Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Oct 30, 2024 - 2:53pm
kurtster wrote:
I thought that it was a teachable moment.
. . .
Are you equally concerned about Fox falsely reporting repeatedly that Dominion Voting Systems voting machines had been rigged to steal the 2020 election from Trump?
Is it also a teachable moment that Fox settled Dominionâs defamation suit for $787 million?
Actually what this represents is the method called circular reporting used by the legacy media to spread false stories and disinformation.
Someone makes a statement, then the next player cites that statement as proof for a point trying to be made. Then the next player cites the false reference and so on. It continues so far that the original post is buried and the act of repeatedly using the second post is used as proof of the false claim's veracity.
It was not done here intentionally. It only went that way because it fit the assumptions and confirmation biases made about people like you and I and no one even tries to backscroll anymore.
Just for the satisfaction of our fellow peeps here is the original post chain in the Trump thread.
Beaker wrote:
Th1nk1ngTh1ng wrote:
This is where it all began. Until the usual suspects and their biases took over.
Proof positive. You really have too much time on your hands.
Now go back to cleaning up that Night Ranger debut lp.
Sure. But how did we get there? Surely one side started hurling the insults and mud first, followed by reciprocal actions from the other side.
I think the question should be, "who whined about the mud first?" US politics has never been polite, but at some point, the targets of the mud began to cry foul.
I just happened to be out and about just now with the AM radio on, and a Professional Bloviator was howling about this episode, dismissing the comedian's joke but enraged about Joe. Such a snowflakeâa term originally used to mock liberals but clearly equally valid here. Conservatives have always had a streak of selective righteous indignation that they're happy to flex when they think people are behaving poorly, and that's what this is.
Location: At the dude ranch / above the sea Gender:
Posted:
Oct 30, 2024 - 8:02am
Beaker wrote:
This sounds a bunch like, 'I'm not getting the 100% echo chamber that I like, so I'm going to hurl poo'.
Have you considered, at all, that your opinion here may be wrong, and that the posters who in your view, "just stir the pot" are not in fact doing it just for the "fun" of it?
I think a good gauge is whether someone looks at your post and thinks, "reasonable point."
I can't imagine how someone posting repeated videos/gifs from attention-seekers, without commentary or evaluation of the topic, thinks that they're going to be listened to. That's echo chamber.
This sounds a bunch like, 'I'm not getting the 100% echo chamber that I like, so I'm going to hurl poo'.
Have you considered, at all, that your opinion here may be wrong, and that the posters who in your view, "just stir the pot" are not in fact doing it just for the "fun" of it?
There is a record that can be reviewed to determine intent. Unfortunately, there is a lot of redaction. Not enough for Pepperidge Farm to forget though.
I think its a fault of the two (viable) big party system. Focussed support comes from the two camps. And in the end, the parties really only care about securing the vote from their camps - whatever it takes to motivate those folks and get them to the ballot box. This cycle, both candidates again have some serious flaws, so the voter who doesn't want to be included in one particular camp by default, either has to choose the lesser terrible candidate - or vote third party - and be assured their vote has zero chance of influencing the outcome.
IMO, that system is broken and needs an overhaul. Starting with great candidates from either party would be an excellent first step.
their are some "great" candidates out there...not sure why they don't or can't run?
but it' currently a popularity contest, right? who seems more likeable? If it wasn't, bloomberg would have won in 2020.
and we put too much emphasis on the position, beyond what they do and/or are capable of doing...would rather see the job split, one handling foreign and the other domestic policy.
It's funny how butthurt his supporters are about these perceived slights. "Oh, wow, Hillary called us deplorable!" Wah wah.
{I was looking for the photo of the happy couple at a Trump rally wearing "Fuck Your Feelings" shirts but this is actually on point}:large
at the end of the day I'm sure Trump lost more voters due to the garbage quote at his hate rally than Harris will loose because of Biden's garbage quote.
Location: At the dude ranch / above the sea Gender:
Posted:
Oct 30, 2024 - 7:52am
I post this a lot in the music comments:
It's TOTALLY reasonable to see
"I love this song"
"Well, I hate this song."
and maybe "What about it do you hate? I think the vocals are great."
"But the drumming is so ham handed!"
But instead it's too frequently
"I love this song" "Well I hate this song" "Then you're a moron."
That's where it jumps off the rails. In politics, talking shit about one of the candidates seems (to me) fair play, but talking shit about your fellow - well intentioned, not troll - forum posters seems wrong.
But we've also learned that there are a few posters who just stir the pot, without contributing much thought other than simply being annoying - for the "fun" of it. Their supposed opinions on the subject aren't relevant - it's their transparent attempt to just get someone to interact with them, even if it's to tell them off.
This sounds a bunch like, 'I'm not getting the 100% echo chamber that I like, so I'm going to hurl poo'.
Have you considered, at all, that your opinion here may be wrong, and that the posters who in your view, "just stir the pot" are not in fact doing it just for the "fun" of it?
Maybe biden (and trump) are right...and they are all garbage and losers (at least by appearance).
but one would like to think somewhere inside their is a redeeming self, looking for the truth.
I think its a fault of the two (viable) big party system. Focussed support comes from the two camps. And in the end, the parties really only care about securing the vote from their camps - whatever it takes to motivate those folks and get them to the ballot box. This cycle, both candidates again have some serious flaws, so the voter who doesn't want to be included in one particular camp by default, either has to choose the lesser terrible candidate - or vote third party - and be assured their vote has zero chance of influencing the outcome.
IMO, that system is broken and needs an overhaul. Starting with great candidates from either party would be an excellent first step.
It's funny how butthurt his supporters are about these perceived slights. "Oh, wow, Hillary called us deplorable!" Wah wah.
{I was looking for the photo of the happy couple at a Trump rally wearing "Fuck Your Feelings" shirts but this is actually on point}:large
Sure. But how did we get there? Surely one side started hurling the insults and mud first, followed by reciprocal actions from the other side.
The huge question so few are willing to consider, (because it's easier than working up something diplomatic and charitable in response to nasty remarks) - how do we return to mutual respect by default? When criticising the actions of a party or it's leader is responded to with personal invective directed at the individual with legit criticism, it only devolves from there - and fast - if the parties continue their dance. And if one party to the 'discussion' extracts themselves from that discussion, then the resulting echo chamber offers little of value.
I think we've all learned to sort through the folks who have a legitimate opinion that isn't mainstream - political or otherwise. (I, for instance, still believe that Boogie On is Stevie's best song, even though people disagree.)
But we've also learned that there are a few posters who just stir the pot, without contributing much thought other than simply being annoying - for the "fun" of it. Their supposed opinions on the subject aren't relevant - it's their transparent attempt to just get someone to interact with them, even if it's to tell them off.
As Tolle and others have said, you can't eliminate darkness with more darkness, you have to bring in light. So I suppose we start by saying something along the lines of "WTF?" but end up ceding the ground to the repeated nonsense; responding to it with reality just makes them try harder to tug at your sleeve until you can't have your grown-up conversation. We're familiar with this.
The good thing is that as close as we are to the end of this election season (I'm ignoring the inevitable controversy and probably violence that'll immediately follow), when browsing the forums at RP it's easier to remember the words of the great philosopher William Murray.
Maybe biden (and trump) are right...and they are all garbage and losers (at least by appearance).
but one would like to think somewhere inside their is a redeeming self, looking for the truth.
