (aided by the stolen Supreme Court seat) to approve ridiculous voting suppression laws, plus the Supreme Court's effective removal of the preclearance requirement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act because racism is over.

The boot is already coming down on democracy. You're only concerned if we get to the point where Trump actually refuses to leave office?

I mean, what the fuck?

TM

Everyone knows illegal voting is nonsense. His own commission on it was quickly disbanded. The lifetime presidency thing is silly. Nobody is going to allow anyone, particularly this buffoon, to be lifetime president.

DOJ and voting law concerns are quite valid. But would things be any different under any other Republican?

This a typical Republican administration. The only thing Trump adds to the mix is bizarre pronouncements and grand-standing events like his "Dinner with Kim."

Trump is too much Trump to ever be a real threat to Democracy. If there are any threats to democracy emerging right now they're coming from the people behind the scenes -- the civil war within the Establishment. That same old civil war we've had going from the dawn of the two party system.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Facebook is only as good as you and your friends. I have a lot of friends who post interesting, insightful articles and opinions (not very different than my experience here except way more diverse). I don't click on any article from a source I wouldn't read on my own.

If your friends are fucking stupid and you're stupid, then you're experience on Facebook is going to be filled with stupidity.

TM

If Facebook is a proxy for reality, it's impossible not to get the stupid and the smart at once.

I find it insipid, and the very worst "siloing" mechanism among social media.

"Here's what I think! And you probably think like me, so like this fucking article! And share the shit out of it!" #killme

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Everyone knows illegal voting is nonsense. His own commission on it was quickly disbanded. The lifetime presidency thing is silly. Nobody is going to allow anyone, particularly this buffoon, to be lifetime president.

It would be nice if you actually dealt with the realistic issue and not the one in your head.

First, you are absolutely wrong. "Everyone" does not know illegal voting is nonsense. There is a considerable swath of people in this country who absolutely believe it.

Second, the issue isn't whether he actually becomes a lifetime President. The issue is what the fuck do we do about the Constitutional crisis that arises when he flat out refuses to leave office? Do we trust Republicans to do what it takes? Can they or the Supreme Court order whoever they need to to physically remove him? Who carries out that order? What does it do to our country?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

DOJ and voting law concerns are quite valid. But would things be any different under any other Republican?

Not sure. The whole fucking Party is pure trash. But the combination of this psycho and the current Republican Party is a special kind of danger when it comes to what the two will do in concert to remain in power.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This a typical Republican administration. The only thing Trump adds to the mix is bizarre pronouncements and grand-standing events like his "Dinner with Kim."

You are an idiot.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Trump is too much Trump to ever be a real threat to Democracy. If there are any threats to democracy emerging right now they're coming from the people behind the scenes -- the civil war within the Establishment. That same old civil war we've had going from the dawn of the two party system.

Whatever. Not sure why I try with you anymore. This typical Sebby laissez faire bullshit is pure nonsense, as always.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If Facebook is a proxy for reality, it's impossible not to get the stupid and the smart at once.

I find it insipid, and the very worst "siloing" mechanism among social media.

"Here's what I think! And you probably think like me, so like this fucking article! And share the shit out of it!" #killme

Yes. If that's what you're going there for, then sure. That has absolutely nothing to do with what I just said though.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

However, creating general skepticism of media is a good thing.

We're way past that. A very large segment of our population cannot tell the difference between news media and Breitbart.

Media outlets slant stories, and selectively report.

The level of bias in the Times, Post and most local papers is small enough for the average reader to ignore.

People should read every news story, from every source, with some skepticism.

Yes, but not because of bias. Because the reporter writing it is a generalist who will get things wrong, whether trying to or not. You should read the ones who aren't trying to and it hurts to treat them as equivalent to the ones that are.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Facebook is only as good as you and your friends. I have a lot of friends who post interesting, insightful articles and opinions (not very different than my experience here except way more diverse). I don't click on any article from a source I wouldn't read on my own.

If your friends are fucking stupid and you're stupid, then you're experience on Facebook is going to be filled with stupidity.

TM

This isn't entirely true. Facebook's algorithms try to drive engagement, and will make inferences about what you want to see based on what other people want to see. If most of the world likes political news that confirms their priors and/or enrages them, you are going to get shown stuff that confirms your priors and/or enrages you. To put it differently, no one makes you shop at Wal-Mart.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Facebook is only as good as you and your friends.

TM

Even then it doesn't point to ignoring mainstream news (which was my point) and realizing that the NYT et al are publishing things that you should take as being truthier that most stuff you see on FB, even if something posted by someone you trust- for that matter you should carry a decent level of distrust into stuff posted by friends you trust.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

It would be nice if you actually dealt with the realistic issue and not the one in your head.

First, you are absolutely wrong. "Everyone" does not know illegal voting is nonsense. There is a considerable swath of people in this country who absolutely believe it.

Second, the issue isn't whether he actually becomes a lifetime President. The issue is what the fuck do we do about the Constitutional crisis that arises when he flat out refuses to leave office? Do we trust Republicans to do what it takes? Can they or the Supreme Court order whoever they need to to physically remove him? Who carries out that order? What does it do to our country?

Not sure. The whole fucking Party is pure trash. But the combination of this psycho and the current Republican Party is a special kind of danger when it comes to what the two will do in concert to remain in power.

You are an idiot.

Whatever. Not sure why I try with you anymore. This typical Sebby laissez faire bullshit is pure nonsense, as always.

TM

Trump is simply too ridiculous to see as an existential threat to a system that's withstood two world wars, a civil war, and god knows how many crises.

I think you credit him with more power than he has.

The real threat to democracy are the forces turning us into a plutocracy. Trump's just a fool who stumbled onto the throne for a time. The people who actually have a serious plan, and unlike Trump have fuckloads of money, are the true dangers to democracy. And they're diverse, of varying views, and scattered throughout us. Zuckerberg fucking scares me. Trump does not.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This isn't entirely true. Facebook's algorithms try to drive engagement, and will make inferences about what you want to see based on what other people want to see. If most of the world likes political news that confirms their priors and/or enrages them, you are going to get shown stuff that confirms your priors and/or enrages you. To put it differently, no one makes you shop at Wal-Mart.

Good grief.

I'm talking about the quality of the sources. I don't give a shit about them reinforcing my world view. I read a ton of news sources on my own. But I appreciate when a friend posts an article I wouldn't see otherwise and I only click on articles from reputable sources. I guarantee I get shit on my feed I definitely disagree with and wouldn't have come across without Facebook. And I'll read it, especially if it comes from someone I respect.

If there are pieces from reputable sources that I'm missing because Facebook has decided I wouldn't click on them for whatever reason, then am I in a worse position than I would be otherwise given that what I read independent of Facebook is what I read whether the app exists or not?

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Yes, but not because of bias. Because the reporter writing it is a generalist who will get things wrong, whether trying to or not. You should read the ones who aren't trying to and it hurts to treat them as equivalent to the ones that are.

I share this concern. It seriously annoys me that real journalists have to share the page with oped writers masquerading as journalists.

Fuck the papers' editors for allowing that shit to happen. It's the news media equivalent of hiding guerillas among the general population (human shield effect).

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Even then it doesn't point to ignoring mainstream news (which was my point) and realizing that the NYT et al are publishing things that you should take as being truthier that most stuff you see on FB, even if something posted by someone you trust- for that matter you should carry a decent level of distrust into stuff posted by friends you trust.

Either this sentence makes very little sense or I'm not understanding you (or you're not understanding me).

It all depends on the source. I don't care if Obama himself posted something on my feed. If it's from a trash source, I'm not clicking through. If someone whose political views I vehemently disagree with posts something from a reputable source, I will read it. What's to distrust if that's the case? I'm supplementing my own choices with something I may not have seen.

TM